Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fundamental question ... "does the flu vaccine work" is avoided more than any other issue regarding flu vaccines ... and there seems to be no clear answer to this very basic question.
Vaccine proponents scoff at the very idea of questioning the efficacy of the flu vaccine, as if the underlying science was well established. But nothing could be further from the truth. The benefits of the flu vaccine are largely assumed, based on the belief that the production of antibodies in response to vaccination is what protects one from infection, yet the science clearly states that "the mechanisms which confer protection after vaccination are not fully understood".
To confuse matters even more, those that are most at risk of becoming infected with the flu, or suffer serious complications if infected by the flu, (those with weaker immune systems) are least likely to respond to vaccination by producing those protective antibodies, leaving them unprotected. Conversely, those who's immune systems do respond to vaccination (those with healthy immune systems) fall into the category of very low risk of infection, suggesting that vaccination is not needed for this group.
When considering this medical dichotomy, the vaccine champions immediately cite the theory of "herd protection", which suggests that by vaccinating large populations, the immunity conferred to the healthy will minimize the spread of the virus, ultimately protecting those most vulnerable.
The problem is, the flu vaccine is produced based upon a "guess" at which strains might be circulating several months later, and if that guess is wrong, the vaccine offers little to no value at all. This "guess" is further complicated given the fact that flu viruses can mutate rapidly (a matter of days) causing a mismatch to the virus strains included in the vaccine, impacting the likelihood of the vaccine providing protection.
The belief that a flu vaccine protects one from the flu is therefore not based on definitive science and clinical study, but based on a long list of theories and assumptions. The fact that there have been no double blind clinical testing of the efficacy of flu vaccines (deemed to be unethical by the medical community), there is no clinical proof that they actually work. The only efficacy studies undertaken have been to measure antibody production after vaccination within relatively small groups of individuals.
So, the question remains unanswered. The flu vaccine produces an immune system response in healthy individuals who really don't need protection, though the antibodies produced may or may not offer protection based on the many other variables previously mentioned. The vaccine does not produce effective response in those that need protection the most, relying on the theory of "herd protection" for these individuals.
This is not clinical science. This is a laundry list of ifs, ands, and buts, based on questionable theories, guesses, and dubious assumptions.
Couple this with the fact that there are over 200 viruses and other pathogens that can cause "flu like" symptoms and the associated complications for which flu vaccines claim no protection during the flu season, along with the fact that most cases assumed to be the flu are not clinically diagnosed, the idea that the flu vaccines actually work is pure speculation disguised as established fact.
The only clear fact regarding mass vaccination programs is that the medical and pharmaceutical industries make a fortune on them, while tap dancing around the questions of safety and efficacy with double talk and propaganda.
The challenge should be ... prove to the public these vaccines protect us. And don't claim that clinical efficacy studies are unethical, when ethics seem to disappear in regard to safety studies routinely performed on babies, young children, and pregnant mothers.
Efficacy studies are simply not done because these vaccines offer little if any health value, and the industry knows this. Such studies would prove that this is nothing more than a scheme to reap huge profits.
And the manufacture of influenza vaccine is NOT a profit-making business for the pharma industry. It's also very high risk, because ONE error in manufacture and an entire batch gets discarded.
See my thread, it's on the same issue, and I have some articles on the subject for both sides. People need to look into this and figure out from the studies done so far wether or not they believe the vaccines are safe or effective. Big difference here, safe or effective, not the same thing and both have various studies behind them.
This is really a hot topic right now because of the H1N1. Really interesting on both sides.
And the manufacture of influenza vaccine is NOT a profit-making business for the pharma industry. It's also very high risk, because ONE error in manufacture and an entire batch gets discarded.
That's funny. Such assertions really do boggle the mind, and they also highlight the complete lack of credibility (for all of your assertions).
Thanks .. I needed a laugh after watching the Redskin game today.
My entire family gets the seasonal flu shot every year. And, we have never had the flu or even a mild strain of it. Except...the one year that there were shortages...and only high risk could get the shot...so only 1 child received the vaccine that year and guess what??? Except for him, we all were sick with the flu that winter and it was truly awful.
I've posted links to just a FEW of the MANY, MANY studies on the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccines.
Yes, I'm well aware of your versions of evidence. And I'm sure one of those sources must have told you that the Flu vaccine manufacturer's don't make a profit and aren't in it for the money which should sufficiently illuminate the universal degree of incredibility.
And I could highlight for you a list of dubious activities of each of your regular choices that would stretch a country mile, including the almighty New England Journal of Medicine for which you believe to be above reproach. Just ask, and I'll be happy to do so.
The fact is that in the absence of double blind efficacy studies ( the legitimately recognized and scientifically sound method ) on flu vaccines, there is no scientifically sound proof of efficacy .. PERIOD. That the absence of such studies are based on the principle that to conduct such trials would be unethical, is LAUGHABLE. Absolutely, positively laughable, given the history of human experimentation conducted at the behest of pharmaceutical companies.
Now, don't mistake this as my advocating such studies, as I would personally consider them to be unethical. I just find it beyond hilarious to suggest that pharmaceutical companies employ anyone who can even spell the word "ethical", much less define it, or allow such concerns to dictate practice. They certainly don't observe such high mindedness in safety testing trials conducted on infant babies and pregnant mothers, and in obscuring evidence of the harm that occurs.
The deal is that the more highly recognized a particular entity is within the mainstream medical cartel, the more easily it is to identify the blatant conflicts of interests. They've all been caught ... every last one of them. The NEJM is as neck deep as the rest. Whether we're talking FDA or CDC or NGO's in general, big pharma pushes the buttons and pulls the strings, and this has been exposed beyond a reasonable doubt.
The question still is .. do they work .. and the answer is that mainstream medicine claims they do, but has no legitimate evidence to prove such claims.
They can't even declare to any degree of certainty exactly how they work .. it's all based on unproven assumptions and speculations. And they admit that directly. They don't even fully understand how natural immunity works, much less the artificial type they attempt to create with vaccines.
Most people are completely unaware of these facts, though it is fact nonetheless.
The biggest laugh is the lack of any credibility in your posts on this subject.
Yes the studies have been done to show the efficacy and no it is not some deep, dark secret as to how vaccines work....
Really? Then put your money where your mouth is and show us these studies!
Not the rigged safety studies ... the efficacy studies.
And while your at it ... or perhaps you could tackle this one first ... explain to the folks what this passage in the FluMist documentation is actually saying:
Quote:
12.1 Mechanism of Action
Immune mechanisms conferring protection against influenza following receipt of FluMist vaccine are not fully understood. Mod cut: copyright violation
In this passage, the vaccine maker clearly and directly states what I said they stated ... they don't know how vaccine immunity works, and they don't know much more about how natural immunity works either. How do you read this? Just hooey?
[quote]Influenza illness and its complications follow infection with influenza viruses. Global surveillance of influenza identifies yearly antigenic variants. Mod cut: copyright violationQUOTE]
In this passage, it clearly states that the presumed antibody protection of one variant confers limited or no protection from another. And it further states that antibody protection might not protect against a new antigenic variant of the same type or subtype. Meaning that even if they guess right about which strains to include in the vaccine in the first place, virus mutation may render the vaccine ineffective anyway. And flu virus mutation is common and rapid and can occur in a matter of days. The whole flu vaccine scam is a house of cards.
Interestingly, there are studies that are described as double blind placebo studies, but they have only been done in a random and uncontrolled manner ... meaning that they give one group the vaccine, and another group the placebo, and then they follow up later to see who may have naturally been exposed to the flu. hahaha.
Completely bogus. Without a controlled environment, you can determine nothing by such testing. Totally useless. All you need to do is conduct testing on several groups of people, and select the group that you want to include in the results, and discard the others ... which is also common practice in the safety studies too.
Last edited by Viralmd; 10-19-2009 at 06:01 AM..
Reason: copyright violations
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
which should sufficiently illuminate the universal degree of incredibility.
