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.
My mother was always catching the "flu". This went on for several years and it never clicked for me until she went to assisted living and I cleaned out her refrigerator and pantry and was throwing away so much expired food. Salad dressing, vegetables, whatever. Some of the dressings were years out of date.
Flu shots never claimed to stop 100% of the Flu. But they stop a LOT. Would you rather have 40,000 deaths a year or 100,000?
Think.
Most healthy people from 20 to 50 can withstand most strains of flu. But those with various weaknesses, children and seniors should do it.
Explain - if you can - why 80% of the children that died last year had not gotten the shot??
It would take several pages of text to even begin to cover this topic adequately, so I’ll just touch on a few pertinent points ...
Firstly, the vaccine is associated with more adverse reactions than any other vaccine, while having no provable value whatsoever, unless you account for the $$ value to pharmaceutical manufacturers. The outlandish claims of 90% effectiveness is a statistical fraud, believable only by those who are incapable of rational analysis, and poorly informed about how those statistics are collected and analyzed.
The very first point to be considered when evaluating legitimate “effectiveness” is that there is no way to assess vaccine effectiveness in an uncontrolled environment ... meaning: without direct and deliberate exposure to the virus, no one can legitimately claim that the vaccine prevented an illness event, when exposure is unknown. In such an uncontrolled environment, the absence of illness can be the result of non-exposure to the virus, as well as the proper functioning of the immune system upon exposure to it. I will use myself as the example .... over the past 5 decades, I have never taken a flu vaccine, and have had what appeared (based on symptoms) the flu twice. Consequently, the math here suggests that doing nothing was 96% effective, in my case (a much greater effectiveness rate than the vaccine), but only if you ASSUME I was exposed to the virus each and every year of those 50. A pretty absurd assumption, if you think about it for a single second. Yet, that same assumption drives vaccine effectiveness estimates, in that had I taken a flu vaccine each and every year of those 50, this would be the claim. The reality is, no one knows whether they’ve been infected with the virus or not, in the absence of actually suffering the infection and it’s symptoms .... unless one is deliberately infected, in a controlled, clinical setting.
Secondly, given the fact that a very low percentage of assumed “flu” cases are actually clinically typed, and proven to be “influenza” infection, such symptoms of flu can be caused by many other infections unrelated to the influenza virus, none of which can be prevented by use of the flu vaccine. So there is a huge problem with estimating effectiveness of a preventative treatment for something to which exposure rate is totally unknown. Consequently, effectiveness claims are pure propaganda, whose purpose is only to promote the vaccines.
Finally, the introduction into the bloodstream of antigens, and other toxic materials that make up the constituent elements of all vaccines, deliberately overtax the immune system, thereby lowering its ability to naturally protect against other infections. This fact has been shown true in statistical studies that revealed higher rates of infection of one strain of influenza, in those persons vaccinated against another strain.
This is particularly important given the hit or miss nature of predicting which strains of influenza viruses are to be used in the production of vaccine for the coming flu season, which often does not match the strains that ultimately circulate. In this regard, mismatched vaccine use may indeed increase susceptibility to infection of other influenza strains, thereby explaining why so many believe that the flu vaccine “caused” their infection. Indirectly, the vaccine was a contributing factor, in that its use compromised the person’s immune system, thereby making them more vulnerable.
Bottom line .... don’t say no .... say HELL NO! And this is particularly true in those who already have compromised immune systems ... contrary to the recommendations that have this completely backwards, by insisting that those suffering immunodeficiencies are the primary ones who need the vaccines the most. The truth is the complete opposite.
It would take several pages of text to even begin to cover this topic adequately, so I’ll just touch on a few pertinent points ...
Firstly, the vaccine is associated with more adverse reactions than any other vaccine, while having no provable value whatsoever, unless you account for the $$ value to pharmaceutical manufacturers. The outlandish claims of 90% effectiveness is a statistical fraud, believable only by those who are incapable of rational analysis, and poorly informed about how those statistics are collected and analyzed.
The very first point to be considered when evaluating legitimate “effectiveness” is that there is no way to assess vaccine effectiveness in an uncontrolled environment ... meaning: without direct and deliberate exposure to the virus, no one can legitimately claim that the vaccine prevented an illness event, when exposure is unknown. In such an uncontrolled environment, the absence of illness can be the result of non-exposure to the virus, as well as the proper functioning of the immune system upon exposure to it. I will use myself as the example .... over the past 5 decades, I have never taken a flu vaccine, and have had what appeared (based on symptoms) the flu twice. Consequently, the math here suggests that doing nothing was 96% effective, in my case (a much greater effectiveness rate than the vaccine), but only if you ASSUME I was exposed to the virus each and every year of those 50. A pretty absurd assumption, if you think about it for a single second. Yet, that same assumption drives vaccine effectiveness estimates, in that had I taken a flu vaccine each and every year of those 50, this would be the claim. The reality is, no one knows whether they’ve been infected with the virus or not, in the absence of actually suffering the infection and it’s symptoms .... unless one is deliberately infected, in a controlled, clinical setting.
Secondly, given the fact that a very low percentage of assumed “flu” cases are actually clinically typed, and proven to be “influenza” infection, such symptoms of flu can be caused by many other infections unrelated to the influenza virus, none of which can be prevented by use of the flu vaccine. So there is a huge problem with estimating effectiveness of a preventative treatment for something to which exposure rate is totally unknown. Consequently, effectiveness claims are pure propaganda, whose purpose is only to promote the vaccines.
Finally, the introduction into the bloodstream of antigens, and other toxic materials that make up the constituent elements of all vaccines, deliberately overtax the immune system, thereby lowering its ability to naturally protect against other infections. This fact has been shown true in statistical studies that revealed higher rates of infection of one strain of influenza, in those persons vaccinated against another strain.
This is particularly important given the hit or miss nature of predicting which strains of influenza viruses are to be used in the production of vaccine for the coming flu season, which often does not match the strains that ultimately circulate. In this regard, mismatched vaccine use may indeed increase susceptibility to infection of other influenza strains, thereby explaining why so many believe that the flu vaccine “caused” their infection. Indirectly, the vaccine was a contributing factor, in that its use compromised the person’s immune system, thereby making them more vulnerable.
Bottom line .... don’t say no .... say HELL NO! And this is particularly true in those who already have compromised immune systems ... contrary to the recommendations that have this completely backwards, by insisting that those suffering immunodeficiencies are the primary ones who need the vaccines the most. The truth is the complete opposite.
Seems like this should be a self-correcting problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Minded
Got the flu shot every year from 18 to about 28 years old. During that time I caught the flu or something almost as bad practically every single year.
I decided that I was done getting it when I heard that it was a "greater good" thing to get the shot and not necessarily good for the individual.
From 29 to 47 years old (current age) I have not had a flu shot and I can count on one hand the times I have been sick and they have just been head colds. I think there may have been one case of the actual flu in there... maybe.
When it concerns public health safety? The government is not making you get a shot, you're only hurting others by not getting a shot.
BS It's called personal freedom. Look at some of the other postings about people getting sick after getting the shot. I noticed that you didn't respond to that point.
My point was, given what your post said, it looks like you would love it if the shots were required.
It's not. I really wish we (meaning society "we") could get rid of this insane idea that "flu" is diarrhea/vomiting. That would get rid of a lot of this nonsense about "I got a flu shot and then I got the flu". I remember reading an article several years ago that said that many cases of "flu" at the holidays are actually food poisoning.
None of that happened from the flu shot. "After" does not mean "because". You got something else. Part of the problem is that lots of people go to get the flu shot when there's an outbreak of flu, and they've already been exposed.
If you're so concerned, you can look it up! It's not some mysterious conspiracy. Here: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pi...nt-table-2.pdf
Bill Maher is an idiot when it comes to vaccines; he has no health care background, probably hasn't taken a science course since high school and then just the minimum required. Why would you listen to him?
Something we can agree on! Vomiting and diarrhea are NOT symptoms of the flu. Norovirus (mistakenly called Stomach Flu) or Food Poisoning. Both those symptoms are similar. Flu is respiratory. Norvirus and Food Poisoning are gastrointestional.
Breathing the same air? Probably breathing the vomit and excrement is worse for spreading it. In Day Hab when a Consumer was suspected of having a Norovirus, we donned disposable caps, gowns, booties, face masks, and disposable gloves to clean them and their environment. All equipment we used was put in a special trash container marked Bio Hazardous Waste. Actually, even in public schools with special needs kids we did the same with their diapers and cleaning up their vomit as well.
When my Grandson had that virus I used those same precautions cleaning him up. Did not catch his Norovirus. Not just "pure luck".
To others on here. There is no such thing as the Stomach "Flu". No, your flu shot will not protect you from catching that. There is no vaccine for it.
BS It's called personal freedom. Look at some of the other postings about people getting sick after getting the shot. I noticed that you didn't respond to that point.
My point was, given what your post said, it looks like you would love it if the shots were required.
Not going to reply to every post that I disagree with when there are over 20 pages on this thread, I have better things to do.
You can get sick from other things besides the flu after a flu shot, newsflash!
Something we can agree on! Vomiting and diarrhea are NOT symptoms of the flu. Norovirus (mistakenly called Stomach Flu) or Food Poisoning. Both those symptoms are similar. Flu is respiratory. Norvirus and Food Poisoning are gastrointestional.
Breathing the same air? Probably breathing the vomit and excrement is worse for spreading it. In Day Hab when a Consumer was suspected of having a Norovirus, we donned disposable caps, gowns, booties, face masks, and disposable gloves to clean them and their environment. All equipment we used was put in a special trash container marked Bio Hazardous Waste. Actually, even in public schools with special needs kids we did the same with their diapers and cleaning up their vomit as well.
When my Grandson had that virus I used those same precautions cleaning him up. Did not catch his Norovirus. Not just "pure luck".
To others on here. There is no such thing as the Stomach "Flu". No, your flu shot will not protect you from catching that. There is no vaccine for it.
Well, shockingly, we do agree on something. However, WRT the bold, Norovirus is spread by the indelicate term "fecal-oral route", so touch of contaminated surfaces is a great way to contract it. Here it is in lay terms: https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/about/transmission.html "You can get norovirus by accidentally getting tiny particles of poop or vomit from an infected person in your mouth...If you get norovirus illness, you can shed billions of norovirus particles that you can’t see without a microscope. Only a few norovirus particles can make other people sick. You are most contagious when you have symptoms of norovirus illness, especially vomiting, and during the first few days after you recover from norovirus illness. However, studies have shown that you can still spread norovirus for two weeks or more after you feel better."
You did the right things. If you weren't so snarky, we'd probably get along a little better.
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.
