Study: Getting flu shot 2 years in a row may lower protection

[Mirzam]

Quote:

Experts are puzzled by a new study in which influenza vaccination seemed to provide little or no protection against flu in the 2010-11 season—and in which the only participants who seemed to benefit from the vaccine were those who hadn't been vaccinated the season before.

Quote:

In an editorial commentary accompanying the Michigan study, John Treanor, MD, and Peter Szilagyi, MD, both of the University of Rochester Medical Center, wrote, "As we are currently struggling through one of the most vigorous influenza seasons in recent memory, the apparent failure of influenza vaccine under optimal conditions seen in this study is indeed troubling."

 

Puzzling and troubling really...... Interesting, I wonder how this one will get spun.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/mar0113vestudy.html

[MissCee]

It's sad to me that so much of this information is kept hidden from the public (unless you are REALLY searching for it). Had more parents known this information I'm sure they would have kept their babies from being injected with those toxins.

[Rrrrrachel]

By nature there was no way to know this until after the fact. The information is hardly being kept hidden now that it's available.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

By nature there was no way to know this until after the fact. The information is hardly being kept hidden now that it's available.

Just where else have you seen this information besides here? Have the mainstream media done stories on this study?

[Rrrrrachel]

How often does the mainstream media do stories on any medical study?

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

How often does the mainstream media do stories on any medical study?

The media has saturated us with influenza propaganda that hypes up the importance and efficacy of the vax. A negative study like this is hardly likely to get much coverage. So back to your previous post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

By nature there was no way to know this until after the fact. The information is hardly being kept hidden now that it's available.

So, I would say that this information is hidden given not one story (that I am aware) had been published on this topic. MSM do actually publish stories on studies, frequently, but then they are mostly on the pro rather than negative side especially when it comes to vaccines.

So given this information, are you going to vaccinate yourself and your child next flu season?

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

By nature there was no way to know this until after the fact. The information is hardly being kept hidden now that it's available.

Actually, it is being hidden, and rather well, too. None of the major newspapers or news channels are even mentioning it.

Everywhere, the media is still bleating, "the flu shot is your best protection against the flu," even with evidence that it is 1) not effective and 2) carries unknown risks of autoimmune reactivity.  Now we even have indications that you are MORE likely to get the flu if you've had flu shots two years in a row, and not a whisper from the media.

In fact, for the 2011-2012 flu season, THE FLU VACCINE REMAINED UNCHANGED.  Those who had gotten it in 2010-2011 should not have needed to get it again.  But did you see any media announcement that if you'd gotten it the year before, you didn't need a second dose?  No, quite the opposite: every doctor, pharmacist, and researcher was quoted as saying, "the flu shot is reformulated each year to keep up with the changing viruses, so you need to get one EVERY YEAR."

[Rrrrrachel]

I guess someone forgot to inform cidrap the information was classified. I'm tryin to decide if y'all's reaction is more predictable or eye roll worthy.

[MissCee]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I guess someone forgot to inform cidrap the information was classified. I'm tryin to decide if y'all's reaction is more predictable or eye roll worthy.

Why should information like this be classified? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. For a drug that is routinely given to infants, adults, and the elderly alike, this type of information should never be kept private. I'm a very strong believer in informed consent and being fully informed of anything doctors give you, but it's situations like this that make that incredibly difficult, especially for parents.

[Rrrrrachel]

Omg. Is not classified. Which is why cidrap has it right there in their website for anyone to see.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Omg. Is not classified. Which is why cidrap has it right there in their website for anyone to see.

And who in the MSM has picked it up? NO ONE. Censored.

[BeckyBird]

It is not against the law for the media to lie to the public. Do not expect the news to tell you the truth, ever.  It's all a show brought to you by the corporations that own the media outlets.

[nia82]

Oh come on, there is no need to debate an obvious thing, which is this kind of information will not be in mainstream media. No journalist will write about it. Not even the WSJ which at least had a recent article about the lack of efficacy in the elderly. Especially since previous vaccination eradicated any benefit in that study it is not wished to publish this in mainstream outlets out of fear people will stop hurrying to Walgreens for the flu shot. It won't be picked up by Yahoo News, ABC, NBC, Foxnews, CNN, USA Today you name it.

Apart from that, thank you for posting the study. It's a very interesting read.

For now, "We can only speculate about what's really going on from an immunology standpoint."

Bingo. So we are to believe that for other vaccines it is utterly clear?

[Rrrrrachel]

It's barely been out for a day. Everything isn't a vast orchestrated cover up.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

It's barely been out for a day. Everything isn't a vast orchestrated cover up.

Right then, let's see how many mainstream media outlets pick it up over the next couple days. 

Oh Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrachel, you still haven't answered my question. 

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I guess someone forgot to inform cidrap the information was classified. I'm tryin to decide if y'all's reaction is more predictable or eye roll worthy.

A reminder for Rrrrrachel:  The guidelines for this forum clearly state, "Talk about the issues, not about each other."

[Rrrrrachel]

Mirzam: what question?

Reminder for taxi: you are not a mod.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Mirzam: what question?
 

Scroll up a bit and look. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Don't see it.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Don't see it.

# 6