(The article is from 2006, but very relevant, IMO)
The passing of the bill will not increase the cost of flu shots, but will allow the vaccine to benefit from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The VICP works by taxing 75 cents per shot and creating a type of insurance for the public in the event that injury or death is caused by vaccines. The program was originally formulated to diffuse claims in 1986 that vaccines cause injury or death, Bio News Texas reports.
The tax on flu vaccines will produce about $100 million annually, which will be invested into security in the U.S. Treasury to help decrease the national debt of $16.5 trillion. As of May 2013, the VICP has paid out $2.7 billion for cases involving injury amongst all vaccines. The program has gained $3.4 billion from the tax and is projected to balance the budget in 25 years if current levels of revenue remain constant, according to Bio News Texas.
So, they are admitting the flu shot can cause damage.......and those who buy them are helping pay down the nat'l debt
I can only imagine the push for flu shots this fall, since their sales will help the Nat'l debt...we should start seeing ads anytime now
Egg allergy? No worries, you can now have a flu vaccine grown in insect cells.
FluBlok is produced with an insect virus and recombinant DNA technology. Its only flu virus component is hemagglutinin, which is produced by infecting cultures of insect cells with a baculovirus.
"It's quite common for people to say they are not going to get the flu shot this year because they've heard it does not match the strain of flu going around," said Dr. Andrea Tricco, the lead author of the paper and a scientist at the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital. "However, we've found that individuals will be protected regardless of whether the flu strain is a match or not."
so, why is it people got the flu anyways, regardless of being vaxed? I would think if they were protected, they wouldn't have caught any flu at all. since 'they' claim it's effective for strains not included.
And still NOTHING from the pro-vax side, huh? Come on, guys. I really wanted to hear from you. Not in a "lets cut each other down" debate, but if this is a debate board, let's talk about the flu shot. Do you get it? Do you think it's necessary? Do you blame the flu outbreaks on unvaccinated, or on a defective vaccine? Do you think it's safe?
Most importantly, what do you think about the article I posted? How do YOU, as a supporter of vaccines feel about the head of the CDC saying the reason they recommended pregnant women and children under 5 get the flu shot is so it doesn't go to waste?
"Flu shots are made by private companies, and both sides of the supply and demand equation for flu vaccine are complicated. CDC officials have tried to increase demand through public health campaigns and by expanding flu shot recommendations to include health care workers, pregnant women and children ages 6 months to 5 years." \
Article in OP
over the bolded. Do we have to go there?
We just interpret it differently.
I have read the article twice and to me it seems like the article was saying the CDC was fiddling with demand over market concerns.