Excellent article on the flu shot - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 8 Old 12-13-2012, 08:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/?single_page=true

 

This is from November 2009, and all the more chilling in the face of the mandatory flu shots faced by many health care workers.  If it was clear 3 years ago that the flu shot was not nearly as effective as they claim, and that the flu, in fact, is not killing nearly as many as has been claimed, then it's absolutely outrageous that the pharmaceutical industry has been able to convince the medical community that the flu shot should be mandated for health care workers, and recommended for all.

Taximom5 is online now  
#2 of 8 Old 12-13-2012, 09:30 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It really is outrageous. Last year I worked for a hospital that ended my contract because I refused the shot. There were a lot (most of my department) who found a doc to write something up for an exemption. But...since we live in a state with philosophical exemptions, I really wanted to have some integrity. Thankfully I was in a position that I could lose the job, but there were so many who were quite helpless. I always wonder what might happen to all those healthcare workers without a doctor friend to write an "excuse", and how many neuro problems will run rampant through the area over time.

Taximom5 likes this.
lanamommyphd07 is offline  
#3 of 8 Old 12-13-2012, 11:08 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Efficacy information from 2009 is completely irrelevant for 2012, in the case of flu shots which change annually in a best estimate of the most common flu virus strains which will be around.

Sure we'd all like it to be more effective, but I'm not convinced it does any harm except in very rare cases.

I will however agree I'm not a fan of it being mandated, but I would think Heath care workers who regularly interact with very sick people in the petri dish which is the modern hospital shouldn't need convincing to get it.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#4 of 8 Old 12-14-2012, 06:04 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Pardon me, your double standard is showing.

You have said over and over that, in spite of the existence of some studies that indicate a vaccine-autism link, and in spite of a subset whose lives are ruined from being vaccinated, you believe that the preponderance of the (industry-funded) evidence indicates there is no such link, that vaccines are safe, and that therefore, everyone should be vaccinated.

With the flu shot, the Cochrane Review has shown that there is NO evidence that vaccinating health care workers protects patients. The protective impact on health care workers themselves is minimal at best. There is increasing evidence of harm from the flu shot. A subset of people who receive it have developed severe, irreversible autoimmune disorders; some have even died from it.

And you think health care workers should just line up and roll up their sleeves, no discussion necessary?

There's a new term coined to describe this attitude, that fits perfectly: "powder room science."
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/powder-room-science/
Taximom5 is online now  
#5 of 8 Old 12-14-2012, 06:21 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Efficacy information from 2009 is completely irrelevant for 2012, in the case of flu shots which change annually in a best estimate of the most common flu virus strains which will be around.
 

No, it isn't.

 

Every year scientists try to figure out which strains will be dominant in the upcoming season.

 

Knowing how many times scientist get it right and wrong is very relevant to figuring out whether or not to get a seasonal flu shot.

 

The CDC has said 18/22 recent years have been a "good match"  while Cochrane said "In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation"  which means most years are not a good match.  Two credible institutions giving out quite different information.

 

 

http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/DiseasesConditions/SeasonalFlu/season12to13

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424

Taximom5 likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#6 of 8 Old 12-14-2012, 06:37 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,059
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Efficacy information from 2009 is completely irrelevant for 2012, in the case of flu shots which change annually in a best estimate of the most common flu virus strains which will be around.
Sure we'd all like it to be more effective, but I'm not convinced it does any harm except in very rare cases.
I will however agree I'm not a fan of it being mandated, but I would think Heath care workers who regularly interact with very sick people in the petri dish which is the modern hospital shouldn't need convincing to get it.

Are we reading the same article? Because the authors--and the science that they're citing--make the case that the vax performs poorly year to year, not just in 2009.
Taximom5 likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#7 of 8 Old 12-14-2012, 12:36 PM
 
Badkitty Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi guys

you probably have this info but here goes..the most creepy i think is the vaccine inserts.

I live in Vancouver British Columbia and we recently had the mandate for forced vaccination of healthcare workers overturned. The government was forced to withdraw the policy in light of sketchy supportive evidence and massive public outcry. I am also really concerned about this vaccine being given yearly to children. see the narcolepsy epidemic of 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix caused by the flu vaccine

Children with asthma who get the flu vaccine has 3x the hospitalization rate as those who are not vaccinated see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519172045.htm

I specialize in research and I have developed a keen interest in the conflicting evidence on this vaccine.  The flu campaigns are ideologically driven, not evidence driven and that is a terrifying predicament for our patients and their health care workers.  It is a quaint notion that a vaccinated healthcare workers protects our elderly, however, there is no credible evidence to prove this correlation. Look at gold standard vaccines...mumps, hepatitis, smallpox etc...do they have these battles over efficacy? of course not..that's because they are low variant viruses that you can effectively control with vaccination.

Please see these highly credible meta-analysis's on this issue. The first, is performed by the Cochrane Collective, who the Lancet describe as "the most important medical advancement since the discovery of the human genome" The Cochrane concluded:
 "there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in Long term care facilities"
see http://health-evidence.ca/articles/show/16385.

The Cochrane examination of flu vaccines in healthy adults, a body of literature spanning 25 studies and involving 59,566 people, finds an annual flu shot reduced overall clinical influenza by about six percent. It would reduce absenteeism by only 0.16 days (about four hours) for each influenza episode, a small effect given that the average flu bout lasts five to seven days. What was most illuminating was the authors’ conclusion: “There is not enough evidence to recommend universal vaccination against influenza in healthy adults.”
see http://focusonline.ca/?q=node/447

Do not mistake quantity, for quality of evidence regarding this vaccine. Michael Osterholm, director of Center of Center for Infectious Disease Research as well as its Center of Excellence in Influenza Research,  did the most extensive meta analysis of influenza studies between 1967 and 2011. Out of 5707 studies, he found only 31 were conducted with scientific credibility. He found that even when the vaccines were perfectly matched, they provided relative (not absolute) protection of 59%.  This performance was worse in years when the vaccines were not matched. Osterholm goes on to say that in order for a vaccine to be considered efficacious it must have between an 85-95% efficacy. "if this were a measles vaccine, it would be a failure"


Osterholm speaks about the importance of going back to the evidence about flu vaccines and stop dealing in rhetoric.
He said this to the New York Times: “We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,”It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.”
see http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/25/university-of-minnesota-flu-vaccine-study/
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/
see http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2970295-X/abstract


In the absence of evidence, apparently we make it up when it comes to the flu vaccine. Using Cochrane's credibility, BC's health officer, and the editor of a the Canadian Medical Association Journal, purposefully misquoted Cochrane to support their dubious vaccine initiative and overpromoted efficacy to 80%.  They were publically reprimanded as a result by The Cochrane Collective and by Osterholm for their gross deception regarding the vaccine - http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/17/1873/reply#cmaj_el_713497 and http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html

Influenza is greatly understood by the public and healthcare workers alike. The "flu" is seen as synonymous with influenza when it is not in fact, 200 pathogens cause seasonal "influenza like illnesses", the vaccine, (IF! the right strains are guessed correctly 6 months in advance) only protects against 3 strains. The majority of illness we see over the winter months will not be influenza (90%) and will not be affected by the vaccine ( these other strains like adenovirus and RSV are still capable of pneumonia and death) There is so much confusion that we actually have NO idea about true influenza numbers. It is thought that the burden of this virus is overestimated by as much as 10x!  This is a Canadian article, The US is the exactly the same. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/11/22/flu-deaths-crowe.html

Also, we have no idea about long term safety of the vaccine. Vaccine additives are in trace amounts, however, the cumulative exposure of  yearly injections spanning a health care workers career involving WHMIS classified "Highly Toxic" poisons such as Thermosil, Triton X 100 and Formaldehyde have never been studied.

Check out the shocking quality of evidence in our vaccine inserts: they would be thrown out of a master's thesis.  Most  are missing pertinent safety included those targeted for the vaccine - those with comorbidites, pregnant women and the elderly. Few adverse effects studied and the inserts themselves say " there have been no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza after vaccination with FLULAVAL" also read the shocking pregnancy safety concerns regarding fetal demise for the 2009/10 vaccine.
http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/2012/10/03/is-the-flu-vaccine-for-you-educate-yourself-read-the-product-inserts-first/

Certain immune systems do not respond well to the vaccine.  I personally had an oculorespiratory crisis from the vaccine and one of our coworkers contracted Guillan Barre. She was off work for almost one year  and still suffers from permanent foot drop as a result. Yes, the risks are small, however informed consent is accepting all the risks of a medical procedure. If a healthcare worker is not willing to accept the risks how can they be forced? Especially in light of such poor evidence of efficacy.

.Public Health lawyer Wendy Marriner sums up forced vaccination as this: The public will support reasonable public health interventions if they trust public health officials to make sensible recommendations that are based on science and where the public is treated as part of the solution instead of the problem. Public health programs that are based on force are a relic of the 19th century; 21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials to tell the truth. In each of these spheres, constitutional rights are the ally rather than the enemy of public health. Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.



PS Remember, this is an old, promiscuous virus, that was around when we were young. Did we force vaccines then? Did we get into a yearly panic about our vulnerable dying then? No. We were rational. Hmmm What's changed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html


 

Turquesa likes this.
Badkitty Jones is offline  
#8 of 8 Old 12-14-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Badkitty Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So what if you are one of the rare cases, and you didnt want the vaccine, nor did you think it was an effective vaccine?

And second, there are no long term studies on the effects of these vaccines, particularly ones with adjuvants which have a late or subacute onset of autoimmune type issues that can never be definitively linked to the vaccine. How about the vaccine additives themselves? formaldehyde, triton x 100, thermosil..no longitudinal studies on the long term results of repeated exposures to these WHMIS classified "highly Toxic" substances

Badkitty Jones is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off