Let's look at a few quotes within the article:
“Just do it now, would be my advice,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, director of epidemiology and immunization at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. “There’s always a benefit to getting the flu vaccine.”
"Just do it now
." This guy means business. He's so adament you'd think he was getting paid to say that
He is involved in bacterial vaccine development so of course he'd support vaccination. Would you expect anything less?
"There's always a benefit to getting the flu vaccine." Did he seriously just say that? We'll get to that later.
To begin with, listen to the author of the study, Dr. Edward Belongia, an epidemiologist at the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation. The STAT story notes he still strongly encourages everyone to get their flu vaccine.
As Dr. Belongia told me about his study: “At this point there really aren’t any implications for the general public.” Rather, it’s a jumping-off point for future research. Furthermore, the study was presented as a poster in October at an infectious diseases conference; it hasn’t yet been through the rigorous peer review required for publication in a scientific journal.
To sum up, they haven't quite figured out the flu vaccine. The public are the guinea pigs until they do, but we already knew that.
The study itself is intriguing — it concluded that children who had gotten a flu shot in two previous years, for a specific strain of the flu, were more likely to contract that flu than kids who had just been vaccinated for the first time
Could this have something to do with the many healthy young children and middle-aged individuals who are dying from complications of the flu, even though they were vaccinated against that very strain
? Which brings us back to the first quote, "There's always a benefit to getting the flu vaccine."
As one mother wrote on Facebook, “[It’s] very upsetting for someone like me, who has had their kids vaccinated every year.”
Now we're making some sense. Why is it that the public, just ordinary people, make more sense in their conclusions than these experts?
Or as a spokesperson for the CDC said, “This is an interesting new finding and CDC will be looking into it further. For now, the CDC recommendation for vaccination remains unchanged
Of course they're "looking into it" and they still recommend the vaccine until then. Not much deters the CDC from recommending vaccines. For example, the focus is on Merck's trial for falsifying efficacy rates of the mumps portion for approval, yet the CDC still recommends that vaccine, even though the scientific process behind it may be totally corrupt. No wonder there are countless numbers of mumps' cases everywhere.
One of Dr. Madoff’s potential explanations for why flu vaccines could have a diminishing effect is that antibodies to the flu you already have may bind to portions of the new flu vaccine and make them less active. Or it could be that if you’re already immune to one strain of the flu and get another vaccine, instead of creating new antibodies for the new strain of flu, the vaccine instead boosts the antibodies for the older strain.
But “these are theories,” he said, “and I don’t think we really fully understand what’s accounting for this phenomenon
They don't fully understand what accounts for this phenomenon. Do they "fully understand" what accounts for any and all pheromonena after vaccination? No, which is why vaccines can never be considered extensively studied enough prior to being rolled out. It's all a learning process, on the public.
Research is under way on a “universal” flu vaccine that would work for all strains and so there would no longer be a need for annual shots
I can only imagine a rise in "coincidence disorder" after that one rolls out.
And a Dawson photo op...what a great way to end an article about marketing the flu vaccine, a vaccine in which they obviously haven't quite ironed out yet.