Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
The CDC does not recommend the nasal flu vaccine for the upcoming year. Apparently,

... the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reviewed the data from the past few flu seasons and found it didn't work in recent years. In fact, FluMist was only 3 percent effective last flu season, CDC said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...pray-vaccine-doesn-t-work-experts-say-n597411

So if someone had the Flumist and didn't get the flu, will they still credit the vaccine even though it has a rate of 3% effectiveness? Or is it down to the more probable reason which is that, like 80-95% of the population on any given year, they weren't even exposed to the flu?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,832 Posts
And some people who ARE exposed to the flu are able to mount an effective immune defense and kick it out without getting ill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
The CDC does not recommend the nasal flu vaccine for the upcoming year. Apparently,


http://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...pray-vaccine-doesn-t-work-experts-say-n597411

So if someone had the Flumist and didn't get the flu, will they still credit the vaccine even though it has a rate of 3% effectiveness? Or is it down to the more probable reason which is that like 80-95% of the population on any given year, they weren't even exposed to the flu?
Of course, since it hasn't worked, they will be refunding the money spent on it, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
And paying any hospitalization costs for sickness due to the vaccine failure!
No!

You can't open that door!!!! What if others ask about their vaccine failure? Oh and those missed days of college, chump-change too???

Remember (like with mumps too) a little protection (3% is it?) is farrrrrrrrrr better, vs none! So we are always told!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
No!

You can't open that door!!!! What if others ask about their vaccine failure? Oh and those missed days of college, chump-change too???

Remember (like with mumps too) a little protection (3% is it?) is farrrrrrrrrr better, vs none! So we are always told!
"The 3 percent estimate means no protective effect could be measured." Says the CDC.

Statistically, it falls within the margin of error.

So, less expensive, and probably more useful, to spray salt water up your nose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
"The 3 percent estimate means no protective effect could be measured." Says the CDC.

Statistically, it falls within the margin of error.

So, less expensive, and probably more useful, to spray salt water up your nose.
How can it be?! Like the placebo effect! Oh well, maybe the injection lobby was behind this!!!!!

But yea, I'm negative, I like titters!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
And to think that breadwinners lost their jobs for not getting FluMist. :shake

Are we starting to see the perils of vaccine absolutism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,832 Posts
And to think that breadwinners lost their jobs for not getting FluMist. :shake

Are we starting to see the perils of vaccine absolutism?
Turquesa, you need to understand choice in the eyes of the vaccine enthusiasts.

You have the choice to be unemployed.

You have the choice to homeschool your children.

or you have the choice to comply with a useless vaccine.

and the choice to go through a joke of a compensation program if anything should chance to go wrong.

Lots of choice!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
To clarify, I'm OK with science changing. It does that. I get it.

I am NOT OK with monumental but impetuou$ policy decisions being made in the throws of these changes. "Hey, whaddaya know? The vaccine doesn't even work. So, um, oops. Sorry you lost your job over it."

Do you think the CDC is finally going to admit that influenza is officially NOT a "herd immunity" disease?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The cynical me is wondering, in light of VaxXed and all the surrounding publicity, if the issue with the flumist may have been a bone thrown out to make the CDC look reasonable. "See, we can admit when a vaccine is crap. Those VaxXed people have us all wrong."

And the flumist is an easy one for them to sacrifice. By their own account only 5-20% of the pop actually gets the flu each year. And they still have the injectable that does not shed like the nasal vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Also, I wonder how this fits in with the idea that the CDC makes up and/or covers up data about safety and efficacy to make vaccines look good?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,832 Posts
Also, I wonder how this fits in with the idea that the CDC makes up and/or covers up data about safety and efficacy to make vaccines look good?
Vaccine approved. Vaccine recommended for widespread use. Some people have the option of losing their job if they don't get vaccinated.

It turns out after a few years that they didn't (still don't) understand how this vaccine works in relation to the immune system in real live people. Or real live children.

We are supposed to use this as an example of how the people in charge know what they are doing and base their vaccine recommendations on solid science?

I'll credit them for admitting that they screwed up.

I'm totally sure that similar or even worse mistakes are coming up soon.

I never can understand the abject and uncritical trust that the pro-vaccine seem to have in the authorities, on this board and in other places. No matter what the authorities do, they get your trust.

I'll admit that some of us may lean too hard in the other direction...perhaps trying to attain a bit of balance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Vaccine approved. Vaccine recommended for widespread use. Some people have the option of losing their job if they don't get vaccinated.

It turns out after a few years that they didn't (still don't) understand how this vaccine works in relation to the immune system in real live people. Or real live children.

We are supposed to use this as an example of how the people in charge know what they are doing and base their vaccine recommendations on solid science?

I'll credit them for admitting that they screwed up.

I'm totally sure that similar or even worse mistakes are coming up soon.

I never can understand the abject and uncritical trust that the pro-vaccine seem to have in the authorities, on this board and in other places. No matter what the authorities do, they get your trust.

I'll admit that some of us may lean too hard in the other direction...perhaps trying to attain a bit of balance?
Yes. That is why post-licensure surveillance is so important. There is no indication there is anything wrong with the safety profile, to be clear. It has just not been very effective against the strains circulating the last few years. It has not been on the market very long and they were already able to determine it is not effective enough to recommend. Contrast that to vaccines that have been available for decade+ which are still showing to be very effective.

It certainly makes me feel confident that they are indeed looking at safety and efficacy data carefully and making evidence-based decisions based on that data even if it does end up hurting the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture these vaccines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,725 Posts
Flu vaccine effectiveness of 3%, 19% or 60% is deplorable.

Getting this vaccine is required for some employment and school attendance, and that is the best they can do? The flu vaccine in all of its forms and incarnations has a notoriously high adverse event rate.

The vaccine will leave the person with a 97%, 81%, or 40% chance of getting the disease. This is the best modern medicine can do? That is NOT progress. That is abysmal.

Pass the garlic, sodium ascorbate, and echinacea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Flu vaccine effectiveness of 3%, 19% or 60% is deplorable.

Getting this vaccine is required for some employment and school attendance, and that is the best they can do? The flu vaccine in all of its forms and incarnations has a notoriously high adverse event rate.

The vaccine will leave the person with a 97%, 81%, or 40% chance of getting the disease. This is the best modern medicine can do? That is NOT progress. That is abysmal.

Pass the garlic, sodium ascorbate, and echinacea.
Seat belts "only" reduce the risk of death by 45%, and the risk of serious injury by 50%, and we still require those by law. Guess that means seatbelts are useless, abysmal, and deplorable as well? Should we go back to letting kids bounce around in the back seat?

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/

Remember, flu vaccines *do* prevent transmission. Each person that gets the flu is expected to spread it to about 2 other people. Fewer people getting the flu = fewer people spreading the flu as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
Also, I wonder how this fits in with the idea that the CDC makes up and/or covers up data about safety and efficacy to make vaccines look good?
I may be wrong, but I do not believe for one minute the CDC would admit serious problems with the flumist if there wasn't another flu vaccine available.

They ignore issues with pertussis and the mumps portion of MMR, and those vaccines do not currently have other option available.
 
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Top