728huey said:

paintedlady said:

Vaccinations for other dieases have been given, Polio, MMR, and others.... my children and I are up to date on all other shots. I made sure my kids were vaccinated because we live in a gateway city and old diseases that Americans haven't suffered from in years are starting to have a re-surgence due to immigrants bringing on new outbreaks.Such as scabies, bedbugs, and whooping cough.

In my state there is a health scare right now for the flu... 750 confirmed cases and now 18+ deaths due to influenze outbreak. So I will be seeking a flu shot for myself now. I am NOT looking forward to it at all.

Not too late to get shots because doctors are predicting that this flu season will last well into late March.

I have no objection to getting vaccinated for other potentially deadly diseases whether nearly eradicated or prevalent in third world countries because the risk of not doing so and getting seriously ill outweighs the potential side effects of getting a one-time shot.

But when it comes to the flu virus, public officials are recommending getting a shot every year since the virus mutates rapidly and strains change from year to year, and what was effective last year may do you no good at all the following year. Plus, the viruses they use in the flu vaccines are actually live viruses that have been genetically modified not to do serious damage in the body. However, every person's immune system is different, and while most people can get a flu shot without any ill effects, some people get some serious adverse reactions that can lead to temporary or even permanent brain or nerve damage.

Speaking of which, I'm all in favor of getting kids and babies vaccinated, but I think the actress and former Playboy Playmate Jenny McCarthy has been getting a lot of unwarranted hate from people about her stance on vaccines. She has a son with autism, yet he was a very healthy baby until he received his first vaccination. Now a lot of experts have been trying to downplay the link between vaccinations and neurological disorders by claiming today's vaccines are even safer than the smallpox and polio vaccines of old, but as those who mentioned earlier that most vaccines contain thimerosal, which is a mercury byproduct and known neurotoxin, and that this chemical is being given to very small children, it definitely increases the risk of adverse reactions. There's also the possibilty of tainted batches of vaccine being administered that are probably being swept under the rug. In fact, a number of people recently have died because of a contaminated batch of injectable steroids. Health experts believ the batches bcame contaminated when two or more drugs were combined into the injectable mix. When you consider that todays vaccines contain live chicken pox, smallpox, polio, rubella, measles, pertussis (whooping cough), and mumps all in one dose, I'd say there's a good chance that a batch could be come tainted in the lab from improper handling.

Like I've said in the previous post, I will rely on a jar of multi-vitamin supplements & a bottle of silver solution only!

Well... I went and got my flu shot today. I went with my kids, they got their shots too. My son is a severe asthmatic and so am I. I can not take the risk of getting a full on hit from the flu when folks are dying and getting real sick. This year's strain is an especially strong one I guess.

My head hurts, but I do not think it is from the shot, eating lots of fresh garlic so I do not catch a cold.

I will WILL myself to not get sick, my kids seem OK, no fever or soreness.

http://todayhealth.today....admit?lite

Flu jab isn't perfect by a long shot, health officials admit

XxAxX said:

http://todayhealth.today....admit?lite

Flu jab isn't perfect by a long shot, health officials admit

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News

Philip Izzo got a flu shot this year, but the 65-year-old Carlsbad, Calif., man said he still got sick.

So did most of his family, including his partner, two sisters, a brother and a brother-in-law, all in states as far-flung as Connecticut, Massachusetts and Florida.

“It was terrible,” he said of the illness that struck right around the holidays. “We were down for the count.”

Izzo, like many of the people who dutifully get their shots each year, figured his family was fully protected against the coughing, fever and body aches that the influenza infection.

So he says he was surprised to learn that government health officials today pegged the effectiveness of this year’s flu vaccine at about 62 percent.

“I’m stunned, actually,” said Izzo. “It begs the question, why did I get the shot?”

More people are asking that question now, amid a flu season that started early and now has spread to 90 percent of the U.S. according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Government health officials urge everyone older than 6 months to get flu shots, and they say it’s the best way to prevent serious complications such as pneumonia -- and even death.

But they also acknowledge the shots can be a hard sell, especially when people learn they’re not 100 percent effective.

“We’d love it to be better, but we think it’s a substantial public health benefit,” said Dr. Joe Bresee, who heads the epidemiology and prevention branch of the CDC’s influenza division.

Critics of vaccines object to injecting foreign substances into their bodies, worry that side effects are more serious than health officials acknowledge and argue that the shots are not effective enough, anyway.

Sixty percent effectiveness is about what CDC expects in any given year, though the actual rate can range from about 65 percent to 80 percent in young, healthy people, flu experts say.

Flu vaccines are tricky to make because flu viruses are constantly changing and because human immune response wanes quickly after immunization, Bresee said.

“If I had the perfect answer of how to make a better flu vaccine, I'd probably get a Nobel Prize,” he joked.

The quest for a long-lasting, universally effective flu vaccine continues, but in the meantime, there are many reasons that people who got flu shots may find themselves still battling a nasty bug.

First, it might not be the flu at all. Several other viruses are circulating this year and the flu shot doesn’t protect against them at all. An aggressive strain of norovirus, an unpleasant gut bug, is especially prevalent this year.

“I hear that every day: People think they got the flu shot and they are not going to get any other illness,” said Dr. Sharon Orrange, an assistant professor of Medicine at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California. “If you have bronchitis or an upper respiratory infection, the flu shot will not protect you from that.”

Second, it takes about two weeks for the flu vaccine to take full effect and during that time, people are still susceptible to the virus.

Finally, their bodies may not have mounted a strong enough immune response to the vaccine. That can happen, even if they've gotten shots, because of age or underlying illness, doctors say.

“People need to understand that it’s not 100 percent,” Orrange said.

But, she added, the flu shot may shorten the duration of the illness, soften its severity and prevent complications, including pneumonia.

Three weeks after his holiday flu, Izzo says he still has lingering effects. He wonders whether the flu shot he got in October prevented an even worse bout of illness, but he’s still not convinced of the benefits.

“I’m likely, possibly, not to get it next year,” he said.

This aricle sums up my feelings, in a nut shell. Those who want to get the shot, feel free. I will stick to my good hygine habits, and tama-flu.

shorttrini said:

XxAxX said:

http://todayhealth.today....admit?lite

Flu jab isn't perfect by a long shot, health officials admit

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News

Philip Izzo got a flu shot this year, but the 65-year-old Carlsbad, Calif., man said he still got sick.

So did most of his family, including his partner, two sisters, a brother and a brother-in-law, all in states as far-flung as Connecticut, Massachusetts and Florida.

“It was terrible,” he said of the illness that struck right around the holidays. “We were down for the count.”

Izzo, like many of the people who dutifully get their shots each year, figured his family was fully protected against the coughing, fever and body aches that the influenza infection.

So he says he was surprised to learn that government health officials today pegged the effectiveness of this year’s flu vaccine at about 62 percent.

“I’m stunned, actually,” said Izzo. “It begs the question, why did I get the shot?”

More people are asking that question now, amid a flu season that started early and now has spread to 90 percent of the U.S. according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Government health officials urge everyone older than 6 months to get flu shots, and they say it’s the best way to prevent serious complications such as pneumonia -- and even death.

But they also acknowledge the shots can be a hard sell, especially when people learn they’re not 100 percent effective.

“We’d love it to be better, but we think it’s a substantial public health benefit,” said Dr. Joe Bresee, who heads the epidemiology and prevention branch of the CDC’s influenza division.

Critics of vaccines object to injecting foreign substances into their bodies, worry that side effects are more serious than health officials acknowledge and argue that the shots are not effective enough, anyway.

Sixty percent effectiveness is about what CDC expects in any given year, though the actual rate can range from about 65 percent to 80 percent in young, healthy people, flu experts say.

Flu vaccines are tricky to make because flu viruses are constantly changing and because human immune response wanes quickly after immunization, Bresee said.

“If I had the perfect answer of how to make a better flu vaccine, I'd probably get a Nobel Prize,” he joked.

The quest for a long-lasting, universally effective flu vaccine continues, but in the meantime, there are many reasons that people who got flu shots may find themselves still battling a nasty bug.

First, it might not be the flu at all. Several other viruses are circulating this year and the flu shot doesn’t protect against them at all. An aggressive strain of norovirus, an unpleasant gut bug, is especially prevalent this year.

“I hear that every day: People think they got the flu shot and they are not going to get any other illness,” said Dr. Sharon Orrange, an assistant professor of Medicine at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California. “If you have bronchitis or an upper respiratory infection, the flu shot will not protect you from that.”

Second, it takes about two weeks for the flu vaccine to take full effect and during that time, people are still susceptible to the virus.

Finally, their bodies may not have mounted a strong enough immune response to the vaccine. That can happen, even if they've gotten shots, because of age or underlying illness, doctors say.

“People need to understand that it’s not 100 percent,” Orrange said.

But, she added, the flu shot may shorten the duration of the illness, soften its severity and prevent complications, including pneumonia.

Three weeks after his holiday flu, Izzo says he still has lingering effects. He wonders whether the flu shot he got in October prevented an even worse bout of illness, but he’s still not convinced of the benefits.

“I’m likely, possibly, not to get it next year,” he said.

This aricle sums up my feelings, in a nut shell. Those who want to get the shot, feel free. I will stick to my good hygine habits, and tama-flu.

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

SUPRMAN said:

They are only rare because the vast majority of the population has been immunized against them so the virus can't spread, or is harmless to those exposed when it does.

IF people hadn't had to be vaccinated for school for the past 40 years or more, they would not be rare and have a higher mortality rate.

You're enjoying the benefits of those efforts to eradicate those diseases. They don't stay eradicated because globally, the same effort at immunization hasn't been enacted.

I wonder if you could travel to Pakistan these days without getting a smallpox booster? Not something anyone wants to see you bring back as a souvenir.

Smallpox? That infection that was eradicated by 1979, the one that killed 40% of adults that were infected and 80+% of children, that infection that left up to a third of the people that survived it blind or severely scared. Standing that up against the flu, pluease, that's no contest, you damned Skippy I'd get vaccinated , inoculated and ever other -ated under the sun. I was also thinking along the lines of polio, which leaves most of it's victims disfigured for life, stand it up next to the flu, and the flu looks like a joke. I'm not convinced given the odds and the sheer knowledge of my own body and how it reacts to things.

Notice the date of Nov. 2012.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/19-Nov-2012/three-children-die-of-smallpox-in-khairpur

SUPRMAN said:

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

SUPRMAN said: Smallpox? That infection that was eradicated by 1979, the one that killed 40% of adults that were infected and 80+% of children, that infection that left up to a third of the people that survived it blind or severely scared. Standing that up against the flu, pluease, that's no contest, you damned Skippy I'd get vaccinated , inoculated and ever other -ated under the sun. I was also thinking along the lines of polio, which leaves most of it's victims disfigured for life, stand it up next to the flu, and the flu looks like a joke. I'm not convinced given the odds and the sheer knowledge of my own body and how it reacts to things.

Notice the date of Nov. 2012.

Three children die of smallpox in Khairpur

By: Our Staff Reporter | November 19, 2012 . 1

KHAIRPUR - Three children died of smallpox in Therimirwah Taulka in Khairpur district. Three children identified as Samander, Ashfaq, Farhan died at village Ajeeb Dasti near Tharimirwah.

According to the villagers, a total of seven children died during the last 48 hours in different villages, but the health department or district administration are still unaware in this regard.

They said due to poor services of the health department, medicines are stolen from health centres while district administration is also not paying attention in this regard.

They have demanded dispatch of doctors teams to their areas as several people including children are suffering from smallpox disease and the people are scared of the rising death toll.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/19-Nov-2012/three-children-die-of-smallpox-in-khairpur

Like I said earlier, I don't feel it's necessary for me to get a flu shot, but I would be suicidal if I rejected getting a smallpox and/or polio vaccine. Nevertheless, there are some Neanderthals in Afghanistan and Pakistan who would rather impose their religious will than care about their own people with regard to vaccinations.

Taliban kills five women aid workers in Pakistan as they administer polio vaccine

• Four women aid workers gunned down in the southern city of Karachi and another killed in a village outside the north-west city of Peshawar
• Aid workers were administering polio jabs as part of 3-day vaccination drive
• Taliban claim the campaign to immunise children is a cover for U.S. spies

SUPRMAN said:

shorttrini said:

This aricle sums up my feelings, in a nut shell. Those who want to get the shot, feel free. I will stick to my good hygine habits, and tama-flu.

.

By all means, be hygienic, do all those things to limit your risk, but by not getting the flu shot you're disarming one of the best weapons in your arsenal. Why take the option that has been shown to reduce your risk of illness by 60% off the table? And it's not just your own risk, but the risk that you pose to others, particularly infants and the elderly. Flu deaths vary annually, but the expectation is that this year is going to be quite bad, and that almost certainly means there will be tens of thousands of flu related deaths in the US this season. Using the best tools available can help reduce that amount - I think it's the logical and responsible thing to do.

[Edited 1/14/13 4:56am]

http://www.thestar.com/op...-editorial

damosuzuki said:

SUPRMAN said:

.

By all means, be hygienic, do all those things to limit your risk, but by not getting the flu shot you're disarming one of the best weapons in your arsenal. Why take the option that has been shown to reduce your risk of illness by 60% off the table? And it's not just your own risk, but the risk that you pose to others, particularly infants and the elderly. Flu deaths vary annually, but the expectation is that this year is going to be quite bad, and that almost certainly means there will be tens of thousands of flu related deaths in the US this season. Using the best tools available can help reduce that amount - I think it's the logical and responsible thing to do.

[Edited 1/14/13 4:56am]

In my opinion, (and it is JUST my opinon) the fact that there is just a 60% chance that it will work, is not good enough. Also, how do we know it's the best; because somebody in a whitecoat says it is? Just because the results from medical trials, that were conducted by medical corporations, were printed in prestigious medical journals, should not make one question their valididity any less than if they were done by private industries. In an interview with Dr. Thomas Jefferson,(coordinator for the Cochrane Vaccine Field), he said, "Study after study have been done on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, (the latest in 2010) and all have come to the conclusion that they are not as effective in protecting one from the flu as say, a good vitamin and hygiene regimen. When the CDC, is confronted with the results of these studies, even they had to admit that,(behind closed doors, of course) "the flu vaccine is among the LEAST effective agents avaiable in protecting the population against the flu. In the same study, it was 20% effective when given to the elderly. Now, you tell me, why would anybody put their parent or through that risk? My 81 year old mother, makes the following concotion, as a means of prevention: The juice of 6 lemons, 1 bulb of garlic, 2tsp of Ginger powder, 3 cups of Pineapple juice, topped off with 1/4 tsp of Cayenne pepper. These are all proven, immune bosters. Whenever she feels something coming on, she blends all of these in a blender and takes 1 cup, 4 times a day. She also eats allot of fruits and greens, and takes vitamin d3, vitamin C and gets allot of rest. She has not had a full blown, "Knock you on your ass", kinda cold, in 20 years. If it works for her, it works for me. Her doctor's will tell her, (in confidence, that natural is always better). All I am saying is, do you research and don't follow the "blind masses". Just because somebody in a white lab coat or, suit and tie, says it so, does not make it so...

shorttrini said:

damosuzuki said:

.

By all means, be hygienic, do all those things to limit your risk, but by not getting the flu shot you're disarming one of the best weapons in your arsenal. Why take the option that has been shown to reduce your risk of illness by 60% off the table? And it's not just your own risk, but the risk that you pose to others, particularly infants and the elderly. Flu deaths vary annually, but the expectation is that this year is going to be quite bad, and that almost certainly means there will be tens of thousands of flu related deaths in the US this season. Using the best tools available can help reduce that amount - I think it's the logical and responsible thing to do.

[Edited 1/14/13 4:56am]

In my opinion, (and it is JUST my opinon) the fact that there is just a 60% chance that it will work, is not good enough. Also, how do we know it's the best; because somebody in a whitecoat says it is? Just because the results from medical trials, that were conducted by medical corporations, were printed in prestigious medical journals, should not make one question their valididity any less than if they were done by private industries. In an interview with Dr. Thomas Jefferson,(coordinator for the Cochrane Vaccine Field), he said, "Study after study have been done on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, (the latest in 2010) and all have come to the conclusion that they are not as effective in protecting one from the flu as say, a good vitamin and hygiene regimen. When the CDC, is confronted with the results of these studies, even they had to admit that,(behind closed doors, of course) "the flu vaccine is among the LEAST effective agents avaiable in protecting the population against the flu. In the same study, it was 20% effective when given to the elderly. Now, you tell me, why would anybody put their parent or through that risk? My 81 year old mother, makes the following concotion, as a means of prevention: The juice of 6 lemons, 1 bulb of garlic, 2tsp of Ginger powder, 3 cups of Pineapple juice, topped off with 1/4 tsp of Cayenne pepper. These are all proven, immune bosters. Whenever she feels something coming on, she blends all of these in a blender and takes 1 cup, 4 times a day. She also eats allot of fruits and greens, and takes vitamin d3, vitamin C and gets allot of rest. She has not had a full blown, "Knock you on your ass", kinda cold, in 20 years. If it works for her, it works for me. Her doctor's will tell her, (in confidence, that natural is always better). All I am saying is, do you research and don't follow the "blind masses". Just because somebody in a white lab coat or, suit and tie, says it so, does not make it so...

I don’t want to go over a cliff into bickering or endless back and forths on this, but I do want to address a couple of things here.

First, if this year’s vaccine is 62% effective (according to current cdc estimates) in reducing risk of contracting the flu, then it should be a straight, logical decision to get the shot. In any scenario if you have an option that will reduce your risk of a negative outcome by 62% and the cost and risk associated with it are very minor, the correct course of action is to reduce your risk. And again, as has been noted this is a very tough flu year. CDC stats show that flu deaths in any given season range from 3k to 49k. If this year trends to the upper end of the range, increasing the vaccination rates to 50% or 70% or 100% could save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives, at minimal cost and risk to those receiving the vaccination.

Regarding the dr you cited – I did a little googling on him this morning and didn’t find too much information readily available, other than some older news articles he appeared in arguing against the flu vaccine. If you have specific articles or studies you can link for me, I’d like to look at them. However, when I hear that the CDC is admitting he’s right ‘behind closed doors’ I can’t help but be a little dubious – let’s see his peer reviewed papers, and the broader scientific reaction to his arguments. Science is an open process, and if his arguments are right behind closed doors then they’ll be right when published in journals and other scientific literature. In the meantime, his position is against that of the CDC, the NHS and Heatlh Canada, who state right on their website that “combined with hand washing the flu shot is the best way to protect yourself and others from the virus.” http://www.phac-aspc.gc.c...ex-eng.php

One thing I do agree with is that vaccination does generally seem to be less effective on the elderly, but that’s not an argument against vaccination – that just makes it more important for the broader population to be vaccinated in order to limit exposure to that high risk group.

damosuzuki said:

shorttrini said:

In my opinion, (and it is JUST my opinon) the fact that there is just a 60% chance that it will work, is not good enough. Also, how do we know it's the best; because somebody in a whitecoat says it is? Just because the results from medical trials, that were conducted by medical corporations, were printed in prestigious medical journals, should not make one question their valididity any less than if they were done by private industries. In an interview with Dr. Thomas Jefferson,(coordinator for the Cochrane Vaccine Field), he said, "Study after study have been done on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, (the latest in 2010) and all have come to the conclusion that they are not as effective in protecting one from the flu as say, a good vitamin and hygiene regimen. When the CDC, is confronted with the results of these studies, even they had to admit that,(behind closed doors, of course) "the flu vaccine is among the LEAST effective agents avaiable in protecting the population against the flu. In the same study, it was 20% effective when given to the elderly. Now, you tell me, why would anybody put their parent or through that risk? My 81 year old mother, makes the following concotion, as a means of prevention: The juice of 6 lemons, 1 bulb of garlic, 2tsp of Ginger powder, 3 cups of Pineapple juice, topped off with 1/4 tsp of Cayenne pepper. These are all proven, immune bosters. Whenever she feels something coming on, she blends all of these in a blender and takes 1 cup, 4 times a day. She also eats allot of fruits and greens, and takes vitamin d3, vitamin C and gets allot of rest. She has not had a full blown, "Knock you on your ass", kinda cold, in 20 years. If it works for her, it works for me. Her doctor's will tell her, (in confidence, that natural is always better). All I am saying is, do you research and don't follow the "blind masses". Just because somebody in a white lab coat or, suit and tie, says it so, does not make it so...

I don’t want to go over a cliff into bickering or endless back and forths on this, but I do want to address a couple of things here.

First, if this year’s vaccine is 62% effective (according to current cdc estimates) in reducing risk of contracting the flu, then it should be a straight, logical decision to get the shot. In any scenario if you have an option that will reduce your risk of a negative outcome by 62% and the cost and risk associated with it are very minor, the correct course of action is to reduce your risk. And again, as has been noted this is a very tough flu year. CDC stats show that flu deaths in any given season range from 3k to 49k. If this year trends to the upper end of the range, increasing the vaccination rates to 50% or 70% or 100% could save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives, at minimal cost and risk to those receiving the vaccination.

Regarding the dr you cited – I did a little googling on him this morning and didn’t find too much information readily available, other than some older news articles he appeared in arguing against the flu vaccine. If you have specific articles or studies you can link for me, I’d like to look at them. However, when I hear that the CDC is admitting he’s right ‘behind closed doors’ I can’t help but be a little dubious – let’s see his peer reviewed papers, and the broader scientific reaction to his arguments. Science is an open process, and if his arguments are right behind closed doors then they’ll be right when published in journals and other scientific literature. In the meantime, his position is against that of the CDC, the NHS and Heatlh Canada, who state right on their website that “combined with hand washing the flu shot is the best way to protect yourself and others from the virus.” http://www.phac-aspc.gc.c...ex-eng.php

One thing I do agree with is that vaccination does generally seem to be less effective on the elderly, but that’s not an argument against vaccination – that just makes it more important for the broader population to be vaccinated in order to limit exposure to that high risk group.

The problem that I have with it is this, " The media as well as, other "so-called" experts saying getting this vaccine is a "preventative" measure aginst the flu. While under their breathes they say, "mind you, this shot only works 60% of the time, so God forbid you are not among those in the 60%. That's misleading and they are not telling the entire story. As a result, you have people who, (instead of doing their reseach) are running around in a panic, trying to find a place that will administer a vaccine that might not work or have side-effects. Here is a link that I posted earlier on this topic

http://prn.fm/2013/01/08/...z2I3DG1391

[Edited 1/15/13 5:37am]

I've had a flu shot every year for the past 13 years and i have never gotten sick or had the Flu..

SUPRMAN said:

excited said:

but it's a sign that my immune system is shot! it's only a matter of time

???? No, it's not a sign that your immune system is shot. It's a sign that it's functioning.

How else is all that pus generated?

eeww. nasty sod!

i only get bad complextion if i'm run down & i was right!.. no flu but streaming with cold symptoms. i'm very snotty & spotty & coughy

shorttrini said:

damosuzuki said:

I don’t want to go over a cliff into bickering or endless back and forths on this, but I do want to address a couple of things here.

First, if this year’s vaccine is 62% effective (according to current cdc estimates) in reducing risk of contracting the flu, then it should be a straight, logical decision to get the shot. In any scenario if you have an option that will reduce your risk of a negative outcome by 62% and the cost and risk associated with it are very minor, the correct course of action is to reduce your risk. And again, as has been noted this is a very tough flu year. CDC stats show that flu deaths in any given season range from 3k to 49k. If this year trends to the upper end of the range, increasing the vaccination rates to 50% or 70% or 100% could save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives, at minimal cost and risk to those receiving the vaccination.

Regarding the dr you cited – I did a little googling on him this morning and didn’t find too much information readily available, other than some older news articles he appeared in arguing against the flu vaccine. If you have specific articles or studies you can link for me, I’d like to look at them. However, when I hear that the CDC is admitting he’s right ‘behind closed doors’ I can’t help but be a little dubious – let’s see his peer reviewed papers, and the broader scientific reaction to his arguments. Science is an open process, and if his arguments are right behind closed doors then they’ll be right when published in journals and other scientific literature. In the meantime, his position is against that of the CDC, the NHS and Heatlh Canada, who state right on their website that “combined with hand washing the flu shot is the best way to protect yourself and others from the virus.” http://www.phac-aspc.gc.c...ex-eng.php

One thing I do agree with is that vaccination does generally seem to be less effective on the elderly, but that’s not an argument against vaccination – that just makes it more important for the broader population to be vaccinated in order to limit exposure to that high risk group.

The problem that I have with it is this, " The media as well as, other "so-called" experts saying getting this vaccine is a "preventative" measure aginst the flu. While under their breathes they say, "mind you, this shot only works 60% of the time, so God forbid you are not among those in the 60%. That's misleading and they are not telling the entire story. As a result, you have people who, (instead of doing their reseach) are running around in a panic, trying to find a place that will administer a vaccine that might not work or have side-effects. Here is a link that I posted earlier on this topic

http://prn.fm/2013/01/08/...z2I3DG1391

[Edited 1/15/13 5:37am]

I think we’ve both made our points and I don’t want to belabor things, but I do want state that I do not think the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is overstated. The CDC has a link right on their website to the most current figures on the current vaccine’s efficacy (62.5%) as does health Canada. And this is anecdotal, but I see the 60-70% figure all the time in the health articles on the topic.

Now what I may agree with is that health officials may not want to highlight the 62.5% figure too much because they know that people often don’t make rational choices when they hear figures like that. Frankly I think this thread perfectly illustrates that fact. People radically overestimate the minimal risk posed by the vaccine and underestimate the risk posed by the flu. The statistics on this are very straightforward: you’re much more likely to get ill or even die from the flu then you are to suffer a negative consequence from a flu shot. I definitely think people need to research this as well, because I think the research and the statistics on the topic point to getting vaccinated – that’s why the major public health institutions push the vaccine so hard.

I’m out of town for the next few days on a trip, but when I get back I’ll give that link a listen.

noimageatall said:

I love it.

TD3 said:

Top 13 Flu Myths

I know i have to stay healthy , but I don't like needles and I don't know whats in it. I might come off a little stupid but there is different stuff floating around and a shot is really not guaranteed to help