# Flu Shot or Not?



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

We'r old now and my MIL is 83 and gets one every year,yet we have never had one.I know I got very sick about 8 yr.s ago from flu,almost died,but still affraid to get shot.

Should we get a shot this year?My hubby has never had one and one year all those who got shot got sick,hubby did'nt.


----------



## valannb22 (Jan 6, 2012)

I got the flu mist a couple weeks ago and have been perfectly fine


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

I never get the flu shot if I can avoid it. In 2009, my employer forced everyone to get the swine flu (H1N1) shot. 14 days later, I came down with the swine flu.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I get one every year because my exposure is high and because we have a large family (my kids get them every year too). I got this years flu shot just over 2 weeks ago and I am healthy and happy.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

I get it every year and have been fine.


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

The few times(25 years ago) I have gotten them, they made me extremely ill so no more for me.

In the past, I traveled quite a bit and regardless of the vaccinations, I still came down with many of the illnesses and I've had some strange ones.

No more for me, I'll take my chances.


----------



## pmabma (Dec 4, 2008)

I agree Davarm , I got one a couple years ago and almost died, I had a reaction to it, never again for me.


----------



## Meerkat (May 31, 2011)

Thanks for replies,we've never had one still kinda confused about it.I know many who get it and are ok,but then not only am I affrad of the shot itself giving me the flu,but also who manufactured it.

Still leaning on not getting one,but who knows.


----------



## Lake Windsong (Nov 27, 2009)

Meerkat, I drink elderberry tea throughout the winter and gargle with warm salt water daily. Also swab nostrils with qtip dipped in salt water. Keeping basic hygiene up like washing hands with soap and cleaning frequently touched surfaces helps too. No flu shot for me or my kids (one is allergic to them and had a febrile seizure as an infant), but each person should do what they feel is best for them.


----------



## PrepN4Good (Dec 23, 2011)

I get them every year, with no problems. Except my arm hurts the next day.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Get it , get it everytime!

I can save a LOT of misery ..

Also there are also strong indication that <some> minor but still <some> cross resistance is conferred if you get a shot for one strain of flu vs another.

It _may_ do no good at all for another strain or it _may _do some minor good against a related strain.
Thats a fre bonus as far as I am concerned.

There simply is no downside to it.
Short of maybe feeling a little sick for some folks a couple days later...

But thats not actually you being sick, thats your body reacting to "seeing" the vaccines' antigen making it "think" it is sick and responding accordingly.

Which is what is causing your immunity to be built up.

I always get as many vacccines as I can.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

I have the cure for flu,I don't need the monkey pus and Aluminum.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> I have the cure for flu


Is it Nyquil, Chicken Noodle Soup & 7-UP?


----------



## lotsoflead (Jul 25, 2010)

I'm 72 and never had any shots, but I don't go around crowds very often.


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

Sentry18 said:


> Is it Nyquil, Chicken Noodle Soup & 7-UP?


it's garlic tablets, D-3, fish oil, magnesium/calcium, and cayenne.
Germs can't live in my body!!!
But, seriously, I have always had a great immune system; never catch any illnesses, never remember having a cold, and have never had a flu.
Why the vitamins?? I'm 62.


----------



## Trip286 (Oct 18, 2012)

There is debate. Some say they get the flu from the flu shot, and of course the companies cashing in say that's utter bull spit.

I get sick and feel like crap for a week at least, every time I've gotten the flu shot.

I get the flu every few years, regardless of whether I get the shot or the mist.

I quit getting the flu shot a few years ago. Just a couple of years ago I survived the swine flu and the resulting pneumonia without medical help. And once the fever was gone, I went back to work pouring concrete.

I'll take my chances. YMMV.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Meerkat said:


> We'r old now and my MIL is 83 and gets one every year,yet we have never had one.I know I got very sick about 8 yr.s ago from flu,almost died,but still affraid to get shot.
> 
> Should we get a shot this year?My hubby has never had one and one year all those who got shot got sick,hubby did'nt.


So here is the skinny: a small percentage of people are allergic to them (which could be deadly), a slightly larger actually get sick from them with a weak version of the flu they are supposed to be protected from, most people get it and are protected from SOME strains of flu, BUT as the drug companies are just guessing some years the flu shot offers no protection whatsoever.

Personally as strong 20-30 something year old I figure that God gave me an immune system and its best to exercise it. For older folks your body may need the help. What I don't like is that you really never know what's in the concoctions they shoot you up with... where is my tin foil hat??


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

Look at the recent outbreak with the steroid shots, no thanks, I will take my chances. Living and working in a city, you are more likely to get the flu but if you are not around a lot of people your chances are lower.


----------



## Startingout-Blair (Aug 28, 2012)

I get one every year...sometimes twice. If I got it early in the fall, I get another in the Spring. Didn't get it one year and I got so sick, I wanted to die. No more! Also get the pneumovax every so many years. Never a problem


----------



## GrinnanBarrett (Aug 31, 2012)

I take them and also getting the Shingle Vaccine and updated my tetanus We have two doctors in our group of guys who shoot together. GB


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Tetanus and HBIG are good to think about!

Personally... I don't like the flu shots because I think its a crap shoot and I feel it's unreliable at best and a liability that can turn into really bad circumstances.


----------



## Salekdarling (Aug 15, 2010)

I haven't had the flu since I was 12 years old. 12 years without it... I think I'm doing just fine without the shot.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Sentry18 said:


> Is it Nyquil, Chicken Noodle Soup & 7-UP?


No,its red pepper tea with honey an lemon, about 3 cups at the onset.it jerks your blood PH sideways too fast for the virus to adapt and normally it kills it.I haven't had the flu in a decade!


----------



## JohnVenice (Aug 27, 2010)

What is your exposure risk? I have a high exposure as well as high risk if I get it. I've been getting flu shots over 20 years and will keep on getting them. If I still lived way out in the boonies and had limited contact with people it might not be worth it.


----------



## Cahri (Feb 18, 2011)

Never get em, got em or hubby and never gave to our kids. They were also never vaccinated and they are all healthy at 32, 24 and 22. Get sick? NEVER none of us. Hubby and I are old now get sick? Nope, We are on no meds and healthy as horses. Make your own decisions, we did


----------



## RoadRash (Sep 29, 2010)

FYI if ya got a shot
http://www.680news.com/news/nationa...-distribution-of-flu-vaccine-made-by-novartis

Canada has joined several European countries in suspending distribution of a flu vaccine made by pharmaceutical giant Novartis.

The suspension comes after Novartis found small clumps of virus-particles in some batches of the vaccine made at the companies plant in Italy.

Health Canada is advising doctors and flu clinics to hold off using the Novartis vaccine for the time-being.

Officials with Health Canada call it a precautionary step, adding that they have had no adverse effects related to the vaccine.

Novartis manufactures about 20 per cent of the total flu vaccine made in Canada


----------



## Jason (Jul 25, 2009)

The company I am employed by offers a free flu shot to me as well as all members of my immediate family. Every year we politely say no thanks. DW is late 30's, I'm mid 30's and DS is 4 and we feel better about just taking our chances. So far we've been fine. DS is in preschool and I work at a place with several thousand people in close proximity but DW is a homemaker so her risk of exposure is the least of the 3 of us.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

RoadRash - I just found that piece of news as well about the "clumping" of the virus ... 

As for me, I do not plan on getting the flu-shot. Ever since I made Jagermeister a part of my supper routine (one stemmed liqueur glass - about 1 1/4 ounce) I have not gotten any significant cold or flu type symptoms.

If I feel the hint of a cold coming on (scratchy throat) a slowly sipped shot of Jager before supper calms down my throat and a slowly sipped shot with supper and maybe one as I am going to sleep is all that is required to have a perfect night's sleep and no symptoms of the cold in the morning. :2thumb:


It really helps that I like the taste of the Jager :droolie:


----------



## Trip286 (Oct 18, 2012)

Enough to get a man drinking again...
I have a minor cold right now that I'm having a hard time shaking off.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Had two flu shots in all my years, got sick both times. No more for me.


----------



## pixieduster (Mar 28, 2012)

Never had one, never will.


----------



## JSManley (May 14, 2013)

I stopped getting them after I contracted H1N1.


----------



## Javin (Aug 18, 2011)

There's five primary reasons I will never get a flu shot:

1.) I actually worked in vaccination medical research and know how they're made.
2.) They will never work for this year's strain, only for last year's.
3.) From one year to the next, despite the formulation changing, there is NO requirement for testing to be done, so it's not.
4.) The extrapolated "death toll" from the flu is false, and grossly over-exaggerated to sell the vaccine.
5.) Your (natural) immunity gained by actually contracting the yearly flu is FAR more effective than the shot, making your infection less severe when it does happen.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Flu shots cost me nothing. I always get one. They aren't perfect but the risk is low. You can't get the flu from a flu shot (dead virus).


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

swjohnsey said:


> Flu shots cost me nothing. I always get one. They aren't perfect but the risk is low. You can't get the flu from a flu shot (dead virus).


Yea, I heard that before ... but it is funny that the times I did take the shot (at work) ... I got the flu??? 

Now that I have no one telling me I must take it ... I don't.

I go prevention, which works out better for me.

Live and learn ...


----------



## ras1219como (Jan 15, 2013)

*Andi said:


> Yea, I heard that before ... but it is funny that the times I did take the shot (at work) ... I got the flu???
> 
> Now that I have no one telling me I must take it ... I don't.
> 
> ...


If you got a flu shot and then contracted the flu the most likely explanation is that you contracted a different strain of the flu virus. The yearly flu shot does not cover all possible strains only the one(s) that are predicted to be the most problem. So you most likely contracted a strain of the virus which the vaccine did not protect against.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

So, if you get the flu shot you can still get the flu? Sign me up!!!

One thing I always wondered. If a school going child does not get the shot but everyone else does, why won’t the let the non-shot getting child in school? I would think the shot protected all the others from whatever the one child gets. Or is this an all inclusive thing, if everyone does not get the shot, everyone can get the flu? Seems to me if everyone does not get the shot then your chances of getting the flu are the same then. Or am I looking at this too logically?


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

If I get a polio shot and get the measels the shot didn't work. Same logic as I got a flu shot and got the flu. There are many, many strains of the flu. The vaccine only protects against a few. Nobody ever claimed the shot was 100%

Wasn't life great when we still had iron lungs and kids wearing braces. I think I was about the 3rd grade when I got my polio shot (1957). I grew up around kids on crutches with braces.


----------



## ras1219como (Jan 15, 2013)

Get the shot or don't its up to you. The fact is that getting the flu shot will lessen your likelihood of contracting the most common strain of flu during that season( the one covered by the vaccine). It will not lessen your likelihood of contracting another strain of the flu. 

The flu can be a rapidly evolving virus and there are dozens and dozens of strains the vaccines, for whatever reason, can't protect you from all of them.


----------



## gabbyj310 (Oct 22, 2012)

Being a Merchant Marine,they MAKE us take every shot there is including Anthrax(hurts like hell too)or we can't sail.....,no ifs ands or buts about it. Do I like it ???? Depends on what day you ask me.I'm wishy washy on it...I hate that stuff in my body but then again I think that we have gotten rid of many major illness because of the shots,still,to me it's a toss up.I can only pray that the ones I get Will help me down the line if need be.They say God takes care of those kind of people and I just hope I'm in that category when the time comes!!!!


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Me, too. I've had hundred of shots, lost track of all the stuff I've had. Just got some for Japanese encephalitis.


----------



## Javin (Aug 18, 2011)

swjohnsey said:


> There are many, many strains of the flu. The vaccine only protects against a few. Nobody ever claimed the shot was 100%


Quite correct. They don't claim it's 100%. In fact, according to the CDC, it's only about 56% effective this year.

And I just don't see the comparison between polio and the flu vaccine. Sure they're both vaccines, but that doesn't make them even close to related. A nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb both work in a similar fashion, but one provides electricity for cities while the other destroys them.

The polio vaccine was a very well studied, very _critically_ studied vaccine that was used to stop a deadly, and maiming disease.

New strains of the flu vaccine are coming out every 4 months and are _completely untested_ under the idea that it's "close enough" to the previous vaccine. And this for a vaccine that has a 56% chance of making your life slightly more convenient.

The extrapolated death rates from flu are a farce. Even the CDC itself says, "CDC estimates that from the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 flu season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people." Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Even by their own estimates, yearly deaths from the flu may be as few as 0.3 in 1,000,000, or at the absolute highest, 5 in 1,00,000 - in other words, your odds of dying from Guillain-Barre syndrome (proven to have been caused by the vaccine) or from an allergic reaction directly caused by the vaccine are _possibly higher_ (approximately 1 in 1,000,000) than your risk of dying from the flu itself.

I won't bother getting into the proven benefits of the natural immunity the flu actually provides, either.

So flu vaccine same as the polio vaccine? Yeah... No.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Thank you Javin.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Javin said:


> Quite correct. They don't claim it's 100%. In fact, according to the CDC, it's only about 56% effective this year.
> 
> And I just don't see the comparison between polio and the flu vaccine. Sure they're both vaccines, but that doesn't make them even close to related. A nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb both work in a similar fashion, but one provides electricity for cities while the other destroys them.
> 
> ...


Deaths from flu have been very low recently. What was the death rate for the Spanish flu? Weren't many of those who died killed by overreaction of their natural immunity?


----------



## Javin (Aug 18, 2011)

swjohnsey said:


> Deaths from flu have been very low recently. What was the death rate for the Spanish flu? Weren't many of those who died killed by overreaction of their natural immunity?


I'm confused... Are you suggesting that we should get vaccinated for H1N1 because people died of the Spanish Flu? By this logic we should probably all be vaccinated for small pox because I hear E. Bola's pretty bad...


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

Wow, just heard, probably should start new thread, Take this as you may, says (FOX NEWS) Wed. 22 That there is some sort of outbreak in Alabama "mystery illness" several people involved so far, but CDC is involved. Says cough, fever, sore throat... so far two people died and 5 in hospital ????


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Javin said:


> I'm confused... Are you suggesting that we should get vaccinated for H1N1 because people died of the Spanish Flu? By this logic we should probably all be vaccinated for small pox because I hear E. Bola's pretty bad...


Spanish flu is H1N1, think if it as the oririnal H1N1.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

You have some bad numbers in there. GB overall incidence is 1-2 per 100,000 (NEJM 2012). Only 30% of cases may involve respiratory failure. After a 4 week duration of progessing symptoms, full recovery os usually seen in 67 % percent of patients without treatment.even with treatment of ivIg therapy 5 to 10 percent may have deficits and about 5 die. 

GB is an acute autoimmune mediated disease. These patients much like those with E. Multiformans, or lupus have triggers which set off the disease. You may be susseptable to it and just not know. the most common trigger is a prior infection w c. Jejuni which causes predisposed immune systems to form antigangliosides antibodies which then attack nerve mylin. 

In 1976 a mass H1N1 vaccination campaign resulted in an increase of GB. It didnt cause it, it may have activated it in a susceptible population. The same issue arrises with malignat hyperthermia and general anesthesia. If everone all at once was exposed to an inhalation agent or sux, you would see a correlation of triggering agent and resultant MH. The small population it affects doesnt warrent expensive and invasive testing on everyone just to tease out that small subset of the population. Those suseptable have a much higher likelihood of triggering autoimmunity activity with foodborne illness. Not to mention, these people have a 20% increase of occurance with every decade of life. If your seriously concerned or want to know more about GB the NEJM article is one of the most concise uptodate reviews on it.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Speaking of testing the vaccines&#8230; You might not have a choice in the future!

http://www.naturalnews.com/040436_vaccine_trials_mandatory_AMA.html

(NaturalNews) The medical establishment is having trouble getting people to volunteer for new vaccine trials these days, which has prompted some in the medical industry to suggest that unwilling members of the public actually be forced to participate in order to promote the "greater good." This is the deranged opinion of two U.K.-based researchers, Susanne Sheehy and Joel Meyer, who wrote in a recent paper published by the American Medical Association (AMA) that a policy of "compulsory vaccination" may be necessary in order to achieve the long-term goals of the vaccine cartel in achieving total vaccine compliance. 
&#8230;

But what about the health risks involved? Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic and her colleague Dr. Christopher Shaw from the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada recently published a paper of their own in the open-access journal Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs which shows that many common vaccines are linked to causing arthritis, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), encephalopathy, neuropathy, seizure disorders, and autoimmune diseases


----------



## Javin (Aug 18, 2011)

swjohnsey said:


> Spanish flu is H1N1, think if it as the oririnal H1N1.


I appologize for referring to the common flu as H1N1, as I can see how that would be confusing. H1N1 is simply a subtype of Influenza A. Not a definition of a strain. It literally umbrellas thousands of strains of "flu" viruses that include the most common flus, as well as swine flus that we're immune to, and yes, the Spanish Flu. Most simply put, this is because H1N1 is a descriptor of the "surface antigens" that the virus uses to "interact" with the cells it attacks. So saying that every H1N1 virus is related to the Spanish Flu because its surface antigens are H1N1 is akin to saying anyone that owns a Bushmaster XM-15 is related to the D.C. sniper because they both own XM-15's. There are H1N1 viruses that are completely benign, as well as H1N1s that are brutally deadly. But there are H1N1s that are more closely related to H5P3's than other H1N1s as well. (A lot of this confusion comes from the fact that there's _still_ not a decent standard for viral classification).

But I remain confused as to what your argument is?  Are you arguing that modern flu vaccinations _would stop / have stopped_ an outbreak of the 1918 strain of the Spanish Flu? If so, I'm afraid this argument won't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. The Spanish Flu, despite its H1N1 moniker was actually much more closely related to common bird flus. In fact, the H5N1 bird flu is mimicking very similar behavior today as it mutates. Flu Vaccines only vaccinate for 3-4 of the most common types of Influenza, and have precisely zero impact on the other strains of the common flu, much less the 1918 Spanish Flu. If anything, the weakened immune systems we get as a result could possibly be making us _more_ susceptible to these "super flus" that are brewing. We already know that natural immunization from one virus can actually significantly reduce the impact of another (this is why cow pox was used to vaccinate people for small pox).

So let's review my initial points.

1.) They will never work for this year's strain, only for last year's.
Flu vaccines are never going to treat the newest strains. And even those strains it DOES treat, it's currently only 56% effective on (according to the CDC).

2.) From one year to the next, despite the formulation changing, there is NO requirement for testing to be done, so it's not.
Testing of any sort is not done on the new formulations that are being developed on a bi-yearly basis (sometimes more often). At all. At what point did we decided that we didn't need long-term clinical trials before injecting new stuff into our bodies?

3.) The extrapolated "death toll" from the flu is false, and grossly over-exaggerated to sell the vaccine.
The "death toll" is possibly as few as 100 persons per year, or as many as 1,640 per year according to the CDC. This is in spite of the oft cited 36,000 number. The CDC has this to say about that: "While the 36,000 number is often cited, it's important to note that during that decade, influenza A (H3N2) was the predominant virus during most of the seasons, and H3N2 influenza viruses are typically associated with higher death rates." Also keep in mind that the 36,000 number was the same sort of extrapolated number since no statistics are actually kept on people that actually die of the _flu_. Then there's the problem that the H3N2 strain that was responsible for artificially inflating the numbers from the 1990's isn't even in the untested 56% effective cocktail that you're being vaccinated for.

4.) Your (natural) immunity gained by actually contracting the yearly flu is FAR more effective than the shot, making your infection less severe when it does happen. 
Even the vaccine pushers haven't been able to dodge the fact that a natural immune response provides much higher titers for a much longer time. (But damned if they don't try to ignore the hell out of it, or explain it away.)

If you choose to continue to get the flu shot because you believe it when you're told it's a "good idea" by those who have money to make by selling vaccine, then by all means, do so. I just believe people should be able to make an informed decision.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Javin said:


> 1.) They will never work for this year's strain, only for last year's.
> Flu vaccines are never going to treat the newest strains. And even those strains it DOES treat, it's currently only 56% effective on (according to the CDC).
> 
> 2.) From one year to the next, despite the formulation changing, there is NO requirement for testing to be done, so it's not.
> ...


Actually the naming in virology is well developed. Epecially in orthymyxoviridae since its been the focus of more viral research than any other. THe confusion is that there is common names associated with substrains which are varients caused by the genetic drift.

Counter points:

1 The influenza strains are are not the last years strains. They are monitored by a network of surveillance labs world wide that actually collect and identify circulating viruses and monitor for the next significant change in the virus. This is done on a very strict timeline which allows time for preparation and attenuation of the virus as well as manufacturing in able to get it out before the next season starts. Typically the drifts are initially seen in east Asia which allow time for monitoring before we see the virus here.

2. Once a manufacturing process of a drug or vaccine has been passed by the FDA, the requirements are that samples are tested for quality assurance. The safety trials do not need to be repeated each and every year, because the trials of the current method used in the manufacturing process took into account the collection, processing, attenutation or isolation of the antigens and the manufacturing. How silly would it be if we were just finishing our 10 year long term clinical trial for 2003's vaccine so we could finally release it to the public in 2014? New studies are being done all the time and efficacy and adverse reaction collection for each vaccine is nonstop. The flu-mist was heavily studied in clinic trials prior to its release because it was a new live vaccine with a new delivery method and different adjuvants. There are different trials for the use of cold adaptation, primary chicken kidney, and live reassortments using master strains.

3. Deaths are only one part of the picture. Why are people on here even concerned about this virus? oh yeah, because they tend to hit a antigenic shift every few decades and wipe out scores of people. Don't discount artificially inflating a death toll because H3N2 was an outlier and more virulent strain one year out of many. That is the entire reason why people fear this virus. For many years its not a big deal and then one year families are cut in half by it. 
As for the morbidity you didn't mention. 
■Influenza epidemics generally disproportionately affect elderly persons, with the highest rates of morbidity and mortality in this group . In a study of the National Hospital Discharge Survey database, hospitalization rates for pneumonia increased by 20 percent from 1988-1990 to 2000-2002 for patients aged 65 to 85 years . In addition, the risk of death during a hospitalization was 50 percent higher if the diagnosis was pneumonia compared with 10 other common reasons for admission in the elderly population. The risk of pneumonia in this age group is increased in patients with comorbid conditions, such as chronic cardiac and pulmonary diseases or diabetes 
■Excess hospitalizations for patients with chronic diseases who acquire influenza infection range from approximately 20 to more than 1000 per 100,000 individuals, with the highest rates occurring in those less than five and more than 64 years of age. Similar findings were noted in a retrospective cohort study of women under the age of 65 with and without chronic medical conditions. Rates of hospitalization for acute cardiopulmonary events and mortality were higher during the influenza season and the presence of other comorbidities increased the risk of hospitalization and death.
■Influenza vaccination was associated with a decrease in hospitalizations for cardiac disease and cerebrovascular disease among a large cohort of patients 65 years and older from three managed care groups compared to members who were not vaccinated . The mortality rate from all causes was also significantly lower among the vaccinated group

4. Your natural immunity is being challenged by the vaccination because you are exposed to the antigens or live virus same as you would had you contracted a wild type virus. There is no need to dodge any fact here. Humeral memory correlates to the challenge presented. If your beaten down and it takes your body weeks to fight it off, you would hope it doesn't happen again. But whats the benefit of a vaccine giving your immune system a run for its money and taking you to deaths door? So you might have a strong immunity should have virus never mutate and come back around again? When people get what they were trying to avoid by taking the vaccine, they tend to avoid the vaccine just as much as they try to avoid getting the flu. The trade off to a shortened B cell memory is a targeted subacute infection where the vaccinated person feels the pinch of the shot, maybe a sniffle, but a week of myalgias, respiratory distress, fevers and nausea that comes with contracting a wild virus.

I am not a vaccine pusher, but I'll push strong science for the benefits of challenging miseducation.

As for the 1918 strain, 
Scientists used reverse genetics to create an influenza virus with all eight gene segments of the 1918 pandemic strain in order to study its virulence in animal models.  After infection, the 1918 strain produced 39,000 times more virus particles in the lungs of mice compared with more contemporary H1N1 influenza strains. Furthermore, the ability of an influenza virus to replicate in the absence of protease is thought to be a critical determinant of pathogenicity in animal models; the 1918 strain was able to replicate equally well in the absence or presence of trypsin in vitro

The age group most affected by this were persons 15-34 Many of these people died within hours from massive sepsis and resultant hemodynamic shock. They were healthy on minute and orthostatic and hypoxic draining in fluid filled lungs hours later. Of the 20 million that died, many are thought to have died because of secondary bacterial infections. We have antibiotics now, but how many ventilators does your nearest ICU have? A moderate size level 2 hospital may be capable of ventilating 20-50 adult patients and 20 NICU patients at max.


----------



## Javin (Aug 18, 2011)

drfacefixer said:


> Actually the naming in virology is well developed. Epecially in orthymyxoviridae since its been the focus of more viral research than any other. THe confusion is that there is common names associated with substrains which are varients caused by the genetic drift.


I'll just have to disagree with you here. Perhaps you'd prefer to classify your virus with the ICTV system (http://www.ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp?version=2012&bhcp=1)? Or maybe the Baltimore? (http://www.web-books.com/MoBio/Free/Ch1E2.htm)? While these are the two most common classification systems, they both still classify viruses by observable characteristics (what kind of disease do they cause? How do they replicate? Who are their hosts?) I shouldn't have to point out the glaring flaw in this sort of system. It's the kind of system science used for centuries that kept taxonomists confused about the raccoon, saying it was most closely related to dogs, cats, badgers, and weasels before finally settling on the bear once science allowed it to be examined at the molecular level. Phenotype classification is primitive. It just is. It's precisely because of phenotyping that nobody ever made the connection between cow pox and small pox (host/disease phenotypes: one only effected cows mildly, while the other devastated humans) until someone else finally observed that milkmaids didn't get small pox, and suddenly a light-bulb went on. Continuing to use phenotypes instead of using modern technology to far more accurately map viruses at a genetic level - even as primitive as their DNA is - is, in my strong opinion, a bad idea. This is how we end up in debates about whether the Spanish Flu is more closely related to the common flu or a bird flu.

Counter points:



drfacefixer said:


> 1 The influenza strains are are not the last years strains. They are monitored by a network of surveillance labs world wide that actually collect and identify circulating viruses and monitor for the next significant change in the virus. This is done on a very strict timeline which allows time for preparation and attenuation of the virus as well as manufacturing in able to get it out before the next season starts. Typically the drifts are initially seen in east Asia which allow time for monitoring before we see the virus here.


I apologize for oversimplifying my point. But the point still stands. The vaccines will never be for the most current strain. Only for those that they have previously been recognized, isolated, and the vaccine altered to impact.(Again, only hitting 3-4 of the numerous mutants out there).



drfacefixer said:


> 2. Once a manufacturing process of a drug or vaccine has been passed by the FDA, the requirements are that samples are tested for quality assurance. The safety trials do not need to be repeated each and every year, because the trials of the current method used in the manufacturing process took into account the collection, processing, attenutation or isolation of the antigens and the manufacturing. How silly would it be if we were just finishing our 10 year long term clinical trial for 2003's vaccine so we could finally release it to the public in 2014? New studies are being done all the time and efficacy and adverse reaction collection for each vaccine is nonstop. The flu-mist was heavily studied in clinic trials prior to its release because it was a new live vaccine with a new delivery method and different adjuvants. There are different trials for the use of cold adaptation, primary chicken kidney, and live reassortments using master strains.


I would ask, "how silly would it be to inject yourself with an untested variation of a vaccine for the purposes of having a 56% chance of being less inconvenienced, should you be exposed to that particular strain?"
The fact is that the mutations of the virus itself can alter the vaccine dramatically. What if the mutation actually causes GB in the general population? What if it causes MS? What if the virus itself has dangerous genetic coding that isn't "turned off" by killing the virus (take a look at how Genetically Modified Foods are created to see how a little virus DNA that's not even in a live virus can alter the genes of a host) or perhaps the genetics can hose you with the modified live formulas? It's about risk vs. gain. Risk: Debilitating disease for the rest of your life, or death. Gain: 56% chance to avoid the sniffles.

Who do you think does what very little testing that is done on these vaccines? The FDA? Independent 3rd parties? Of course not. It's companies like PPDI (http://www.ppdi.com/Services/Laboratories/Vaccines-and-Biologics-Labs.aspx) who are actually in the business of producing the vaccines. Once the vaccines go into "phase IV testing" they're actually already approved. WE are the phase IV test. For a 56% chance to avoid the sniffles, sorry, I'll pass.



drfacefixer said:


> 3. Deaths are only one part of the picture. Why are people on here even concerned about this virus? oh yeah, because they tend to hit a antigenic shift every few decades and wipe out scores of people. Don't discount artificially inflating a death toll because H3N2 was an outlier and more virulent strain one year out of many. That is the entire reason why people fear this virus. For many years its not a big deal and then one year families are cut in half by it.
> As for the morbidity you didn't mention.
> ■Influenza epidemics generally disproportionately affect elderly persons, with the highest rates of morbidity and mortality in this group . In a study of the National Hospital Discharge Survey database, hospitalization rates for pneumonia increased by 20 percent from 1988-1990 to 2000-2002 for patients aged 65 to 85 years . In addition, the risk of death during a hospitalization was 50 percent higher if the diagnosis was pneumonia compared with 10 other common reasons for admission in the elderly population. The risk of pneumonia in this age group is increased in patients with comorbid conditions, such as chronic cardiac and pulmonary diseases or diabetes
> ■Excess hospitalizations for patients with chronic diseases who acquire influenza infection range from approximately 20 to more than 1000 per 100,000 individuals, with the highest rates occurring in those less than five and more than 64 years of age. Similar findings were noted in a retrospective cohort study of women under the age of 65 with and without chronic medical conditions. Rates of hospitalization for acute cardiopulmonary events and mortality were higher during the influenza season and the presence of other comorbidities increased the risk of hospitalization and death.
> ■Influenza vaccination was associated with a decrease in hospitalizations for cardiac disease and cerebrovascular disease among a large cohort of patients 65 years and older from three managed care groups compared to members who were not vaccinated . The mortality rate from all causes was also significantly lower among the vaccinated group


Unfortunately, here you rely on observational studies to prove some sort of causation. Any real scientist knows that correlation does not prove causation, and that observational studies are absolutely trash. These studies are not clinical, and are pointless, and this kind of pseudo-science has gained more popularity lately amongst those that claim to be scientists. It absolutely sickens me. 
Is someone who regularly gets vaccinated more likely to live a healthy lifestyle? Less likely to smoke? More likely to exercise?

For instance, let's look at the last "observational" study you posted. They even say right in the results: "At base line, vaccinated subjects were older and had a greater overall burden of illness and higher rates of health care use. Unvaccinated subjects, however, were more likely to have been given a diagnosis of dementia or stroke." They're pointing out the confounding variables right in the beginning. Vaccinated subjects were indeed older (by a very small amount) but tended to have a much higher rate of disease. 3% higher rates of heart disease, almost 5% higher for lung disease, 4% for diabetes, almost 10% higher rates of hypertension... I could go on. But in spite of these confounding variables, they ALSO had almost a 25% higher probability of having gone to the doctor. This ALONE could increase their survival rates. Now let's look at Table 2 of the study.

Despite only 0.9% of the unvaccinated being hospitalized for pneumonia or influenza (vs. the 0.6% of those vaccinated - so vaccines appear to be about 33.33% effective?) they counted anyone who died of congestive heart failure, cardiac arrest, or cerebrovascular disease!

Are you kidding me with this? Diet ALONE could account for these numbers, and who is more likely to watch their diets? Someone who regularly visits the doctor, because they're regularly "ill", and regularly gets vaccinated (which is an interesting correlation of its own) or someone who doesn't? These are called "confounding variables" and are PRECISELY why studies like this are absolute bunk. I can do an observational study to prove that owning a sports car causes baldness, so long as I ignore the fact that you're more likely to be older if you own a sports car.

I can't even debate antigenic shift when you're backing the argument with grossly misinterpreted data.



drfacefixer said:


> 4. Your natural immunity is being challenged by the vaccination because you are exposed to the antigens or live virus same as you would had you contracted a wild type virus. There is no need to dodge any fact here.


Gotta stop you here. No scientist or doctor, vaccine pusher or not, will back that claim with any sort of seriousness. It's nowhere near "the same".

http://jcm.asm.org/content/40/5/1733.full
"Subjects younger than 9 years old who had received MV vaccination without a past history of measles possessed significantly lower levels of NT antibodies against MV than did those who got the antibody through natural infection at the same age."



drfacefixer said:


> As for the 1918 strain,
> Scientists used reverse genetics to create an influenza virus with all eight gene segments of the 1918 pandemic strain in order to study its virulence in animal models.  After infection, the 1918 strain produced 39,000 times more virus particles in the lungs of mice compared with more contemporary H1N1 influenza strains. Furthermore, the ability of an influenza virus to replicate in the absence of protease is thought to be a critical determinant of pathogenicity in animal models; the 1918 strain was able to replicate equally well in the absence or presence of trypsin in vitro
> 
> The age group most affected by this were persons 15-34 Many of these people died within hours from massive sepsis and resultant hemodynamic shock. They were healthy on minute and orthostatic and hypoxic draining in fluid filled lungs hours later. Of the 20 million that died, many are thought to have died because of secondary bacterial infections. We have antibiotics now, but how many ventilators does your nearest ICU have? A moderate size level 2 hospital may be capable of ventilating 20-50 adult patients and 20 NICU patients at max.


Yep. It's scary shit. No doubt about it. Too bad the yearly flu vaccine will do nothing to stop it if it rears its ugly head again. Just like the swine flu, bird flu, polio, small pox, etc. you'll have to be specifically vaccinated for it (on top of your yearly flu vaccine) if an epidemic breaks out.


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

I think I am pretty much allergic to needles, with that and little trust in the govt. I think I will wait until I'm on my death bed, whoops I am 59 years old, I think that death bed applies now. Oh well still no shot for me


----------



## Javin (Aug 18, 2011)

helicopter5472 said:


> I think I am pretty much allergic to needles, with that and little trust in the govt. I think I will wait until I'm on my death bed, whoops I am 59 years old, I think that death bed applies now. Oh well still no shot for me


*heh heh* Don't get me started in my "trust" for the government. I generally start with the assumption that anything they say is a lie based on greed, then look for evidence to the contrary.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Current classification of influenza and most all viruses are in done in realtime PCR these days and classified by thier genetic materials. Your days of weasels and badgers belong to biology. Dammit Er is paging again. Ill have to add later. hold on to that thought.


----------



## Javin (Aug 18, 2011)

drfacefixer said:


> Current classification of influenza and most all viruses are in done in realtime PCR these days and classified by thier genetic materials. Your days of weasels and badgers belong to biology. Dammit Er is paging again. Ill have to add later. hold on to that thought.


If it were actually still on track with the original question/debate, you'd have to clarify that for me. My understanding of the qPCR machines that we used at NAMRU-3 is that they basically just rapidly duplicated the genes that were placed in them. We would _then _use _that_ increased volume of DNA to do DNA fingerprinting through different methods (at the time I was there, they still used the old-school gels). While this is useful for strain typing and finding genetic relationships between viruses, I can't find anything anywhere saying that this is used for the actual classification of viruses (given that I've been out of the field for the past 13 years, I suppose it's possible, if not widely used yet). Not that this actually has anything to do with the argument at hand. The initial point was simply that two viruses in the same surface antigen classification (H1N1 - which has nothing to do with qPCR) are not necessarily even remotely related to each other. Which still has nothing to do with the overarching point that the _gains from influenza vaccinations are nowhere near the risks_.

I'm not against vaccines as a general rule. Hell, I'd STILL get my regular rabies vaccine if I had access to it (again, cost versus gain) but I simply, and firmly believe that the influenza vaccine doesn't win out on that scale.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Let me start off by saying that I'm not trying to shoot you down - I think this can be beneficial for those reading without someone having to be an "winner". We both bring something to the table. Honestly, I didn't remember that I was taught by the Baltimore system and ended up doing some review which is beneficial. Maybe together we can all learn and those unfamiliar virology or medicine may too instead of getting a gloss over and ending up polarized with unclear info. 

I was originally taught the Baltimore classification by one of the virologist featured in the book the hot zone. The classification breaks viruses down by its nucleic acid - whether it's double stranded, single stranded, DNA, RNA, positive or negative sense. This is far from being based on phenotypic classification as biology and microbiology used to do. ICTV keeps with the familiar Kingdom, Order, phylum classification. However, viruses are still categorized by its morphological characteristics - its nucleic acid, envolope, protein coat, its reproductive enzymes, ect… there are very few that still even come close to retaining naming characteristics based on the disease they cause. Viruses are too new a discovery to have as many mishaps and renaming as microbiology and biology (which were named historically looking for branch points in evolution) We didn’t have a way of even visualizing viruses until the invention of the electron microscope. The discover of DNA is barely over 50 years old. PCR which is the backbone of virus identification wasn’t invented until 1983 and took years for it to become a standard. The naming classifications came about in the 1990's (where as biology taxonomy is considered on of the oldest professions dating back to 1500 - 3000BC). Virology is a seriously young field compared most others, but one with amazing jumps in technology. Currently, Viruses are identified in a similar way that you stated : with PCR amplification and particle identification. Microarrays have taken the place of gels, and antibody labeling of known virus greatly speed up this process. Although, as you know few facilities, are equipped to do this much with viruses. 
While we are on the subject of new comings in virology, Any belief that the 1918 flu or even HIV were manmade bioweapons lack serious credibility since any person with the understanding of what is daily done in this field can look back and see all the pieces of institutional knowledge that had to come together to get where we are today. It's like saying that the government had Tv's in 1804, but decided to secretly release the technology in the 1940s, since they moved on to developing time machines. (not directed at you Javin)

The original naming I was referring to was the nomenclature of the virus, not the taxonomy of the virus world. I was talking about conventional nomenclature. For influenza virus isolates requires connotation of the influenza virus type, the host species (omitted in the case of human origin), the geographical site, serial number, and year of isolation. For influenza virus type A, the haemagglutinin and neuraminidase subtypes are added in brackets. One of the parental avian strains of the current outbreaks of H5N1 of Asian lineage was isolated from a goose in the Chinese province, Guangdong: accordingly, it is designated A/goose/Guangdong/1/96 (H5N1) (Xu 1999) while the isolate originating from the Þrst-documented human case of Asian lineage H5N1 infection from Hong Kong (Claas 1998) is referred to as A/HK/156/97 (H5N1).

There are a lot of great resources out there for learning in this field. Plotkins Vaccine book is a top reference of safety and development as well as measures of prevention for future pandemics. For influenza specifically, you can freely download the influenzareport2006 from influenzareport.com. PM me if you want any specific chapters of the book.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Javin
> 
> "how silly would it be to inject yourself with an untested variation of a vaccine for the purposes of having a 56% chance of being less inconvenienced. It's about risk vs. gain. Risk: Debilitating disease for the rest of your life, or death. Gain: 56% chance to avoid the sniffles.


This was exactly my thought when I posted the thread about giving my daughter Tamiflu. Its proven to shorten the course of the flu (in her case by 3.4 days. With this years flu, she would likely get better without it.[although it was intense body aches, fevers high as 103, inability to walk, and vomiting; I wish it were just the sniffles] The medication is really a matter of shortening the misery of the flu at the expense of possible side effects. With this medication I didn't like the potential risks and thought that they may outweigh the benefits of shortening the infection. With the vaccine, the risk of getting GB has be 0.46 per million vaccinations - A total of 802 cases between 1990 and 2009. Those odds don't look that bad even if I was only getting the flu for my own selfish reasons.

The benefits of me getting vaccinated, is that:

I lessen the probability that I will spread it to my family, my patients, my coworkers, the more susceptible elderly, my church, on and on and on. Even at 56%, that cuts out more than half the size of the reservoir for virus spread and transmissibly of the flu for this season. With less infections, one of the major pathways for genetic variation Is greatly mitigated. The benefit is not just for the one person vaccinated. There is a fair amount of built in altruism in vaccination.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

> Who do you think does what very little testing that is done on these vaccines? The FDA? Independent 3rd parties? Of course not. It's companies like PPDI (http://www.ppdi.com/Services/Laboratories/Vaccines-and-Biologics-Labs.aspx) who are actually in the business of producing the vaccines. Once the vaccines go into "phase IV testing" they're actually already approved.


You are right - After phase 3, the vaccines are approved and phase 4 is optional. However, in development, the CBER - an arm of the FDA tests and assigns potency. In addition to pyrogen testing, general safety testing (abnormal toxicity testing) is performed. This testing is required only for vaccines with product-specific safety tests and is performed in laboratory animals by injecting mice and guinea pigs and primates and assessing the animals for distress. There is currently no alternative for abnormal toxicity testing. Vero cell assays, which are extremely sensitive to toxins, and assays that measure enzymatic activity of toxins are used as well, but animal models are required so that abnormalities outside the realm of expected can be addressed. Vaccine production has a tremendous safety record once you get past the first early years. They aren't benign - Neither is medication, herbals, or supplements.

I'm right there with you on some vaccines. I chose to not have the smallpox vaccine (for health concerns personal to me). But the threat of small pox is now almost totally related to bio warfare anyways.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

> 4. Your natural immunity is being challenged by the vaccination because you are exposed to the antigens or live virus same as you would had you contracted a wild type virus. There is no need to dodge any fact here.
> Gotta stop you here. No scientist or doctor, vaccine pusher or not, will back that claim with any sort of seriousness. It's nowhere near "the same".


Again, we are on the same page, I'm just a microlevel under you. Antigens are still being prepared by dendritic cells, presented to MHC complexes and sloppy genetic variation is conducted to produce antibodies for the antigen. What happens on a macrolevel in the immune system is different between some vaccines and a wild type infection.(as you referenced) Titer levels will be different and b cell memory varies widely with vaccines. I probably would have had high titers if I had this years flu, where as my titers are probably low now - but were present to a level that protected me from strain my daughter tested positive to. You could chalk it up to a fluke of my own immune system, but all my children and my wife failed to get sick as did my coworkers. It's not a sample size to base a study off of, but I'm thankful for the vaccines help this season.

If I post a study, It is not a study that I simply googled to bolster my position. These are either Level I or II studies that are peer reviewed from major institutions and are now the backbone of hospitals and joint commission policies. A lot of these are from uptodate, Mdconsult, knowledge update and various other liturature alert services that scrutinize the vast amount of literature available in multiple fields. There is an entire arm of medicine called Computational medicine and bioinframatics which deal in the statistic analysis and layout of study designs. If you ever have the luxury of trying to get a study approved through IRB at a major institution, you will know what I'm talking about. If you aren't used to reviewing med lit, then what you may deem as flaws are usually accounted for in statistical analysis that remove confounding variables out of the data pools.


----------

