Legit Reasons Not to Get a Flu Vaccine

Off Topic
101

[quote]anonym wrote:

If you are STILL scared, consider sucking it up your nose (FluMist nasal spray). Unlike the shots, though, this method utilizes live, albeit attenuated, viruses. While you won’t get the flu from them (they are designed to be inactive at body temp), a runny nose or congestion is a possible side effect, as is a slight risk of passing these symptoms on to someone else if you get too close and sneeze/breath in their direction.[/quote]

I call BS on this. Every time I have gotten the flu since being in the military (except once), it was right after getting the nasal spray flu vaccine. It’s one of those “vaccines” that makes me question what’s really going on here…seems amiss. Why has [is] the government spending all sorts of time and money researching, developing, and utilizing the flu vaccine, when it is a rarely serious sickness, and it can only protect against a VERY limited amount of flu types anyways? Surely, you’d think all that money could be spent on a better cause that would help more people, or even just, you know, NOT BE SPENT in the first place. Radical thinking, huh?

102

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I call BS on this. Every time I have gotten the flu since being in the military (except once), it was right after getting the nasal spray flu vaccine. It’s one of those “vaccines” that makes me question what’s really going on here…seems amiss.[/quote]

And, conversely, when I hear numerous stories from people claiming flu vaccinations gave them the flu despite the widespread consensus by educated professionals that it is not possible, I question what is really going on with that.

This is a line of discussion I am bored with at this point, because no one can offer anything substantial to support their opinion on this. Again, getting ill does not equal getting the flu. Again, having symptoms associated with the flu does not mean you have the flu. Again, the vaccine is no guarantee you won’t get the flu. Again, it takes about two weeks for your body to ramp up antibodies after exposure to the vaccine. Again, the flu has a short incubation period in which you can already be infected, yet feel fine, and get sick soon after receiving the shot.

Et cetera, et cetera. See, all of those ^^^ are scientifically demonstrable, logically valid reasons that are all clearly elucidated in the scientific literature. Tinfoil hat broscience, n=1 anecdotal reports and suspicions rooted in ignorance of the topic don’t quite stack up.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Why has [is] the government spending all sorts of time and money researching, developing, and utilizing the flu vaccine, when it is a rarely serious sickness, and it can only protect against a VERY limited amount of flu types anyways?[/quote]

Why does the government even bother researching seasonal influenza? Is it because protecting public health by monitoring regularly occurring diseases falls specifically within the operational expectations of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention?

I have no idea.

Why do they develop vaccines? Let’s see:

Fluzone is manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, a global division of Sanofi-Aventis group specifically dedicated to vaccine research and production. It’s headquarters are in France.

Afluria is manufactured by CSL Limited, which is based out of Australia.

Fluarix is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline from across the pond.

FluMist is manufactured by MedImmune, LLC, which is owned by AstraZeneca. Also found across the pond.

Obviously, these companies have facilities within the United States, but to suggest that “the government” is responsible for churning out seasonal flu vaccines is a little silly. What ACTUALLY happens is that ~100 countries submit samples of the flu to WHO centers dedicated to influenza monitoring and research (one of which is in the United States). These centers then pick which strains should be prioritized for vaccine development for each country and issue recommendations.

Ultimately, each country is responsible for choosing which strains they want vaccines for. Here, the FDA determines what viruses will be used in vaccines licensed for use in the United States.

But, as we can see, (international) pharmaceutical companies are the ones who actually “develop” these vaccines.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Surely, you’d think all that money could be spent on a better cause that would help more people, or even just, you know, NOT BE SPENT in the first place. Radical thinking, huh?[/quote]

I can think of a dozen different things the government “wastes” money on that I’d rather rant about than flu vaccinations… and I haven’t even read a newspaper in months.

103

lol @ trying to rationalize what the gov’t spends money on.

104

OK, this might deserve its own thread, but here’s something very relevant to the discussion – (I’m not sure if I believe the causal connection…but it’s interesting stuff) –

105

.

106

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

If you are STILL scared, consider sucking it up your nose (FluMist nasal spray). Unlike the shots, though, this method utilizes live, albeit attenuated, viruses. While you won’t get the flu from them (they are designed to be inactive at body temp), a runny nose or congestion is a possible side effect, as is a slight risk of passing these symptoms on to someone else if you get too close and sneeze/breath in their direction.[/quote]

I call BS on this. Every time I have gotten the flu since being in the military (except once), it was right after getting the nasal spray flu vaccine. It’s one of those “vaccines” that makes me question what’s really going on here…seems amiss. Why has [is] the government spending all sorts of time and money researching, developing, and utilizing the flu vaccine, when it is a rarely serious sickness, and it can only protect against a VERY limited amount of flu types anyways? Surely, you’d think all that money could be spent on a better cause that would help more people, or even just, you know, NOT BE SPENT in the first place. Radical thinking, huh?[/quote]

I don’t think the government is behind any covert conspiracy in this case. Flumist was developed by a private company called Aviron which was started with venture capital then stock offerings. I don’t think the gov has had any hand in it’s development. I could be wrong.

107

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
OK, this might deserve its own thread, but here’s something very relevant to the discussion – (I’m not sure if I believe the causal connection…but it’s interesting stuff) –

This is clearly because the people with weak hearts are dying from the shot and not having the opportunity to have a heart attack.

There ya go Derek, now you can call me a conspiracy theorist.

108

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

If you are STILL scared, consider sucking it up your nose (FluMist nasal spray). Unlike the shots, though, this method utilizes live, albeit attenuated, viruses. While you won’t get the flu from them (they are designed to be inactive at body temp), a runny nose or congestion is a possible side effect, as is a slight risk of passing these symptoms on to someone else if you get too close and sneeze/breath in their direction.[/quote]

I call BS on this. Every time I have gotten the flu since being in the military (except once), it was right after getting the nasal spray flu vaccine. It’s one of those “vaccines” that makes me question what’s really going on here…seems amiss. Why has [is] the government spending all sorts of time and money researching, developing, and utilizing the flu vaccine, when it is a rarely serious sickness, and it can only protect against a VERY limited amount of flu types anyways? Surely, you’d think all that money could be spent on a better cause that would help more people, or even just, you know, NOT BE SPENT in the first place. Radical thinking, huh?[/quote]

I don’t think the government is behind any covert conspiracy in this case. Flumist was developed by a private company called Aviron which was started with venture capital then stock offerings. I don’t think the gov has had any hand in it’s development. I could be wrong.[/quote]

Well I stand corrected if that’s the case. That line of thought applies to many government funded programs though. All sorts of capital put into ventures with no big benefit to be gained and such.

109

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

If you are STILL scared, consider sucking it up your nose (FluMist nasal spray). Unlike the shots, though, this method utilizes live, albeit attenuated, viruses. While you won’t get the flu from them (they are designed to be inactive at body temp), a runny nose or congestion is a possible side effect, as is a slight risk of passing these symptoms on to someone else if you get too close and sneeze/breath in their direction.[/quote]

I call BS on this. Every time I have gotten the flu since being in the military (except once), it was right after getting the nasal spray flu vaccine. It’s one of those “vaccines” that makes me question what’s really going on here…seems amiss. Why has [is] the government spending all sorts of time and money researching, developing, and utilizing the flu vaccine, when it is a rarely serious sickness, and it can only protect against a VERY limited amount of flu types anyways? Surely, you’d think all that money could be spent on a better cause that would help more people, or even just, you know, NOT BE SPENT in the first place. Radical thinking, huh?[/quote]

While the vaccine can only protect against a limited amount of flu types, it protects against the ones that are relevant for that year. The majority of people with the vaccine don’t get the flu.
How do you know the government and not a private company is doing the research etc.? This is a serious question. I have no clue.
Even if it were the government it might well be that the economic loss due to people not being able to work nearly a week is bigger than spending on the necessary research.

110

[quote]Xav wrote:
While the vaccine can only protect against a limited amount of flu types, it protects against the ones that are relevant for that year.
[/quote]

it protrects against the flu types that they THINK will be relevant for that year. How do they know why flu types are really going to be relevant? Think about how many months and months it takes to develop, manufacture and distribute the vaccines. You think they’re really actually all that current?

The majority of people without the vaccine don’t get the flu.

111

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:
While the vaccine can only protect against a limited amount of flu types, it protects against the ones that are relevant for that year.
[/quote]

it protrects against the flu types that they THINK will be relevant for that year. How do they know why flu types are really going to be relevant? Think about how many months and months it takes to develop, manufacture and distribute the vaccines. You think they’re really actually all that current?

The majority of people without the vaccine don’t get the flu.[/quote]

Yes I believe they are that current. I’ve got to admit I don’t know the technical details, however predicting the exact flu types isn’t crucial thanks to cross-reactivity of our immune system. However I definitely agree that vaccine mismatch is a possibility.

What’s your point saying that the majority of people don’t get the flu, even without the vaccine? Do you imply that this isn’t a real medical problem?
Worldwide up to 5 million cases and up to 500 000 deaths seems relevant to me.

112

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:
While the vaccine can only protect against a limited amount of flu types, it protects against the ones that are relevant for that year.
[/quote]

it protrects against the flu types that they THINK will be relevant for that year. How do they know why flu types are really going to be relevant? Think about how many months and months it takes to develop, manufacture and distribute the vaccines. You think they’re really actually all that current?

The majority of people without the vaccine don’t get the flu.[/quote]

Your logic is extremely dumb. You make it act like the CDC does not take this into account and doesn’t have data on flu trends.

You got some reading to do. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm

113

[quote]gregron wrote:
I work as a paramedic and am obviously in and out of hospitals all the time. The flu shot is optional for EMS personnel. I’ve had plenty of immunization a and vaccines (especially when I was in the military: small pox, anthrax etc…) but just do not believe in the flu shot and choose not to get it.[/quote]

Did you know that if you don’t believe in something it still exists?

114

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
To everyone that complains about not knowing what is in the vaccine. REALLY.

However you will buy “supplements” that have NO regulation and could contain bat guano for all you know and are fine with that.

Wow[/quote]

/end thread.

115

You said that the majority of people who get the vaccine don’t get the flu and I was just pointing out that the majority of people who don’t get the vaccine also don’t get the flu.

116

[quote]Xav wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:
While the vaccine can only protect against a limited amount of flu types, it protects against the ones that are relevant for that year.
[/quote]

it protrects against the flu types that they THINK will be relevant for that year. How do they know why flu types are really going to be relevant? Think about how many months and months it takes to develop, manufacture and distribute the vaccines. You think they’re really actually all that current?

The majority of people without the vaccine don’t get the flu.[/quote]

Yes I believe they are that current. I’ve got to admit I don’t know the technical details, however predicting the exact flu types isn’t crucial thanks to cross-reactivity of our immune system. However I definitely agree that vaccine mismatch is a possibility.

What’s your point saying that the majority of people don’t get the flu, even without the vaccine? Do you imply that this isn’t a real medical problem?
Worldwide up to 5 million cases and up to 500 000 deaths seems relevant to me.
[/quote]
lololol at 5 million cases world wide… You know that isn’t even 1% of the population, right?

117

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I call BS on this. Every time I have gotten the flu since being in the military (except once), it was right after getting the nasal spray flu vaccine. It’s one of those “vaccines” that makes me question what’s really going on here…seems amiss.[/quote]

And, conversely, when I hear numerous stories from people claiming flu vaccinations gave them the flu despite the widespread consensus by educated professionals that it is not possible, I question what is really going on with that.

This is a line of discussion I am bored with at this point, because no one can offer anything substantial to support their opinion on this. Again, getting ill does not equal getting the flu. Again, having symptoms associated with the flu does not mean you have the flu. Again, the vaccine is no guarantee you won’t get the flu. Again, it takes about two weeks for your body to ramp up antibodies after exposure to the vaccine. Again, the flu has a short incubation period in which you can already be infected, yet feel fine, and get sick soon after receiving the shot.

Et cetera, et cetera. See, all of those ^^^ are scientifically demonstrable, logically valid reasons that are all clearly elucidated in the scientific literature. Tinfoil hat broscience, n=1 anecdotal reports and suspicions rooted in ignorance of the topic don’t quite stack up.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Why has [is] the government spending all sorts of time and money researching, developing, and utilizing the flu vaccine, when it is a rarely serious sickness, and it can only protect against a VERY limited amount of flu types anyways?[/quote]

Why does the government even bother researching seasonal influenza? Is it because protecting public health by monitoring regularly occurring diseases falls specifically within the operational expectations of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention?

I have no idea.

Why do they develop vaccines? Let’s see:

Fluzone is manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, a global division of Sanofi-Aventis group specifically dedicated to vaccine research and production. It’s headquarters are in France.

Afluria is manufactured by CSL Limited, which is based out of Australia.

Fluarix is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline from across the pond.

FluMist is manufactured by MedImmune, LLC, which is owned by AstraZeneca. Also found across the pond.

Obviously, these companies have facilities within the United States, but to suggest that “the government” is responsible for churning out seasonal flu vaccines is a little silly. What ACTUALLY happens is that ~100 countries submit samples of the flu to WHO centers dedicated to influenza monitoring and research (one of which is in the United States). These centers then pick which strains should be prioritized for vaccine development for each country and issue recommendations.

Ultimately, each country is responsible for choosing which strains they want vaccines for. Here, the FDA determines what viruses will be used in vaccines licensed for use in the United States.

But, as we can see, (international) pharmaceutical companies are the ones who actually “develop” these vaccines.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Surely, you’d think all that money could be spent on a better cause that would help more people, or even just, you know, NOT BE SPENT in the first place. Radical thinking, huh?[/quote]

I can think of a dozen different things the government “wastes” money on that I’d rather rant about than flu vaccinations… and I haven’t even read a newspaper in months.[/quote]

Obviously you’re very knowledgeable on this subject, and this is something I’ve wondered…how many types of the flu are generally contained in the vaccine? IIRC, aren’t there hundreds/thousands of different strain floating around at any given time?

You’ve got a lot of good points. And you’re right, there’s any bigger issues with where the government spends its money. With how strongly the gov’t pushes vaccines like this (I can understand things like smallpox and what not, ones that are relatively often serious or fatal), it just frustrates me, like anything else that seems like wasteful spending.

To be fair, isn’t it safe to assume that the vaccines for a constantly and quickly evolving virus like influenza well typically be a step or two behind?

118

The vaccines cover three types of influenza. You’re right in that the vaccines are a step behind, but I agree with anonym completely that it isn’t a waste of money. One of the top ten causes of death in the US is influenza & pneumonia!

People had the same arguments with the smallpox vaccine, saying it was useless for them and friends. At a larger level, it eradicated the disease from this planet. I don’t think we see the benefits of these vaccines at an individual level

119

[quote]opthetha wrote:
Your logic is extremely dumb. You make it act like the CDC does not take this into account and doesn’t have data on flu trends.

You got some reading to do. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm
[/quote]

And what logic would that be? Of course the CDC TRIES to take this into account but still can’t possibly know what strands of the flu will pop up for sure. It’s a guess.

I’m assuming you take issue with the "the majority of people who don’t get the vaccine still don’t get the cold comment? That’s not logic,that’s a fact that I pointed out.

Some reading to do? No way info that the CDC puts out could be biased in any way or influenced by the pharmaceutical companies. lol

[quote]optheta wrote:
Did you know that if you don’t believe in something it still exists?[/quote]

This comment doesn’t make sense. Of coure the shot still exists but, like I said, I still choose not to get it. Your logic here is extremely dumb.

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
To everyone that complains about not knowing what is in the vaccine. REALLY.

However you will buy “supplements” that have NO regulation and could contain bat guano for all you know and are fine with that.

Wow[/quote]

/end thread.[/quote]

Why would that “/thread”? You don’t know that everyone commenting in here buys and uses supplements. Again, your logic is extremely dumb.

120

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm

It’s not secret information. The basics of CDC reasoning are available to the public, including success rate of the vaccine.

Regarding where this thread/argument is at present, frankly many people are making reasonable points. Flu is a major killer of certain groups of people within the United States…plus, each year’s vaccines have a high success rate protecting against the dominant strains of that year.

On a public health basis, the bottom line is that vaccines of all sorts have proven themselves extremely effective.

Then again, you are exposing yourself to unknown factors with each vaccine. Those unknowns may very well add up over time, and the end results may be something unpredictable and unpleasant.

There is not a yes/no answer to the OP’s question. Are you (OP) in a risk group for flu fatality? Are you in a high-exposure group (working in the public, working in a hospital)? If you are in a high exposure group, would getting a flu, and needing perhaps a week off of work or school (in a bad to worst case scenario), affect you that dramatically?

The more yes’ or no’s you answer to the above questions (and similar questions) will lead you to an informed choice on this matter.