There are good and valid reasons to get the annual seasonal flu shot,
especially if you have an underlying medical condition such as asthma,
heart disease, or a weakened immune system.
But, for
the vast majority of healthy people (under the age of 65), there are
also good and valid reasons NOT to get the annual influenza shot.
Although some are distrustful of all vaccines, there are specific
reasons to be wary of the influenza vaccine;
these include:
• Complications related to the flu shot. Many people report feeling sick after getting the flu shot, and children have been reported to suffer from febrile seizures. Reports of narcolepsy and adverse reactions to the flu shot appear to be on the rise.
• The flu shot is not entirely effective.
You can still get the flu, even if you are vaccinated. So, while you
incur the risks for adverse side effects you may still get the flu.
* The effectiveness of the anti-flu treatment Tamiflu has been called into question,
and it appears that it does not lessen hospital stays. Further it
appears some of the results of the trials were intentionally withheld
when they painted a picture of doing exactly the opposite of the
intended affect. There was one trial that seemed to suggest that
Tamiflu lessened the ability of the immune system to fight influenza.
• Lack of legal recourse (civil) especially in the US if you are harmed by the flu shot. A
US Supreme Court decision (BRUESEWITZ et al. v . WYETH LLC) sided with
vaccine makers in a case involving a Pennsylvania girl who was denied a
claim in vaccine court and was not allowed for file a claim in civil
court. The fact is that if you lose your case in “vaccine court” you
will have no further legal recourse. Some, including Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor,
argue that there are now no serious consequences for vaccine
manufacturers if they produce a faulty product and that no other
industry in America has such a comprehensive “get out of jail free”
card.
• Most healthy people do not require hospitalization for the flu, even though suffering from the flu is uncomfortable.
• Washing your hands frequently, eating healthy, and getting plenty of sleep are very good ways to avoid getting the flu.
• The majority of health care providers (approximately 60%) choose NOT to get the flu shot every year. Even
the risk of termination of their job is not great enough of a threat to
convince them to risk getting the flu shot. [ Edit note: in 2012, the
numbers have improved. One study shows that 60% + of health care
providers are now getting the flu shot. But, this improvement has
happened after employers threatened termination for non-compliance.
The fact that so many health care providers are still leery of getting
the flu shot speaks volumes. ]
• Recommendations for getting the flu shot vary widely from country to country. For example, most countries in Europe only recommend those aged 65 or over get the flu shot (with no underlying medical condition).
• The odds of dying from the flu are minuscule.
The CDC’s numbers for mortality are suspect, at best. Influenza is
grouped with pneumonia statistics, thus blurring any meaningful
comparisons. But, even the CDC admits that most deaths occur among the
elderly population, yet still insist that everyone (over 6 months of
age) get the flu shot. The is especially at odds with reality, given
that pediatric deaths associated with flu are now at historically low levels.
• Valid
reasons to mistrust government and pharmaceutical pronouncements,
including the influence of money in the political process. The recent case of trial tests of the antibiotic drug “Trovan” on African children,
allegedly without parental consent, illustrates problems with the
industry. Recent news reports about past horrors amplify the point. *
• Valid reasons to mistrust media outlets.
Many newspapers, web sites, and television news programs are beholden
to vast pharmaceutical advertising dollars. Anyone who questions the
necessity of flu shots is instantly branded a kook or “dangerous.” An
outlet that does not follow the party line risks losing advertising
dollars to other programs that are not so choosy about what they
publish.
• Not all flu shot formulas are the same. Risks vary by formula. The nasal flu shot, Flumist, contains a live, albeit weakened, influenza virus.
So,
we will continue to remain skeptical of the CDC's blanket
recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot.
As with all medical decisions, you should ask your doctor if you should get the flu shot. But, also ask him/her if they have gotten the flu shot themselves.
Hopefully they will be honest with you.
See also: Flu Shots: Panacea or Propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
*AP IMPACT: Past medical testing on humans revealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022700988.html
Showing posts with label flu vaccine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flu vaccine. Show all posts
Friday, August 16, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Flu Season Appears To Be Ebbing, 4222 cases reported, but flu scare marches on
The influenza (“flu”) season appears to be ebbing. For the week ending Jan 5, there were 4,222 laboratory confirmed cases reported to the CDC (source: FluView http://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/fluportaldashboard.html).
Out of a US population of 312 million, your chances of getting the flu are approaching zero.
But, the drumbeat of the flu scare marches on.
Approximately 130 million doses of the flu vaccine have been administered. Millions of prescriptions for antivirals, like Tamiflu, have been written (even though the effectiveness this treatment has been called into question).
And, although nearly 27,500 people went to the hospital for flu-like symptoms, only 1/6 actually had the flu, so the vast majority of these symptoms were for something else.
By the numbers --
Laboratory confirmed cases reported to the CDC for the week ending Jan 5, 2013:
A (subtyping not performed) 1,550
A (H3) 1,783
A (H1) 0
B 853
B 853
2009 H1N1 36
H3N2v 0
Total: 4,222
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Coming soon: Flu Hysteria redux: H2N2. Calls for pre-vaccination for nonexistent threat
BBC reports that Dr. Gary Nabel and colleagues at the Vaccine Research Center (US) say that H2N2 poses a risk for a pandemic and that world governments should start a preemptive vaccine program now.
They suggest a worldwide vaccine program despite the fact that H2N2 does not currently pose a threat.
However, there was a major "oopsie" in 2004-2005, when "3,700 test kits of the 1957 H2N2 virus were accidentally spread around the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H2N2
http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00229
The full BBC report is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12691894
Excerpts:
"The US authors say immunity to the H2N2 flu strain is very low in people under the age of 50. But a safe vaccine already exists after an H2N2 outbreak in the 1950s and '60s. They say that vaccinating now could save billions of dollars if a pandemic does develop."
"Between 2003 and 2007 they examined levels of immunity to H2N2 among a small group of 90 people.
"Our study suggests that people under the age of 50 have little or no immunity, and resistance dramatically increases for those older than 50. This was also the case for the 2009 H1N1."
They argue that the vaccine developed in the 1950s would still work today and that governments should use this to develop a pre-emptive vaccination programme.
"One approach would be to manufacture the vaccine licensed in 1957 and immunise enough of the world's population to provide 'herd immunity' to the rest.
"This could be achieved by a 'one-time' campaign to immunise most of the adult population worldwide - for example, as part of standard seasonal flu vaccinations - accompanied by an ongoing programme to administer the vaccine to children."
Cheaper option
The authors say this would be a much cheaper option than stockpiling the vaccine or waiting for a pandemic to strike before boosting production.
"Another major influenza pandemic is likely to cost far more and create a much greater health burden than a well-planned pre-emptive programme.
"The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that a pandemic outbreak costs the United States between $71 billion and $167 billion."
Pretty amazing numbers being thrown around. Common sense seems to dictate that we spend millions now to save billions later. However, inquiring minds want to know which companies hold the patents for these vaccines? Somebody call Congress!
They suggest a worldwide vaccine program despite the fact that H2N2 does not currently pose a threat.
However, there was a major "oopsie" in 2004-2005, when "3,700 test kits of the 1957 H2N2 virus were accidentally spread around the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H2N2
http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00229
The full BBC report is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12691894
Excerpts:
"The US authors say immunity to the H2N2 flu strain is very low in people under the age of 50. But a safe vaccine already exists after an H2N2 outbreak in the 1950s and '60s. They say that vaccinating now could save billions of dollars if a pandemic does develop."
"Between 2003 and 2007 they examined levels of immunity to H2N2 among a small group of 90 people.
"Our study suggests that people under the age of 50 have little or no immunity, and resistance dramatically increases for those older than 50. This was also the case for the 2009 H1N1."
They argue that the vaccine developed in the 1950s would still work today and that governments should use this to develop a pre-emptive vaccination programme.
"One approach would be to manufacture the vaccine licensed in 1957 and immunise enough of the world's population to provide 'herd immunity' to the rest.
"This could be achieved by a 'one-time' campaign to immunise most of the adult population worldwide - for example, as part of standard seasonal flu vaccinations - accompanied by an ongoing programme to administer the vaccine to children."
Cheaper option
The authors say this would be a much cheaper option than stockpiling the vaccine or waiting for a pandemic to strike before boosting production.
"Another major influenza pandemic is likely to cost far more and create a much greater health burden than a well-planned pre-emptive programme.
"The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that a pandemic outbreak costs the United States between $71 billion and $167 billion."
Pretty amazing numbers being thrown around. Common sense seems to dictate that we spend millions now to save billions later. However, inquiring minds want to know which companies hold the patents for these vaccines? Somebody call Congress!
Monday, March 7, 2011
More evidence why you might not want that flu shot (Hyman, Huff Post)
If you are paying attention, you should know by now that most of the recommendations for getting the flu vaccine are based on hype, hope and hysteria (along with a little industry propaganda, thrown in for good measure). But, Mark Hyman, of Huffington Post, knocks it out of the box, with his blog post: "Flu Shots: Panacea or Propaganda?"
Along with evidence provided by Flu Crazy (see: should you get the flu shot, probably not), Hymans note provides facts that show flu vaccines have NOT been proven to reduce person-to-person transmission of the flu or complications from pneumonia.
Also, research funded by industry paints a glowing picture of flu vaccines (and garners most of the attention), while publicly-funded research does just the opposite (and is widely ignored).
Our (easy) prediction: Hyman will be branded "crazy" and "dangerous." That's what he gets for citing the literature and providing a reasoned, non-hysteric analysis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
Along with evidence provided by Flu Crazy (see: should you get the flu shot, probably not), Hymans note provides facts that show flu vaccines have NOT been proven to reduce person-to-person transmission of the flu or complications from pneumonia.
Also, research funded by industry paints a glowing picture of flu vaccines (and garners most of the attention), while publicly-funded research does just the opposite (and is widely ignored).
Our (easy) prediction: Hyman will be branded "crazy" and "dangerous." That's what he gets for citing the literature and providing a reasoned, non-hysteric analysis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
Sunday, March 6, 2011
China Vaccine Regulators Are Now WHO Certified
China's national regulatory authority, the "State Food and Drug Administration" (SFDA), has been found to meet requirements for a functional vaccine regulatory system, per published indicators. According to a report by the World Health Organization, Chinese vaccine manufacturers will now be eligible for prequalification of specific products. The addition of Chinese vaccines to the world market is expected to "have a significant, beneficial impact on global supply of vaccines of assured quality."
http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_regulation/nra_china_functional/en/
Excerpts from the report:
"A WHO-led team concluded today, at the end of a comprehensive review by experts from six countries, that the national regulatory authority of China, the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), and affiliated institutions, meet WHO published indicators for a functional vaccine regulatory system."
"Effective regulatory oversight of vaccines is essential since vaccines are used on a population-wide basis, and are usually given to healthy infants. Furthermore, vaccines are produced in only a small number of countries and often exported from the country of manufacture to many countries. Countries importing vaccines need to be confident that the national regulatory authority in the country of origin is competent in its oversight. WHO has established benchmarks that define international expectations for a functional vaccine regulatory system. WHO also conducts regular external audits of national regulatory authorities, particularly in vaccine-producing countries, to ensure that the regulatory systems meet the necessary standards, and that the system is maintained and functions in a sustainable way."
"With a regulatory system for vaccines documented to comply with international standards, vaccine manufacturers in China are now eligible to apply for Prequalification of specific products. WHO prequalification, which is a guarantee that a specific vaccine meets international standards of quality, safety and efficacy, is a prerequisite for manufacturers to supply to countries through United Nations procuring agencies. Each application for prequalification of a specific product is independently evaluated by WHO. It is expected that vaccines from China could be prequalified 1-2 years from now. The eventual ability of United Nations procuring agencies to source vaccines from Chinese manufacturers is expected to have a significant, beneficial impact on global supply of vaccines of assured quality."
http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_regulation/nra_china_functional/en/
Excerpts from the report:
"A WHO-led team concluded today, at the end of a comprehensive review by experts from six countries, that the national regulatory authority of China, the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), and affiliated institutions, meet WHO published indicators for a functional vaccine regulatory system."
"Effective regulatory oversight of vaccines is essential since vaccines are used on a population-wide basis, and are usually given to healthy infants. Furthermore, vaccines are produced in only a small number of countries and often exported from the country of manufacture to many countries. Countries importing vaccines need to be confident that the national regulatory authority in the country of origin is competent in its oversight. WHO has established benchmarks that define international expectations for a functional vaccine regulatory system. WHO also conducts regular external audits of national regulatory authorities, particularly in vaccine-producing countries, to ensure that the regulatory systems meet the necessary standards, and that the system is maintained and functions in a sustainable way."
"With a regulatory system for vaccines documented to comply with international standards, vaccine manufacturers in China are now eligible to apply for Prequalification of specific products. WHO prequalification, which is a guarantee that a specific vaccine meets international standards of quality, safety and efficacy, is a prerequisite for manufacturers to supply to countries through United Nations procuring agencies. Each application for prequalification of a specific product is independently evaluated by WHO. It is expected that vaccines from China could be prequalified 1-2 years from now. The eventual ability of United Nations procuring agencies to source vaccines from Chinese manufacturers is expected to have a significant, beneficial impact on global supply of vaccines of assured quality."
Monday, February 28, 2011
Should you get the flu shot? Probably not
There are good and valid reasons to get the annual seasonal flu shot, especially if you have an underlying medical condition such as asthma, heart disease, or a weakened immune system.
But, for the vast majority of healthy people (under the age of 65), there are also good and valid reasons NOT to get the annual influenza shot. Although some are distrustful of all vaccines, there are specific reasons to be wary of the influenza vaccine;
these include:
• Complications related to the flu shot. Many people report feeling sick after getting the flu shot, and children have been reported to suffer from febrile seizures. Reports of narcolepsy and adverse reactions to the flu shot appear to be on the rise.
• The flu shot is not entirely effective. You can still get the flu, even if you are vaccinated. So, while you incur the risks for adverse side effects you may still get the flu.
* The effectiveness of the anti-flu treatment Tamiflu has been called into question, and it appears that it does not lessen hospital stays. Further it appears some of the results of the trials were intentionally withheld when they painted a picture of doing exactly the opposite of the intended affect. There was one trial that seemed to suggest that Tamiflu lessened the ability of the immune system to fight influenza.
• Lack of legal recourse (civil) especially in the US if you are harmed by the flu shot. A US Supreme Court decision (BRUESEWITZ et al. v . WYETH LLC) sided with vaccine makers in a case involving a Pennsylvania girl who was denied a claim in vaccine court and was not allowed for file a claim in civil court. The fact is that if you lose your case in “vaccine court” you will have no further legal recourse. Some, including Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, argue that there are now no serious consequences for vaccine manufacturers if they produce a faulty product and that no other industry in America has such a comprehensive “get out of jail free” card.
• Most healthy people do not require hospitalization for the flu, even though suffering from the flu is uncomfortable.
• Washing your hands frequently, eating healthy, and getting plenty of sleep are very good ways to avoid getting the flu.
• The majority of health care providers (approximately 60%) choose NOT to get the flu shot every year. Even the risk of termination of their job is not great enough of a threat to convince them to risk getting the flu shot. [ Edit note: in 2012, the numbers have improved. One study shows that 60% + of health care providers are now getting the flu shot. But, this improvement has happened after employers threatened termination for non-compliance. The fact that so many health care providers are still leery of getting the flu shot speaks volumes. ]
• Recommendations for getting the flu shot vary widely from country to country. For example, most countries in Europe only recommend those aged 65 or over get the flu shot (with no underlying medical condition).
• The odds of dying from the flu are minuscule. The CDC’s numbers for mortality are suspect, at best. Influenza is grouped with pneumonia statistics, thus blurring any meaningful comparisons. But, even the CDC admits that most deaths occur among the elderly population, yet still insist that everyone (over 6 months of age) get the flu shot. The is especially at odds with reality, given that pediatric deaths associated with flu are now at historically low levels.
• Valid reasons to mistrust government and pharmaceutical pronouncements, including the influence of money in the political process. The recent case of trial tests of the antibiotic drug “Trovan” on African children, allegedly without parental consent, illustrates problems with the industry. Recent news reports about past horrors amplify the point. *
• Valid reasons to mistrust media outlets. Many newspapers, web sites, and television news programs are beholden to vast pharmaceutical advertising dollars. Anyone who questions the necessity of flu shots is instantly branded a kook or “dangerous.” An outlet that does not follow the party line risks losing advertising dollars to other programs that are not so choosy about what they publish.
• Not all flu shot formulas are the same. Risks vary by formula. The nasal flu shot, Flumist, contains a live, albeit weakened, influenza virus.
So, we will continue to remain skeptical of the CDC's blanket recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot.
As with all medical decisions, you should ask your doctor if you should get the flu shot. But, also ask him/her if they have gotten the flu shot themselves.
Hopefully they will be honest with you.
See also: Flu Shots: Panacea or Propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
*AP IMPACT: Past medical testing on humans revealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022700988.html
But, for the vast majority of healthy people (under the age of 65), there are also good and valid reasons NOT to get the annual influenza shot. Although some are distrustful of all vaccines, there are specific reasons to be wary of the influenza vaccine;
these include:
• Complications related to the flu shot. Many people report feeling sick after getting the flu shot, and children have been reported to suffer from febrile seizures. Reports of narcolepsy and adverse reactions to the flu shot appear to be on the rise.
• The flu shot is not entirely effective. You can still get the flu, even if you are vaccinated. So, while you incur the risks for adverse side effects you may still get the flu.
* The effectiveness of the anti-flu treatment Tamiflu has been called into question, and it appears that it does not lessen hospital stays. Further it appears some of the results of the trials were intentionally withheld when they painted a picture of doing exactly the opposite of the intended affect. There was one trial that seemed to suggest that Tamiflu lessened the ability of the immune system to fight influenza.
• Lack of legal recourse (civil) especially in the US if you are harmed by the flu shot. A US Supreme Court decision (BRUESEWITZ et al. v . WYETH LLC) sided with vaccine makers in a case involving a Pennsylvania girl who was denied a claim in vaccine court and was not allowed for file a claim in civil court. The fact is that if you lose your case in “vaccine court” you will have no further legal recourse. Some, including Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, argue that there are now no serious consequences for vaccine manufacturers if they produce a faulty product and that no other industry in America has such a comprehensive “get out of jail free” card.
• Most healthy people do not require hospitalization for the flu, even though suffering from the flu is uncomfortable.
• Washing your hands frequently, eating healthy, and getting plenty of sleep are very good ways to avoid getting the flu.
• The majority of health care providers (approximately 60%) choose NOT to get the flu shot every year. Even the risk of termination of their job is not great enough of a threat to convince them to risk getting the flu shot. [ Edit note: in 2012, the numbers have improved. One study shows that 60% + of health care providers are now getting the flu shot. But, this improvement has happened after employers threatened termination for non-compliance. The fact that so many health care providers are still leery of getting the flu shot speaks volumes. ]
• Recommendations for getting the flu shot vary widely from country to country. For example, most countries in Europe only recommend those aged 65 or over get the flu shot (with no underlying medical condition).
• The odds of dying from the flu are minuscule. The CDC’s numbers for mortality are suspect, at best. Influenza is grouped with pneumonia statistics, thus blurring any meaningful comparisons. But, even the CDC admits that most deaths occur among the elderly population, yet still insist that everyone (over 6 months of age) get the flu shot. The is especially at odds with reality, given that pediatric deaths associated with flu are now at historically low levels.
• Valid reasons to mistrust government and pharmaceutical pronouncements, including the influence of money in the political process. The recent case of trial tests of the antibiotic drug “Trovan” on African children, allegedly without parental consent, illustrates problems with the industry. Recent news reports about past horrors amplify the point. *
• Valid reasons to mistrust media outlets. Many newspapers, web sites, and television news programs are beholden to vast pharmaceutical advertising dollars. Anyone who questions the necessity of flu shots is instantly branded a kook or “dangerous.” An outlet that does not follow the party line risks losing advertising dollars to other programs that are not so choosy about what they publish.
• Not all flu shot formulas are the same. Risks vary by formula. The nasal flu shot, Flumist, contains a live, albeit weakened, influenza virus.
So, we will continue to remain skeptical of the CDC's blanket recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot.
As with all medical decisions, you should ask your doctor if you should get the flu shot. But, also ask him/her if they have gotten the flu shot themselves.
Hopefully they will be honest with you.
See also: Flu Shots: Panacea or Propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
*AP IMPACT: Past medical testing on humans revealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022700988.html
Friday, February 25, 2011
Flu Vaccine Recommendations for UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy
Flu Vaccine Recommendations for UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy
Unlike the US, where the CDC recommends that nearly everyone over 6 months of age get the annual seasonal influenza shot, many other countries only recommend the shot (or, "the jab" as it is known in the UK) for person's aged 60 or older. In fact, most reserve the recommendation for people over 65 (with no underlying medical condition).
The US stands in sharp contrast, where the recommendation is that "everyone 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine each year starting with the 2010-2011 influenza season."
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100224.htm
By contrast, the Europeans suggest that only those with underlying medical conditions (and not as many as in the US) and those over 65 get the shot.
It is not clear what the leading driver is for this disparity. It could be a number of factors, including; influence of the large pharmaceutical companies, legal structures (in the US vaccine makers shielded from civil liability), structural and political reasons, or, perhaps just hysteria.
Source: www.eurosurveillance.org
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V15N44/MERECKIENE_Tab1.jpg
Unlike the US, where the CDC recommends that nearly everyone over 6 months of age get the annual seasonal influenza shot, many other countries only recommend the shot (or, "the jab" as it is known in the UK) for person's aged 60 or older. In fact, most reserve the recommendation for people over 65 (with no underlying medical condition).
The US stands in sharp contrast, where the recommendation is that "everyone 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine each year starting with the 2010-2011 influenza season."
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100224.htm
By contrast, the Europeans suggest that only those with underlying medical conditions (and not as many as in the US) and those over 65 get the shot.
It is not clear what the leading driver is for this disparity. It could be a number of factors, including; influence of the large pharmaceutical companies, legal structures (in the US vaccine makers shielded from civil liability), structural and political reasons, or, perhaps just hysteria.
Source: www.eurosurveillance.org
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V15N44/MERECKIENE_Tab1.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)