OT: Flu shot making the flu worse

Hi All,
First of before I start, I am only talking about one vaccine, not all of them. Each has to be taken on their own merits. No one tell me I am full of s*** because the polio or small pox vaccines do indeed work.
And, I do not consider "industry funded" studies to be scientific research because of the corruption involved.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
--Upton Sinclair
I will also foot note [x] the crap out of what I state.
Okay, so here goes. The scientific evidence is that the flu vaccine does not work very well, if at all [1][2][3][6][7]. My own anecdotal experience is that the vaccine does not work at all.
To those healthy people to seem to think that the vaccine is working, there is an explanation for this. It is called the "Healthy user bias" [4]. It causes "damage the validity of epidemiologic studies" [4]
So now to the main reason I am writing this. The flu shot causes you to be more susceptible to next years flu. Surprise! The mechanism is called "Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)" [5]. And it can become " become life-threatening" [5].
Here is evidence of it happening (note that this study barely squeaked by entrenched financial interests):
Based on the sentinel study of 672 cases and 857 controls, 2008–09 TIV was associated with statistically significant protection against seasonal influenza (odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.33–0.59). In contrast, estimates from the sentinel an d three other observational studies, involving a total of 1,226 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,505 controls, indicated that prior receipt of 2008–09 TIV was associated
with *increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness* during the spring–summer 2009, with estimated risk or odds ratios
ranging from 1.4 to 2.5. Risk of pH1N1 hospitalization was not further increased among vaccinated people when comparing hospitalized to community cases. [7]
And a financial explanation of all this from 2018:
The flu season in North America officially began 5 weeks ago, and the vaccine publicity juggernaut is still picking up steam. Manufacturers are hoping to sell 166 million doses in the US this season. One business group predicts an $8 billion US influenza vaccine market by 2025. (Coherent Market Insights, 1/5/18) The 2016-17 vaccine *increased the risk of H3N2 illness among UK elderly by 68%*, and officials are calling for better vaccines. (Osterholm, NY Times, 1/8/18) Meanwhile, in the absence of any evidence that it would help, officials and ordinary citizens in the US and UK wrangle about flu shot mandates for healthcare workers.[8]
So let all get in line and make Big Pharma and Big Med rich(er)! A little extra mercury and preservatives, along with a live virus that does not protect from the virus in the wild and will make it easier to catch next years virus, is good for ya! Got to love those guys int he marketing department! [9]
-T
I wonder if the good comrade doctor read this?
1. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration)
2. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22895945
Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo. Twenty- eight children over the age of six need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). Eight need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza- like-illness (ILI). We could find no evidence of effect on secondary cases, lower respiratory tract disease, drug prescriptions, otitis media and its consequences and socioeconomic impact. We found weak single-study evidence of effect on school absenteeism by children and caring parents from work
3. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20166072
The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older
4. Healthy user bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias
The healthy user bias is a bias that can damage the validity of epidemiologic studies testing the efficacy of particular therapies or interventions. Specifically, it is a sampling bias: the kind of subjects that voluntarily enroll in a clinical trial and actually follow the experimental regimen are not representative of the general population. They can be expected, on average, to be healthier as they are concerned for their health and are predisposed to follow medical advice, both factors that would aid one's health. In a sense, being healthy or active about one's health is a precondition for becoming a subject of the study, an effect that can appear under other conditions such as studying particular groups of workers (i.e. someone in ill health is unlikely to have a job as manual laborer).
5. Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) occurs when non- neutralizing antiviral proteins facilitate virus entry into host cells, leading to increased infectivity in the cells. Some cells do not have the usual receptors on their surfaces that viruses use to gain entry. The antiviral proteins (i.e., the antibodies) bind to antibody Fc receptors that some of these cells have in the plasma membrane. The viruses bind to the antigen binding site at the other end of the antibody. ADE is common in cells cultured in the laboratory, but rarely occurs in vivo except for dengue virus. This virus can use this mechanism to infect human macrophages, causing a normally mild viral infection to become life-threatening
6. Official doubletalk hides serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k15/rr
Some history: 1960 Nobel Laureate and a primary developer of today’s influenza vaccine, Macfarlane Burnet, didn? ??t think it was worth much. (Br J Path 1936:17:282. Natural History of Infectious Disease 1972, page212)….In 2000 Kenneth Mc Intosh warned that we should not routinely give influenza vaccine to healthy children until multicenter randomized trials were done over several seasons to be sure that it was safe and effective. (Editorial, NEJM 2000;342:225) His advice was ignored….In 2004 a “Seven-Step Recipe” for using the media to boost demand for the vaccine was presented to the National Influenza Vaccine Summit, sponsored by the CDC and the AMA. The recipe included, “…statements of al arm by public health authorities…prediction of dire outcomes from infl uenza… continued reports that influenza is causing severe illness affecting lots of people…repeated urging of influenza vaccination…” (Doshi, BMJ 2005;331:1419) Sound f amiliar?
7. Association between the 2008–09 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine an d Pandemic H1N1 Illness during Spring–Summer 2009: Four Observation al Studies from Canada https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id .1371%2Fjournal.pme d.1000258
8. Official doubletalk hides serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k15/rr
estimates from the sentinel and three other observational studies, involving a total of 1,226 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,505 controls, indicated that prior receipt of 2008–09 TIV was associated with *increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness* during the spring–sum mer 2009, with estimated risk or odds ratios ranging from 1.4 to 2.5
9. Just checking to see if anyone read this far. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
More fun:
Macfarlane Burnet (creator of the flu vaccine): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macfarlane_Burnet
Fearing a repeat of the massive global influenza outbreak that occurred after World War I, Burnet focused the Institute in the search for a vaccine.[60] He first tested the vaccine on a group of medical students, and after a promising test on 107 army volunteers in February 1942 following a rise in infections, a large-scale program was introduced two months later to inoculate all new recruits after an influenza A outbreak. In this trial, 20,000 personnel were vaccinated, *without success*, and the scheme was abandoned
Dr. Burnet was noted as not thinking much of the vaccine.
[60] "Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet – biography". Nobel Foundation . 1960. Archived from the original on 7 September 2008. Retrieved 5 October 2010. Biographical Memoirs, p. 97.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My doctor told me the flu shot they do every year is based on the prominent trait for that year and won't stop another trait if you contract it. Thus, it's not the actual shot that gives some the flu, it's just a different trait they acquired.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/29/19 12:47 PM, Meanie wrote:

Hi Meanie,
He abbreviated what is going on. I don't think he means any harm, although he probably is doing more harm than good.
The prior year, researchers got to China where farmers mix their ducks and pigs. The flu virus starts in ducks, some will mutate to infect their pigs. As pigs have been eating our waste for bazillions of years, their immune systems are very similar to ours. In the throats of pigs, some viruses will adapted to also infect humans. The researchers make an educate guess as to which virus that will be.
This is similar to the small pox vaccine, where they infect you with cow pox. Cow pox is similar enough to small pox that your body will develop antibodies to both. This is why the flu vaccine usually does not make your really sick (the swine flu vaccine was a notable exception), as the cow pox does not make humans very sick either.
They do not even know just exactly infections the virus they pick is. It is one hell of a moving target.
And once the actual virus breaks out in the wild, it is too late to develop a vaccine for it.
In the case of the flu vaccine, they seldom predict correctly, as the scientific papers I referenced points out. It is just not effective and as also noted in my references, actually makes the virus more infection the next year.
-T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 4:17:22 PM UTC-4, T wrote:

Actually, the paper you just referenced shows that even when the vaccine is a poor match for the actual virus that emerges, it still results in about a 50% reduction in contracting the flu in people who are vaccinated compared to those that are not.
"" In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral ci rculating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance."
Now run those numbers across millions of people and calculate the savings in lost work days, doctor bills, hospitalization, and deaths.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:40:07 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

I didn't read the paper but that's just about what I've read before.

I didn't bother getting a flu shot because real men don't get vaccinations. They just take their chances and muscle through if they get sick. But once I started taking these long trips with an expensive plane ticket involved that I didn't want to cancel or be sick during, I get one every year. Never had a bad reaction to the shot and I haven't gotten the flue either. (I did throw up 2 nights in a row last week, but whatever it was had no other symptoms. Samething the previous year.)
They've been working on a vaccine for all versions of the flu and I've read there is some progress. I'm sure there are several labs working on it but this might be what I read about.
http://www.biondvax.com/science/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/biondvax-surges-after-results-of-flu-vaccine-study/
https://nocamels.com/2018/05/us-turn-to-israeli-flu-vaccine-maker-outbreak/ "The 2017-2018 flu season in the US posted the highest death count among children in at least five years, health officials said. Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that while flu vaccines usually prevent 40 percent to 60 percent of flu cases, this past year’s vaccines were just 36 percent effective overall."
From https://www.timesofisrael.com/biondvax-gets-e20-million-loan-for-universal-flu-vaccine/ "The World Health Organization (WHO) reports up to 500,000 annual seasonal flu-related deaths, mostly affecting people above 65 years old. Seasonal flu is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, and it causes high social and economic burdens to patients, their families, and health care providers."
I think I'm over 65.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/31/19 6:56 AM, micky wrote:

You have to go to industry funded studies to get those results.
You will notice in my cites:
1. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration)
15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). The author specifically warned about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But not getting flu in the first place obviously does both.
WARNING: This review

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/31/19 6:48 PM, 2987pl wrote:

e...

in

odest effect in reducing

ing days lost. There is no

omplications, such as

Not following you. The vaccine has no affect and make the next flu you catch worse.
And the vaccine is live virus, so you are communicable with that strain. You make other people around you sick.

s funded by industry (four

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That’s a lie. It does stop some getting the flue.
and make the next

And that is a lie too.

Another lie.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/31/19 10:05 PM, 2987pl wrote:

.
modest effect in reducing

rking days lost. There is no

complications, such as

n.

als funded by industry (four

n)

I presented solid scientific research from multiple sources.
I even presented scientific research that showed the shot caused downstream harm through a mechanism is called "Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)".
The only thing you presented was your baseless opinion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 6:43:48 AM UTC-4, T wrote:

.
modest effect in reducing

rking days lost. There is no

complications, such as

n.

als funded by industry (four

n)

Like this, which you presented?
"" In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral ci rculating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance."
It clearly says that even when the vaccine is a poor match, it reduced your chances of getting the flu by about half. And in years when the match was good, it cut the chance by 75%. The problem is that you either simply are incapable of understanding what you read or you just lie, lie, lie. Quite like Trump.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not on those particular lies above you didn’t.

I didn’t comment on that.

More of your lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/1/19 11:38 AM, 2987pl wrote:

re.

a modest effect in reducing

working days lost. There is no

ct complications, such as

ion.

rials funded by industry (four

ion)

Use the scientific method or don't bother with me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 3:10:42 PM UTC-4, T wrote:

re.

a modest effect in reducing

working days lost. There is no

ct complications, such as

ion.

rials funded by industry (four

ion)

Like your scientific methods, whereby you told us that dental amalgam fillings harden by the mercury coming out, otherwise they would not harden? How stupid is that? It would mean you'd get a fatal or close to fatal dose of mercury from having a few filings done.
Or right here:
"" In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral ci rculating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance."
It clearly says that even when the vaccine is a poor match, it reduced your chances of getting the flu by about half. And in years when the match was good, it cut the chance by 75%. The problem is that you either simply are incapable of understanding what you read or you just lie, lie, lie. Quite like Trump. There are no scientific methods involved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That’s what the CDC did on that question of whether a flu shot does see quite a few who would otherwise have got the flu, not get it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/1/19 12:40 PM, 2987pl wrote:

ve a modest effect in reducing

d working days lost. There is no

fect complications, such as

ssion.

trials funded by industry (four

ation)

CDC uses a lot of Industry funded studies and are themselves funded by industry. They are compromised.
For the CDC's results to be accurate, they must show similar results in non-industry funded research. They don't.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
--Upton Sinclair
As I said, use the scientific method, or don't bother writing me back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 4:24:42 PM UTC-4, T wrote:

ve a modest effect in reducing

d working days lost. There is no

fect complications, such as

ssion.

trials funded by industry (four

ation)

Like your scientific methods, whereby you told us that dental amalgam fillings harden by the mercury coming out, otherwise they would not harden? How stupid is that? It would mean you'd get a fatal or close to fatal dose of mercury from having a few filings done.
Or right here:
"" In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral ci rculating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance."
It clearly says that even when the vaccine is a poor match, it reduced your chances of getting the flu by about half. And in years when the match was good, it cut the chance by 75%. The problem is that you either simply are incapable of understanding what you read or you just lie, lie, lie. Quite like Trump. There are no scientific methods involved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not on that particular question they didn’t.
and are themselves

They are in fact partially funded by the fees they charge for some of the work they do.

How odd that other similar operations in other countries that receive no industry funding what so ever, have found the same results with the number who avoided getting the flu by vaccination using the scientific method.

Another bare faced lie.

That is what the other comparable operations to the the CDC in other countries do.
or don't bother

You get no say on what anyone writes back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Use the scientific method or piss off
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.