- King of Hamas
- Nov 25, 2013
-
by XyloJW
|
I am 100% for vaccines that have proven medical value, and am concurrently against any that lack it, and as a result I am anti-flu vaccine. It is a product made and pushed by for-profit corporations and study after study has shown that they range from marginally effective to totally ineffective. Legitimately objective medical science should be respected, but for-profit products pushed by for-profit companies that are proven to be dubiously effective according to the objective (ie; non industry-funded) research should absolutey not. If you doubt me, go ahead and do your own research, but I would recommend steering clear of studies funded by the very companies that stand to make the most money from a positive outcome. For example, here is the Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit medical research group based on unpaid volunteers from the medical community, on the issue:
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults#sthash.kYUXHVqH.dpuf
Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults posted:
The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small: at least 40 people would need vaccination to avoid one ILI case (95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 128) and 71 people would need vaccination to prevent one case of influenza (95% CI 64 to 80). Vaccination shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalisation.
The protection against ILI that is given by the administration of inactivated influenza vaccine to pregnant women is uncertain or at least very limited; the effect on their newborns is not statistically significant.
The effectiveness of live aerosol vaccines on healthy adults is similar to inactivated vaccines: 46 people (95% CI 29 to 115) would need immunisation to avoid one ILI case.
And there is more: not only are the vaccines much less effective than expected, but they have been shown in recent studies to INCREASE the susceptibility of the patient to H1N1, a far more serious strain of the flu, in the following year!
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
NVIC.org posted:
Studies Identify Flu Vaccine Failures
Findings from one of the case-control studies showed that prior vaccination with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine is protective against seasonal influenza and reduced the flu risk by 56 percent. However, results from all four studies revealed that those vaccinated in the previous 2008-09 season were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to contract H1N1 during the spring and summer of 2009. 3
A second study in 2009 identified a similar association between previous vaccination and pandemic H1N1 illness in a military population. Between April 21 and May 8, a total of 97 patients developed the H1N1 virus. Of these, 63 people, or 66 percent, received the influenza vaccination in the previous 12 months. In comparison, only 40 percent of patients without H1N1 virus had no history of vaccination. 4
In Nov. 13, 2009, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a case-cohort study on the effectiveness of 2008-09 trivalent influenza vaccine against 2009 pandemic H1N1. The CDC concluded that there was no decreased or increased risk of pandemic H1N1 following seasonal flu vaccine. 5
Doctors Intrigued and Troubled by Findings
In an accompanying editorial, Drs. John Treanor and Peter Szilagyi wrote a response to the findings for the most recent study showing lower effectiveness with back-to-back flu shots.
“As we are currently struggling through one of the most vigorous influenza seasons in recent memory, the apparent failure of influenza vaccine under optimal conditions seen in this study is indeed troubling,” they wrote. 6
As usual, further study on flu vaccine effectiveness is necessary. There are a lot of conflicting data available. However, the growing number of studies showing low overall effectiveness, waning immunity and a negative effect of prior-year vaccination cast doubt on influenza vaccine policies and strategies, especially when influenza vaccinations now are being required as a condition of employment for health care workers.
A for-profit product pushed by for-profit companies that want to make the vaccine mandatory not just for every health care worker in America but eventually every American. With a potential profit to be garnered from every American in the country I am not surprised that the product pushers would ignore whether it is effective or not, or whether it makes people a great deal more susceptible to swine flu, a far more serious disease than the common flu.
I will conclude my post with the words of the awesomely named Dr. Mark Hyman, who did a big takedown of the flu vaccine (warning huffpost link):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
Mark Hyman, MD posted:
The wholesale acceptance and promotion of the flu vaccine by government agencies, heath care institutions, pharmacies and physicians is at best based on flimsy, flawed or inadequate evidence. And at worst, it pushes a potentially harmful medical procedure on a poorly informed public.
Consider this. What consumer product creates billions in profits for it manufacturer every year and is recommended and almost mandated by our government to be used by all Americans over six months old? The flu vaccine.
Not only does our government's public health marketing campaigns generate billions in profits for vaccine manufacturers, but those companies are protected from legal liability by the U.S. government. Yes, that's right. If a vaccine harms or kills an American citizen, the government will pick up the legal bill and the settlement for damages. This would be an acceptable risk if flu vaccines were proven to be effective and were free of side-effects such as the life threatening paralysis called Guillain-Barre Syndrome that affects one in a million flu vaccine recipients. If all "eligible" Americans were vaccinated there were be 300 lives adversely affected. But unfortunately unlike many other vaccines, medications and medical procedures in use today, the flu vaccine has not passed the scientific litmus test.
Mark Hyman, MD posted:
Let's briefly review the evidence for and against the flu vaccine based on an independent objective scientific, comprehensive review of ALL the evidence. And let's look at a few logical holes in our current thinking and public policy about vaccines.
Top line, here are the conclusions. For those who want to dig deep and decide for themselves I encourage you to read the recent review paper by the international, independent, non-profit Cochrane Collaboration group published in July of 2010.
1. A comprehensive of the flu research in healthy adults aged 18-65 from 1960 to the present including over 40 clinical trials with over 70,000 people found no evidence of benefit for the flu vaccine. Most trials were poorly done, or inadequate to reach clear conclusions. Only the best 50 studies were included in the final analysis.
2. The only studies that showed benefit were industry funded. Despite this bias they tended to be published in the most prestigious journals and were the ones most widely quoted, while the publicly funded studies were less likely to show favorable conclusions.
3. They found cases of severe harm and inadequate reporting of adverse effects of the flu vaccine.
4. There are different 200+ strains of flu and viruses that infect people every year. The vaccine covers only about 10 percent of the virus strains that make people sick.
5. If the vaccine strain given in a particular vaccination happened to match the virus caught by the vaccinated person, the likelihood of getting sick from the flu was only reduced from 4 percent to 1 percent.
6. There was NO evidence that the vaccine reduced transmission of the flu (a major rationale for mass vaccination) or complications such as pneumonia (another major justification).
7. These conclusions included the data from biased industry studies yet still found no benefit except small reductions in flu symptoms in some industry studies.
8. They warned that their already negative conclusions may be UNDERSTATED because of the inclusion of industry funded studies in their review.
Mark Hyman, MD posted:
This same blunder based on the "healthy user effect" occurred with Premarin. During the height of the hormone craze after the "cohort" Nurses Health Study showed that the hormone users were 50 percent less likely to have heart attacks, over 50 million women took Premarin. One of my patients said her gynecologist told her it was malpractice NOT to prescribe estrogen. It was unethical not to prescribe estrogen to all menopausal women we were told. But only until the National Institute of Health's randomized controlled study known as the Women's health initiative, found that in fact Premarin cause 50 percent more heart attacks, strokes and breast cancer. Then, overnight, our recommendations changed.
Many vaccine advocates suggest that it is unethical to withhold vaccinations from the population because of the evidence (however weak we now know) of benefit. Giving some vaccines and other sham vaccines to study effectiveness and safety is not unethical. It is called science, and until we have clear evidence of benefit from randomized controlled trials we should not have government policy advocating mass vaccination while protecting vaccine manufacturers lawsuits due to any harm.
I want to state again that I am not anti-polio vaccine, anti HPV vaccine, or any other vaccine that has proven medical value. Objective scientific data is our best way to determine what is good and bad for us w/r/t treatment, and we cannot rely on industry-funded research to objectively tell us what that is. Also yes I know that huffpost pushes herbal remedy bullshit and new age clap trap, but the studies cited in the article truly speak for themselves.
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 21:43
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2024 10:31
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 21:43
