U.S. Whooping Cough outbreak worst in 70 years

Mighty AC · February 4, 2015

So it's even worse than thought. A very recent Canadian study on this years flu shot suggests it might actually make you sick. So at what point does a negative reward become a risk?

A negative score doesn't actually mean the vaccine is making people more susceptible to the flu. It just means that sample size wasn't large enough to get the precision necessary.

From the link you posted previously: http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/canada-s-flu-shot-offered-little-or-no-protection-this-season-study-1.2211931

That doesn't mean the vaccine made people who received a flu shot more susceptible to getting the flu. The confidence intervals -- the range within which the true number falls -- went from well below zero to 23 per cent. Skowronski said that in statistical terms, the closer you get to showing that an intervention had no effect, the more people you need in your study to come up with narrow confidence intervals. For instance, to show a one per cent benefit of the vaccine, the researchers would have needed one million people in the study -- an unachievable feat.

Mighty AC · February 4, 2015

I am not against vaccines, I am against all the garbage that is IN a vaccine. They should be able to make clean vaccines without the need for formaldehyde, mercury ect.

Bonam made it clear how tiny the amounts are, but you should also understand the difference between mercury and compounds containing mercury. Thimerosal is a compound that contains mercury, not mercury itself. For example chlorine is a reactive substance and ingestion should be limited to trace amounts, yet in a compound with sodium it becomes table salt. Also there is a difference between methyl and ethyl mercury.

Methylmercury builds up in our system over time and can eventually lead to mercury poisoning. The most common source for us is fish, which are primarily contaminated by the mercury produced in coal fired power plants.

Ethylmercury comes from the breakdown of thimerosal in vaccines and is removed from our blood quickly. It does not accumulate like methyl mercury. Thimerosal is only included in multidose vials of vaccines to prevent microbe contamination.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

WIP · February 4, 2015

The answer, to me, is for society to respond by developing an influential and informed public that can keep government in check.

Wow, you're a dreamer, aren't you?

Back when the interwebs was fairly new, I thought that this new technology would lead towards a more informed public, because new and relevant information could get past any gatekeepers trying to control the public access to information.

But, what seems to have happened, is an opening of the floodgates, where it's hard to distinguish between real and unreal, without wasting time stamping out forest fires of fraud and misinformation!

One way to weigh the results regarding which side is telling or not telling the truth, is which side has the most money or powerful vested interests behind it. When it comes to vaccines and every other related medical claim, this is going to become increasingly difficult as pharmaceutical companies and Big AG (GMO's) are financing more and more of the medical and biological research that's being done.

Nevertheless, on the vaccine front, the only one that seems questionable to me is the mass flu immunizations that are pushed on us every year. The flu vaccine often misfires....as it has this year, and the risk for the general population...who would be at little or no risk of dying from the flu, is that annual vaccination weakens the immune response to these pathogens. So, if the flu shot is a misfire, those of us who avoid getting the flu shot have less of a chance of catching the flu than those who take it every year! I think we should go back to the original tactic of providing flu shots for the groups who are at risk, but not mass immunization against the flu.

Different story for some of these lethal diseases including whooping cough, which we thought were sicknesses of the past, but are coming back at us today with a vengeance, because of:

a. antivaxxers, who do poor risk assessment....so if there is a one in a hundred thousand chance that the MMR vaccine might cause autism, thats a risk that's far, far less than not getting the vaccine and reviving diseases that used to kill thousands....and are coming back to do it all over again!

b. libertarians and assorted individual rights extremists, who don't understand..or don't care, that when it comes to the big trump cards, the wellbeing of society as a whole trumps your individual rights to be a complete a**hole!

TimG · February 4, 2015

One way to weigh the results regarding which side is telling or not telling the truth, is which side has the most money or powerful vested interests behind it.

Not a compelling argument because anyone who has any resources to research an issue has an agenda that will taint their research. i.e. companies may benefit from GMOs but environmental groups benefit by whipping up fear of GMOs. The main difference is if companies fudge the numbers they will eventually get caught and will pay a heavy price for the deception. Environmental NGOs, OTOH, are free to lie and deceive and rarely face any consequences when they are caught. For this reason, reports by companies are generally more worthy of consideration than anything produced by an environmental group. Reports by government agencies can be better, however, it depends on which government agency. In the US the EPA has been turned into a partisan political organization and really has no credibility anymore. Edited February 4, 2015 by TimG

bush_cheney2004 · February 4, 2015

How timely...anti-vax course content at the university level in Ontario:

The teaching of Melody Torcolacci, a professor who allegedly promotes anti-vaccination views at Queen’s University, has prompted calls by a student group asking for her course information to be reviewed and fact-checked.

When students in Torcolacci’s first-year physical determinants of health class took a test Tuesday on vaccination materials, some took to social media to complain about how she cited a disproven study linking autism to vaccines.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/anti-vaccination-instruction-at-queen-s-needs-review-students-urge-1.2945077

Accountability Now · February 5, 2015

A negative score doesn't actually mean the vaccine is making people more susceptible to the flu. It just means that sample size wasn't large enough to get the precision necessary.

From the link you posted previously: http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/canada-s-flu-shot-offered-little-or-no-protection-this-season-study-1.2211931

That doesn't mean the vaccine made people who received a flu shot more susceptible to getting the flu. The confidence intervals -- the range within which the true number falls -- went from well below zero to 23 per cent. Skowronski said that in statistical terms, the closer you get to showing that an intervention had no effect, the more people you need in your study to come up with narrow confidence intervals. For instance, to show a one per cent benefit of the vaccine, the researchers would have needed one million people in the study -- an unachievable feat.

And from the current link its states:

“A negative effectiveness suggests the vaccine made people more susceptible to the flu,” Dr. Dickinson says, “We need to do further research to understand why this has happened.”

In either scenario, I think its fair to say that negative effectiveness is a lot closer to zero reward than you'd like.

Accountability Now · February 5, 2015

For example, drinking water is considered safe if it contains less than 2 ppb mercury. That means 2 micrograms per liter. A typical person drinks 2 L / day -> 700 L / year, meaning you get up to 1400 micrograms of mercury from drinking water every year, or over 100,000 micrograms in your lifetime. Additionally, a single serving of seafood can contain up to 1000 micrograms of Mercury.

In my opinion, Ingesting a metal is different than injecting the metal directly into the blood stream. I only state its my opinion because I have not seen conclusive lab results stating otherwise. However from common sense we know that once ingested, a metal needs to make it through the intenstinal wall and into the blood through that mechanism. Most of the metal is normally removed in the stool. However, injecting the metal directly in the blood means you have that concentration 100% in the blood and ready to interact with the blood/brain interface where it can now do damage as a neurotoxin.

Of course, in healthy kids the liver will remove the metal and not have a build up in the system. Not the case with some children as their phase 2 detox doesn't function properly. Add to the fact that many of these same children have what's known as leaky guy which is holes in their intestinal wall allowing many of the ingested toxins to enter the blood much easier.

Mighty AC · February 5, 2015

And from the current link its states:

In either scenario, I think its fair to say that negative effectiveness is a lot closer to zero reward than you'd like.

The statement the Dr. made is wrong, your other link explains why. The effectiveness is way closer to zero than I'd like. Effectiveness study results do improve based on the number of children sampled. The higher US effectiveness results are most likely caused by more children in the sample than the vaccine being a better fit for the outbreaks there. The Canadian Chief Public Health Officer, who issued and explained the results still recommends getting the vaccine.

Accountability Now · February 5, 2015

The Canadian Chief Public Health Officer, who issued and explained the results still recommends getting the vaccine.

Of course he's going to say that....its his job to promote the vaccine. That's like Dr. Oz going on live TV and getting the flu shot but meanwhile his family did not.

Its called crowd control....he needs to have these people come back next year for the flu shot and the only chance he has is to stay pro flu shot regardless of the zero effectiveness for this year.

Mighty AC · February 5, 2015

Of course he's going to say that....its his job to promote the vaccine. That's like Dr. Oz going on live TV and getting the flu shot but meanwhile his family did not.

Its called crowd control....he needs to have these people come back next year for the flu shot and the only chance he has is to stay pro flu shot regardless of the zero effectiveness for this year.

No, that's not what his job is. As mentioned the vaccine is still worth it for children and to prevent Influenza B infections, whose peak is yet to come. You will encounter far more risk driving to the drug store to get the shot than from the shot so I recommend adding it on to a must do trip.

eyeball · February 5, 2015

Numerical illiteracy is perhaps the greatest threat to modern democratic institutions, as people simply fail to judge risks properly and demand that resources are allocated in ways that are totally irrational.

So when the numerically illiterate that you're mocking for not being able to figure anything out are mocked again for judging risk based on what a vastly overwhelming number of scientists are concluding... who, where, what, and how the fork are they supposed to put your mockery into some sort of totally rational context?

As for the greatest threat to modern democratic institutions, I thought that was proportional representation...due again, apparently, to the inability of the numerically challenged to get it.

Edited February 5, 2015 by eyeball

Bonam · February 5, 2015

So when the numerically illiterate that you're mocking for not being able to figure anything out are mocked again for judging risk based on what a vastly overwhelming number of scientists are concluding... who, where, what, and how the f^*k are they supposed to put your mockery into some sort of totally rational context?

I don't see many people being mocked for making decisions based on what the vast majority of scientists are concluding.

As for the greatest threat to modern democratic institutions, I thought that was proportional representation.

Why did you think that?

eyeball · February 5, 2015

I don't see many people being mocked for making decisions based on what the vast majority of scientists are concluding.

You think church of global climate alarmism is an endearment?

Why did you think that?

It (democracy) just doesn't add up. Edited February 5, 2015 by eyeball

Accountability Now · February 5, 2015

No, that's not what his job is. As mentioned the vaccine is still worth it for children and to prevent Influenza B infections, whose peak is yet to come. You will encounter far more risk driving to the drug store to get the shot than from the shot so I recommend adding it on to a must do trip.

His job is to promote health which is why it doesn't surprise me that he would stand by this vaccine even though it doesn't work. With that said, he did not perform either of the two independent studies that both state the vaccine offers little to know reward.

Of course you down play the risk but even GSK tells us the flu will give 10% vaccine takers the shivers, fever, feeling sick, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain....but this is NOT the flu. Lol

Gumby · February 16, 2015

I became alarmed at the recent outbreaks of a few diseases, and started researching from the position that vaccination was a totally healthy way of preventing horrible diseases. My position was also that currently prevailing science had thoroughly debunked any notion to the contrary, and that the concept of herd immunity was valid in the context of a vaccine regimen applied society-wide.

My position now is that in some cases, the alleged risks of the prevented disease versus the alleged risks of the vaccine are not as justified as I had hoped. There has not been, in my opinion, an effective debunking of all the alleged toxicity relationships, and in fact there have been more recent independent studies that indicate absolute causation between adjuvants and critical brain chemistry . After all, Aluminum Hydroxide most definitely is a potent toxin and immune system excitor, that's the reason for its' use in vaccines. It makes the production of vaccines more profitable, which is key to the arguments for and against it.

The things I know now would prevent me from following the schedule of vaccines, because I now believe that there are certain elements of vaccine-related immunological response events that have not been proven safe in any rigorous scientific manner. There also exists huge conflict of interest on both sides of the argument re: efficacy and adverse events of our current vaccines. I am finding the reading of studies and abstracts on both sides enlightening , and I am finding that my distrust of the relationship between vaccine manufacturers and safety authorities is growing by leaps and bounds. You do not have to be an inorganic chemist or molecular biologist to start finding out some disturbing things. My views changed greatly after examining the relationship between Merck and the CDC, for example. That level of conflict of interest greatly overshadows the anything on the Wakefield level, for example, and Wakefield is commonly used as the extreme example on the debunking side....

I can only personally conclude at this point that the science re: efficacy and safety of the current vaccine schedule is definitely not settled, and the currently held public views of herd immunity are as potentially dangerous as any anti-vaccine movement so far. The non-scientific approach would be to stop studying, but it seems that the public opinion is to do so....

Big Guy · February 16, 2015

As I understand the current thinking, a 95% immunization rate is required to protect a whole population. There are those in our population who cannot be vaccinated because of allergies et al. I believe that there is a human obligation for the strong majority to protect the weak small minority - that is only my view and I do not expect that from everyone else.

It must be a moral conundrum for those who do not trust the vaccines but feel an obligation to the rest of our population.

Accountability Now · February 17, 2015

I can only personally conclude at this point that the science re: efficacy and safety of the current vaccine schedule is definitely not settled, and the currently held public views of herd immunity are as potentially dangerous as any anti-vaccine movement so far. The non-scientific approach would be to stop studying, but it seems that the public opinion is to do so....

I am very much like you but I would have to say that from the research I have done the risks for most vaccines are still considerably less than the risk of the diseases themselves. Take for example the measles vaccine, before the vaccine, about 450 people died each year compared to about 10 people who die each year from the MMR Vaccine. Obviously I would take the 10 versus 450 but why can't we see if there is something we can do about the 10 as well. Of course, other diseases with vaccinations carry a much higher mortality rate. And its not just about death but some of the other research is starting to point to other chronic conditions that we never thought vaccines had anything to do with.

My largest issue is the misinformation out there from both sides. Obviously the antivaxxers have had their share but even the media and trusted medical sources seem to twist words or misuse facts in order to scare people when its not needed. Just today, I read a Maclean's article on Measles and it states in one of its graphics that Measles was eridicated in North America in 2002. Not sure if the medical community has a special definition for eradicated but the normal defintion (which is one the pubic would use) states that eradicated means to destroy completely or put and end to. However, looking at the CDC data, in the US alone there were 40 cases of measles in 2002 (about the same amount as in 2012).

If we ever want to resolve this issue, we need to get through the crap which I think both sides are guilty of.

segnosaur · February 18, 2015

If you would have read my one of my initial posts you would see that I am in favor of all vaccines....except the flu shot. I am fully aware that for the majority of people they pose no risk and will in fact protect them from these diseases.

My point from the start is that there is more we can do to further advance these vaccines and to educate ourselves. Of course the minute you raise any type of question regarding vaccines, you get labelled as an anti-vaxxer. I guess it's your all or none kind of thing again...hey?

You see, here is the problem...

While it is true that you have accepted other vaccines, in your explanation about why you reject the influenza vaccine is filled with the same type of nonsense that the hardcore anti-vaxers use.

Claims of ineffectiveness? Yup, you can find anti-vaxers making the same claims

Claims of risks? Yup, there are anti-vaxers over-hyping negligible risks or even inventing new risks.

Heck, in your anti-flu claims, you've even taken the habit of taking data out of context and/or quote mining, both habits of the anti-vaxers.

Scientific nonsense should be challenged, regardless of whether the disease is the flu or whether its ebola.

We were talking about whooping cough and how the new vaccine is weaker and wears off after 5 years. Again....Is this the best we can do? But don't ask that because you'll be labelled an antivax

The issue of vaccines wearing off is an issue for scientific discussion.

The problem is when people take that little bit of information and spin it into some sort of vast conspiracy or use it to justify arguments that the data doesn't support.

...the minute you even question the science, you are thrown to the opposite side.

The problem is not that the science is being questioned...

The problem is that the science is being questioned when its already presented the answers.

If an anti-vaxer says "but what if vaccines cause autism?", and science says "No, we've done multiple studies that show no link", that should be the end of it.

I took the flu shot sbout 10 years ago and about a week later got the sickest I have ever been. Logically I have to believe i had an adverse reaction to the shot...

No, that's not logical at all. Its the same type of scientific nonsense that an anti-vaxer would use, and it needs to be challenged.

There are plenty of more reasonable explanations:

- There are many diseases going around; many aren't even influenza. There is a very good chance that you caught some other disease

- Immunity takes several weeks to build up in the case of influenza (and, a small number of people don't build up antibodies at all). If it really was the flu that you had, its quite possible that you would have caught it anyways

When there is a reaction, it tends to occur fairly soon after the shot.... if you were getting sick a week later, it is most likely that whatever you had had nothing to do with your innoculation.

I also believe that getting the flu once in a while isn't a bad thing...

Except for the between 3000-49,000 deaths that occur in the U.S. alone that are linked to influenza. But I guess they were all bad people...

Oh, and the cost to our health care system as people go to the emergency room because of the flu.

...as it allows your body to build a natural immune response to it.

More anti-science nonsense.

Where to begin?

First of all, whether you catch the flu naturally or get vaccinated makes no difference to your immune system.

Secondly, your body is probably exposed to dozens of viruses and bacteria in a year. If you are worried about your body's immune system getting a proper work out, then catching (or not catching) influenza will make little difference.

If the vaccine actually worked to the point where herd inmunity was possible then I'd give it more merit but it doesn't.

And once again, you don't need to reach some magical point with a vaccine in order for there to be benefit to society overall. Even a partly effective vaccine (or partly immunized population) might still prevent some cases of transmission.

This has been explained to you over and over again, yet you still stick to some idiotic idea in your head.

At what point would you not get the vaccine? Perhaps if it offered little to no protection like this years vaccine?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/canada-s-flu-shot-offered-little-or-no-protection-this-season-study-1.2211931

Again, showing a complete lack of understanding of science...

Yes, the current vaccine is of limited effect for the most common circulating strain.

But guess what? There is more than 1 strain of flu circulating, and the current vaccine DOES protect against other strains.

The general effectiveness this year is given as being around 23%. You know what? While 23% is not as high as I would like, it is still GREATER than 0.

Last year, in Ontario, 290 people in Ontario died and roughly 3-4000 were sick enough to be hospitalized. If all of those people got immunized (even with a 23% effective vaccine) it would save roughly 60-70 lives, and roughly 700-900 hospitalizations.

And you know what? That's with an effectiveness that's extremely low... most years its MUCH more effective.

As per my link above, it's more like no chance of it working this year..

Uh, no, it says no such thing.

It says there is little chance of it working against ONE strain (admittedly the most commonly circulating strain, but still one.) It DOES work against some of the other strains that are circulating.

So even the health authorities are saying don't bother but you're pushing forward anyway?

Ummm.. which "health authorities" are you claiming are saying don't bother?

Certainly haven't seen anything from the CDC or Health Canada saying "don't bother".

We know there are side effects from vaccines which we accept the risk in favor of not getting the disease. However in this case you are only getting the risk and zero reward.

Nope, wrong. Incorrect.

YOu are actually getting a reward... you are still getting protection against strains of the flu that are circulating (but not in as great of numbers). Plus, you are getting side benefits caused by vaccinations helping against similar strains to at least shorten the length of illness.

Of course you down play the risk but even GSK tells us the flu will give 10% vaccine takers the shivers, fever, feeling sick, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain....but this is NOT the flu. Lol

They say no such thing.

10% might get side effects from the vaccine, but that will typically involve minor soreness, and perhaps a low-grade fever.

It is possible to have more serious side effects (such as shivers, stomach pain, etc.) but those side effects are rare. They do not occur in 10% of people. (And people typically have those effects for only a short time, a fraction of the time that a person would be sick for.)

Heck, even if 10% had a negative reaction, remember that even at an effectiveness of only 23%, you've still got 13% more of the population that would actually benefit from the flu shot and yet have no side effects.

My largest issue is the misinformation out there from both sides.

Typically when there are claims of misinformation by the pro-vax side, it tends to be from idiots who don't understand science and misinterpret what the scientists are actually saying.

Just today, I read a Maclean's article on Measles and it states in one of its graphics that Measles was eridicated in North America in 2002. Not sure if the medical community has a special definition for eradicated but the normal defintion (which is one the pubic would use) states that eradicated means to destroy completely or put and end to. However, looking at the CDC data, in the US alone there were 40 cases of measles in 2002 (about the same amount as in 2012).

There is indeed a definition of "eradicated" that is used by the medical community. The CDC uses the following definition: "interruption of year-round endemic measles transmission". (i.e. the disease actually has to be spreading.)

Yes, there were likely cases of measles in 2002, after the disease was "eliminated". They were likely from people who had recently visited other countries and picked up the disease there. And because the U.S. doesn't quarantine people when they return from foreign countries, it would be impossible to prevent a few cases popping up after getting infected elsewhere. But those that returned with the disease did not cause widespread transmission of the disease.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm

Again, this is not a case of the pro-vaccination side lying or hiding the truth. (They've used the same definition in multiple locations, all freely available). Its a case of people not understanding the science, and being too lazy to investigate further.

segnosaur · February 18, 2015

Getting a vaccine is unpleasant (don't know about you, but needles aren't my favorite thing).

I don't like needles either. But I also don't like high fever, chills, fatigue and nausea.

A needle be painful, but the pain tends to go away after at most a day or 2. Catching the flu can often mean you are sick for a week or more.

Which do you think sounds worse?

If the effectiveness is low, and the risks associated with the disease you are trying to vaccinate against are low, why bother?

Because even if the effectiveness is "low", it is still greater than 0, and it still far outweighs the risk.

There are way better things to be spending public health money on than pushing flu shots on everyone.

Actually, vaccination is actually a pretty smart investment.

By vaccinating people, you reduce the number of visits to the hospital (and the number of hospital stays). You reduce the costs associated with the use of anti-viral medications. And you also increase worker productivity, since people will spend less time sick at home and more time doing useful stuff.

http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1-flu/vaccination/vaccination-22.pdf

The only people who need to be getting them are those who are either at risk for complications from flu, or those who work in jobs which provide a vehicle for contagion to those that are at risk (medical personnel, teachers, etc).

Do you live in a cave in the middle of the desert and grow your own food?

In our western society, you cannot help but come in contact with other people, be it when shopping, in a bar/restaurant, or even taking the bus. All the people you meet could be potential carriers of the influenza virus.

Accountability Now · February 19, 2015

You see, here is the problem...

While it is true that you have accepted other vaccines, in your explanation about why you reject the influenza vaccine is filled with the same type of nonsense that the hardcore anti-vaxers use.

By nonsense do you mean the multiple scientific studies that I provided or is it the numerical facts that I have posted? I can agree that anti-vaxxers most often will argue with anectodal evidence but I have not done that here, so your claim above is completely invalid and proof positive that any speculation of the vaccination industry leads to such statements.

Claims of ineffectiveness? Yup, you can find anti-vaxers making the same claims

Claims of risks? Yup, there are anti-vaxers over-hyping negligible risks or even inventing new risks.

Claims? Do you means scientifc studies? You know the TWO studies that I showed for the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in Canada. The risks were also outlined as per scientific studies and per the manufacturer of the vaccine themselves. Please outline where I have made a CLAIM that I have haven't supported with scientific evidence.

Heck, in your anti-flu claims, you've even taken the habit of taking data out of context and/or quote mining, both habits of the anti-vaxers.

You're really on a roll here. If I've made a claim that I have taken out of context then by all means step up and show it. At this point you are making baseless accusations.

The issue of vaccines wearing off is an issue for scientific discussion.

The problem is when people take that little bit of information and spin it into some sort of vast conspiracy or use it to justify arguments that the data doesn't support.

I agree. Its also a problem when other valuable information is presented and people have their head's in the sand and won't validate it because 'the science is settled'. That has been a major point of mine. Both sides have issues they need to deal with.

The problem is not that the science is being questioned...

The problem is that the science is being questioned when its already presented the answers.

If an anti-vaxer says "but what if vaccines cause autism?", and science says "No, we've done multiple studies that show no link", that should be the end of it.

Again...you are saying that the 'science is settled' when its not. Studies have proven adjuvants can cause inflammation which again is a notable trait in children with autism. There is a new question now. Not does it cause autism but does it aggrevate the condition. Pardon the pun, but science is not immune to questions. As long as people have questions then science has to provide the answers. You have to remove the arrogance from it or you end up in athe place we are now. Quite frankly, this whole vaccine debate will not go away until more questions are asked and answered.

No, that's not logical at all. Its the same type of scientific nonsense that an anti-vaxer would use, and it needs to be challenged.

There are plenty of more reasonable explanations:

- There are many diseases going around; many aren't even influenza. There is a very good chance that you caught some other disease

- Immunity takes several weeks to build up in the case of influenza (and, a small number of people don't build up antibodies at all). If it really was the flu that you had, its quite possible that you would have caught it anyways

When there is a reaction, it tends to occur fairly soon after the shot.... if you were getting sick a week later, it is most likely that whatever you had had nothing to do with your innoculation.

Interesting. So my doctor that looked at me who said that I had an adverse reaction is wrong because you say so. I'll make sure I stop by his office to let him know. I'm glad that you are fixated on the one week line but maybe focus more on the 'about' part. I apolgize that 10 years ago I wasn't documenting exactly how many days it was from the shot to the start of my illness. I do remember a period of a couple days prior where I wasn't feeling great but I passed that off as it wasn't as bad as what was about to come.

Now...as for the chances of it being another strain. Well...I got the shot quite early in the flu season that year which is why the medical doctor felt it was more likely that it was an adverse reaction because the flu count was so low at the time. I have no problem admitting that it could be an adverse reaction or a different strain, however based on this evidence the doctor felt it was the former and I agreed with him.

With that being said, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence. If you would have read the question asked of me and actually read the response you would have seen that I had this issue happen and then I started to look into the science which is where I made my decision. But perhaps you did read it because you cropped it from my quote above. I guess it just didn't fit into your agenda...hey?

Except for the between 3000-49,000 deaths that occur in the U.S. alone that are linked to influenza. But I guess they were all bad people...

Wow....3,000 all the way to 49,000 hey. That is some fine precision. LOL. Of course you didn't come up with that number, its an ESTIMATE from the CDC. An estimate you say? Why yes....the CDC even says they do not KNOW how many people die from the flu each year. But you have NO problem trottting out these numbers do you. Here's a bit more on it if you feel like educating yourself (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm).

Now with that said, it is quite obvious that you either missed or chose to overlook TWO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that shows that the flu vaccine doesn't actually prevent mortality. So even if you're numbers are remotely correct, it doesn't matter as it is not proven that the flu shot actually prevents death.

http://www.atsjourna...cm.200802-282oc

Quote

Mortality Reduction with Influenza Vaccine in Patients with Pneumonia Outside “Flu” Season
Pleiotropic Benefits or Residual Confounding?

Dean T. Eurich¹, Thomas J. Marrie², Jennie Johnstone², and Sumit R. Majumdar¹^,²
+ Author Affiliations

¹Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, and the ²Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Abstract

Rationale: Observational studies suggest a 50% mortality reduction for older patients receiving influenza vaccination; some deem this magnitude of benefit implausible and invoke confounding by the “healthy user effect” as an alternate explanation.

Objectives: To evaluate unrecognized confounding by hypothesizing the presence of a 50% mortality reduction with vaccination for patients with pneumonia outside of influenza season.

Methods: Clinical, laboratory, and functional data were prospectively collected on 1,813 adults with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to six hospitals outside of influenza season in the Capital Health region (AB, Canada). Vaccination status was ascertained by interview and chart review. Outcome was in-hospital mortality. Influenza-vaccinated patients were matched to a nonvaccinated control using propensity scores, and then multivariable regression was used to determine the independent association between vaccination and mortality.

Measurements and Main Results: The cohort consisted of 352 vaccine recipients and 352 matched control subjects. Most (85%) patients were 65 years or older, 29% had severe pneumonia, and 12% died. Influenza vaccination was associated with a 51% mortality reduction (28 of 352 [8%] died vs. 53 of 352 [15%] control subjects; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30–0.79; P = 0.004) outside influenza season. Adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities did not alter these findings (adjusted OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27–0.76). More complete adjustment for confounding (e.g., functional and socioeconomic status) markedly attenuated these benefits and their statistical significance (adjusted OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.35–1.85; P = 0.61).

Conclusions: The 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed in patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination.

Confounding meaning that the people who naturally get flu shots are more likely to be healthier in the first place.

Here's a more recent study:

http://archinte.jama...ticleID=1108809

Estimating Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Community-Dwelling Elderly Patients Using the Instrumental Variable Analysis MethodFREE

Kenny Wong, MPH; Michael A. Campitelli, MPH; Thérèse A. Stukel, PhD; Jeffrey C. Kwong, MD, MSc

Background Estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in elderly individuals are largely from observational studies, which are susceptible to bias. Instrumental variable (IV) methods control for overt and hidden biases in observational studies.

Methods We used linked health administrative databases in Ontario to examine the association between influenza vaccination and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling individuals older than 65 years for 9 influenza seasons (2000-2001 to 2008-2009). We examined the composite of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza and all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome. We used logistic regression modeling and IV analysis to remove the effect of selection bias.

Results We included 12 621 806 person–influenza seasons of observation. Logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) for all-cause mortality during influenza seasons and 0.85 (0.83-0.86) during post–influenza seasons when influenza is not circulating, suggesting the presence of bias. In contrast, IV analysis yielded adjusted odds ratios of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.03) during influenza seasons and 1.13 (1.07-1.19) during post–influenza seasons. For the composite of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza and death, logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.70-0.78) during influenza seasons and 0.88 (0.87-0.90) during post–influenza seasons, whereas IV analysis produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and 1.02 (0.97-1.06), respectively.

Conclusions Influenza vaccination is associated with reductions in the composite of hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza and all-cause mortality during the influenza season but not mortality alone. Compared with standard modeling, IV analysis appears to produce less-biased estimates of vaccine effectiveness.

Influenza causes substantial mortality in people 65 years or older.¹^{- 4}Annual vaccination is recommended to reduce the burden of influenza in this age group.⁵^,6 However, the evidence in support of vaccinating older adults against influenza stems primarily from observational studies, which are susceptible to bias.⁷

Past observational studies suggest that influenza vaccines reduce all-cause mortality in the elderly by approximately 50%.⁸ Recent studies observing similar mortality reduction among vaccinated individuals during non–influenza seasons suggest potential bias in such studies.⁹^{- 13} Because influenza has been estimated to account for less than 10% of all deaths during winter periods, it seems implausible that vaccination could reduce all-cause mortality during influenza seasons by approximately 50%.¹⁴A recent Cochrane review concluded that the available evidence is of poor quality¹⁵; thus, the true effectiveness of influenza vaccination in the elderly population is uncertain.¹⁶

Individuals who engage in health-promoting behaviors may be more likely to get vaccinated, whereas very sick individuals may be less likely to receive vaccine.⁹^,10,17 This difference in underlying health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals may artificially overestimate vaccine effectiveness.⁹^,17^,18 Traditional analytical strategies (eg, stratification, restriction, matching, and regression modeling) cannot adjust for unobserved confounders or control for nonrandom treatment allocation.¹⁹ No randomized controlled trials to examine the effectiveness of influenza vaccines against mortality have been conducted. The objective of this study was to use instrumental variable (IV) analysis, a method designed to control for unmeasured confounding, to obtain unbiased estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness against all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza (P&I) in the elderly population.

More anti-science nonsense.

Where to begin?

First of all, whether you catch the flu naturally or get vaccinated makes no difference to your immune system.

Where you could begin is actually knowing what you are talking about. So far I'm the one providing scientific studies to back my claims while you're provding verbal diahhrea. Now....speaking of studies, here's another one that illustrates that antibodies in naturally. Also shown in the news article I posted earlier, they spoke about how your immunity actually goes down if you have subsequent flu shots.

Differences in antibody responses of individuals with natural infection and those vaccinated against pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza.
Chan KH¹, To KK, Hung IF, Zhang AJ, Chan JF, Cheng VC, Tse H, Che XY, Chen H, Yuen KY.

Author information
¹Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Region, China.

Abstract
The differential antibody response measured by the commonly used hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) assays in patients with natural infection and vaccination has not been fully assessed. HI and conventional MN (CMN) assays were performed on sera from 651 patients with natural infection by pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus and on sera from 567 recipients of the corresponding vaccine. Surprisingly, the overall seroprotection rates determined by CMN and HI assays in vaccine recipients were only 44.8 and 35.1%, respectively. Antibody titers measured by the CMN assay was significantly higher than that obtained by HI assay in vaccine recipients aged ≥50 years, but these titers were not significantly different among younger vaccine recipients. In contrast, the HI titer was greater than the CMN titer for the age group from 16 to 29 years but was not significantly different in other age groups for natural infection. Lower antibody levels were found in both naturally infected patients and immunized recipients in the older than in the younger age groups, but naturally infected patients exhibited higher HI and CMN titers than did the corresponding vaccine recipients. In addition, we developed a rapid fluorescent focus microneutralization (FFMN) assay to test sera from naturally infected patients. The FFMN assay has a better correlation with CMN than with HI (ρ = 0.810 versus 0.684), which is expected of neutralizing antibody mainly targeted toward the inhibition of viral entry into cells. The higher antibody level elicited by natural infection than by vaccination may be related to differences between antigen presentation by the intramuscular route of vaccination and mucosal viral replication in mucosal cells of the respiratory tract.

Secondly, your body is probably exposed to dozens of viruses and bacteria in a year. If you are worried about your body's immune system getting a proper work out, then catching (or not catching) influenza will make little difference.

So let me get this straight. If my body fights of a cold or bacteria then its getting a work out that will help to fight influenza? Really? You do realize the immune system is one stop shop. We have different immune responses (antibodies) for each one....so...no it won't help. My point is that getting the flu will actually give you the specfic antibodies to that strain naturally. As pointed out above, having natural immunity is better than what the vaccine will provide.

And once again, you don't need to reach some magical point with a vaccine in order for there to be benefit to society overall. Even a partly effective vaccine (or partly immunized population) might still prevent some cases of transmission.

'Might'...and 'some'. Can you qualify this for me? I haven't had the flu vaccine or been ill since my issue 10 years ago. In that 10 years I haven't had the flu shot. Many others claim the same and I understand its purely anecdotal but it does stand to reason that even if a dominant strain is out there that one will not automatically get sick. So by HOW MUCH will a partly effective vaccine prevent one from getting sick?

Again, showing a complete lack of understanding of science...

Yes, the current vaccine is of limited effect for the most common circulating strain.

But guess what? There is more than 1 strain of flu circulating, and the current vaccine DOES protect against other strains.

The general effectiveness this year is given as being around 23%. You know what? While 23% is not as high as I would like, it is still GREATER than 0.

First off...the 23% is in the US. As per the two articles/studies I posted, in Canada its next to zero. With that said, do you know what the 23% means? Of the x amount of virus strains out there, 23% are the strain that happens to be in the vaccine. This now automatically assumes that if you get the vaccine you are 100% certain to be immune from that strain which is not true. In some of the studies I've seen they rate vaccine effectiveness for matched strains around 75-85%. And as I point out above, your immunity will decrease simply by having subsequent flu shots. So combined, how effective is the shot even when its matched.

So....in Canada since its zero percent effective then that means there is neglible amount of those strains circulating. So go ahead and get the shot but you won't have much luck finding those strains however you will have 10% chance at some discomfort.

Ummm.. which "health authorities" are you claiming are saying don't bother?

It was in the articles I posted. Perhaps it wasn't a 'don't bother' thing more than it was a don't rely on it. They recommended taking alternative actions based on the dismal performance of the vaccination.

YOu are actually getting a reward... you are still getting protection against strains of the flu that are circulating (but not in as great of numbers). Plus, you are getting side benefits caused by vaccinations helping against similar strains to at least shorten the length of illness

As mentioned, in Canada those strains are only negligably circulating....hence the low vaccine effectivness. So no...you are gettng no reward. Not to mention, you still do have to deal with the risks which are not negliable (as shown on the manufacturers site).

They say no such thing.

10% might get side effects from the vaccine, but that will typically involve minor soreness, and perhaps a low-grade fever.

It is possible to have more serious side effects (such as shivers, stomach pain, etc.) but those side effects are rare. They do not occur in 10% of people. (And people typically have those effects for only a short time, a fraction of the time that a person would be sick for.)

Heck, even if 10% had a negative reaction, remember that even at an effectiveness of only 23%, you've still got 13% more of the population that would actually benefit from the flu shot and yet have no side effects.

Well I saw this on the acutal Fluviral sheet from GSK. (http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/product-monographs/Fluviral.pdf)

Very common: pain and redness at the injection site, fatigue; Common: swelling at the injection site, fever, chills, malaise, chest tightness*

Very common being greater than 1/10 and common being up to 1/10. Other vaccines have 24% for muscle aches and 20% for fatigue. Again...if the number is so low as it is in Canada then there is no reward but you do have the above stated risks.

So I guess they did say such a thing!

There is indeed a definition of "eradicated" that is used by the medical community. The CDC uses the following definition: "interruption of year-round endemic measles transmission". (i.e. the disease actually has to be spreading.)

Yes, there were likely cases of measles in 2002, after the disease was "eliminated". They were likely from people who had recently visited other countries and picked up the disease there. And because the U.S. doesn't quarantine people when they return from foreign countries, it would be impossible to prevent a few cases popping up after getting infected elsewhere. But those that returned with the disease did not cause widespread transmission of the disease.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm

LMFAO....you are as slippery as they are. I asked you to define ERADICATED and you end up supplying me the definition for ELIMINATED but felt it was ok because you put it in quotes? The actual official defintion to ERADICATED is elimination on a world wide scale. You cannot eradicate something on a North American scale. Furthermore, ERADICATION means no future measures are required whereas ELIMINATION means continued measures are still needed. At no point did the US stop giving vaccines, so NO...it was never eradicated.

My bone of conention on this was that the Macleans article misused the word ERADICATED when its not correct and its still not correct despite your best efforts.

Overall when it comes to vaccines I think the statistics aren't great to begin with. As shown, the deaths from flu are simply an estimate. We guess at what the effective rates are? etc. However the largest area that needs to improve is getting more information on the people taking the vaccine and separating out certain pre-existing condtions. Right now it seems to lump everyone in as the same which we know from the measles decline in the 50s is not valid when it comes to such diseases.

segnosaur · February 20, 2015

By nonsense do you mean the multiple scientific studies that I provided or is it the numerical facts that I have posted? I can agree that anti-vaxxers most often will argue with anectodal evidence but I have not done that here, so your claim above is completely invalid and proof positive that any speculation of the vaccination industry leads to such statements.

The fact that you quote studies does not mean that you are correct in your opinions. Basically what it means is that you don't understand the science behind it, and end up thinking the study means something it does not.

Claims? Do you means scientifc studies? You know the TWO studies that I showed for the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in Canada.

This has already been explained to you multiple times....

- Another poster pointed out that because the Canadian study was so small, the confidence intervals were too wide to definitively say that it was "ineffective". This was explained to you. You stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted "la la la I can't hear you".

- The vaccine is ineffective against one strain of the flu. The vaccine works against multiple OTHER strains. It keeps people from getting sick with those other strains, yet you seem to harp on its ineffectiveness against ONE strain by suggesting it is useless, when it works against those other strains. Not everyone gets sick with the same strain of the flu you know.

You're really on a roll here. If I've made a claim that I have taken out of context then by all means step up and show it.

Already done. Your claim that the influenza vaccine is worthless. It is not. It still works on some strains of the flu that are ineffective. But you're taking one study (doesn't work against one strain) and taking it out of context.

I agree. Its also a problem when other valuable information is presented and people have their head's in the sand and won't validate it because 'the science is settled'. That has been a major point of mine. Both sides have issues they need to deal with

So, how much time and effort should we give to crackpot ideas? Should geologists start dealing with flat earthers because hey, science is meant to be challenge?

Again...you are saying that the 'science is settled' when its not. Studies have proven adjuvants can cause inflammation which again is a notable trait in children with autism.

Yeah, the science is settled.

The fact that certain additives in a vaccine can invoke a certain reaction doesn't mean they contribute to autism, even if that reaction looks like something associated with Autism.

As long as people have questions then science has to provide the answers. You have to remove the arrogance from it or you end up in athe place we are now.

So, by your logic we should start giving credibility to flat earthers and creationists, because hey, they're "asking questions".

Quite frankly, this whole vaccine debate will not go away until more questions are asked and answered.

Or, we get a more educated population who can either understand science better, or know their limitations.

Interesting. So my doctor that looked at me who said that I had an adverse reaction is wrong because you say so. I'll make sure I stop by his office to let him know.

Did your doctor do tests? Blood work to determine the strain? Or did he just say "yeah could be the shot, get out of my office". I rather suspect its the later, in which case its just as likely that he was getting rid of you than it was a serious attempt to analyze your condition.

With that being said, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence.

No, you rely on studies that you don't understand, and misinterpretations about what science actually says.

Wow....3,000 all the way to 49,000 hey. That is some fine precision.

Yes, its a range...Given the fact that flu seasons can differ significantly in the spread of the disease and the strength of the virus then a range is expected.

LOL. Of course you didn't come up with that number, its an ESTIMATE from the CDC. An estimate you say? Why yes....the CDC even says they do not KNOW how many people die from the flu each year. But you have NO problem trottting out these numbers do you. Here's a bit more on it if you feel like educating yourself (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm).

Yes its an estimate. You make it sound like its just some number they just pulled out of thin air. It is not.

Not every fatality had a complete set of tests to determine flu strains, etc. largely because they sometimes don't go to the doctor until after they've already become sick for a few days. They use statistical models.

Now with that said, it is quite obvious that you either missed or chose to overlook TWO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that shows that the flu vaccine doesn't actually prevent mortality.

Didn't over look it because, well, frankly, its a case of you misinterpreting the data.

So even if you're numbers are remotely correct, it doesn't matter as it is not proven that the flu shot actually prevents death.

http://www.atsjourna...cm.200802-282oc

Mortality Reduction with Influenza Vaccine in Patients with Pneumonia Outside “Flu” Season

...

Influenza vaccination was associated with a 51% mortality reduction (28 of 352 [8%] died vs. 53 of 352 [15%] control subjects...

The 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed in patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination.

Ok, notice the title of your study? it says "outside" flu season.

Secondly, notice how the results were worded? May have overestimated. Heck, your study even points out that vaccinated people fewer vaccinated people were dying... they just tried to explain it in other ways.

You know, that's a common tactic the anti-vaxxers use too..."smallpox/Polio/etc. weren't eliminated by vaccines, it was better health".

Here's what I find ironic... I point out deaths due to influenza, and you jump up and down shouting "Estimates!" like they were pulled from thin air. Then, in order to prove your point, you quote a study that does a heck of a lot more fudging of date than the CDC did.

Where you could begin is actually knowing what you are talking about. So far I'm the one providing scientific studies to back my claims while you're provding verbal diahhrea.

I have not posted scientific studies in this thread, but I have in other threads discussing vaccines.

For example:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/18692-missed-the-flu-scare-this-year/page-2#entry670433

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22228-about-flu-vaccines/page-3#entry876302

So, you want studies? Here's one...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204#Methods

With the initiation of the vaccination program for schoolchildren in Japan, excess mortality rates dropped from values three to four times those in the United States to values similar to those in the United States. The vaccination of Japanese children prevented about 37,000 to 49,000 deaths per year, or about 1 death for every 420 children vaccinated. As the vaccination of schoolchildren was discontinued, the excess mortality rates in Japan increased.

And unlike your studies, they didn't have to go and fudge statistics in order to get equivalent groups for comparison.

Now....speaking of studies, here's another one that illustrates that antibodies in naturally.

Which again is taking the information out of context.

If you get sick with one strain of the flu now, it will provide no protection if you get exposed to a totally unrelated strain of the flu.

So let me get this straight. If my body fights of a cold or bacteria then its getting a work out that will help to fight influenza? Really?

I assumed you were one of the people claiming "You have to get exposed to disease every once in a while to stay healthy".

You do realize the immune system is one stop shop. We have different immune responses (antibodies) for each one....so...no it won't help. My point is that getting the flu will actually give you the specfic antibodies to that strain naturally.

Which of course is largely irrelevant, since the flu tends to mutate and you will unlikely be exposed to the exact same strain in the future.

And once again, you don't need to reach some magical point with a vaccine in order for there to be benefit to society overall. Even a partly effective vaccine (or partly immunized population) might still prevent some cases of transmission.

'Might'...and 'some'. Can you qualify this for me?

No, I can't give exact numbers, because I don't know the exact situation (how many are vaccinated, how many people you get exposed to on a daily basis.)

Let me put things as simply as possible:

- You catch the flu from other people

- Not everyone that you meet will have the flu

- If you get exposed to just one person with the flu you risk getting the flu

- If that one person had gotten vaccinated and as a result hadn't gotten sick, then you would not be in any risk of catching the flu.

Simple enough for you?

First off...the 23% is in the US. As per the two articles/studies I posted, in Canada its next to zero.
Explained to you already. The Canadian study was small, and had a rather large confidence interval. That interval contained "zero", but it also contained 23%. How many more times does that have to be explained to you?

With that said, do you know what the 23% means? Of the x amount of virus strains out there, 23% are the strain that happens to be in the vaccine. This now automatically assumes that if you get the vaccine you are 100% certain to be immune from that strain which is not true.

You're right... you are also given partial immunity from related strains.

So....in Canada since its zero percent effective...

Please quite repeating falsehoods.

then that means there is neglible amount of those strains circulating. So go ahead and get the shot but you won't have much luck finding those strains...

23% is certainly not 0. Not sure how many times I have to explain that.

And yes, there are individuals that don't build up the proper antibodies. But that does not make the vaccine useless for them either...

Ummm.. which "health authorities" are you claiming are saying don't bother?

It was in the articles I posted. Perhaps it wasn't a 'don't bother' thing more than it was a don't rely on it.

There is a world of difference between "don't bother" and "don't rely on it". The fact that you would misinterpret their comment to assume they said "don't bother" is pretty much what I was talking about. antivaxers doing... taking some piece of evidence and mangling it.

They say no such thing.
10% might get side effects from the vaccine, but that will typically involve minor soreness, and perhaps a low-grade fever.

It is possible to have more serious side effects (such as shivers, stomach pain, etc.) but those side effects are rare. They do not occur in 10% of people. (And people typically have those effects for only a short time, a fraction of the time that a person would be sick for.)

Well I saw this on the acutal Fluviral sheet from GSK. (http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/product-monographs/Fluviral.pdf)

Very common: pain and redness at the injection site, fatigue; Common: swelling at the injection site, fever, chills, malaise, chest tightness*

Very common being greater than 1/10 and common being up to 1/10. Other vaccines have 24% for muscle aches and 20% for fatigue. Again...if the number is so low as it is in Canada then there is no reward but you do have the above stated risks.

So I guess they did say such a thing!

Your exact statement was: ...will give 10% vaccine takers the shivers, fever, feeling sick, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, implying that 10% will get vomiting, 10% would get stomach pain, etc. Yet your very own reference shows the number of people getting those symptoms is nowhere near 10%.

You drag up the serious complications like some bogey man, and lump them in with the mild complecations, implying that both are common. Very deceptive of you.

LMFAO....you are as slippery as they are. I asked you to define ERADICATED and you end up supplying me the definition for ELIMINATED but felt it was ok because you put it in quotes? The actual official defintion to ERADICATED is elimination on a world wide scale. You cannot eradicate something on a North American scale. Furthermore, ERADICATION means no future measures are required whereas ELIMINATION means continued measures are still needed. At no point did the US stop giving vaccines, so NO...it was never eradicated.

From the CDC: Eradication has been defined in various ways...as extinction of the disease pathogen (3), as elimination of the occurrence of a given disease, even in the absence of all preventive measures (4), as control of an infection to the point at which transmission ceased within a specified area (5), and as reduction of the worldwide incidence of a disease to zero as a result of deliberate efforts, obviating the necessity for further control measures (1). (from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm)

Now, given the fact that the U.S. is not the world, then any discussion of the disease world wide is irrelevant. So, the only definition that is relevant is: ...control of an infection to the point at which transmission ceased within a specified area. Which is pretty much the definition of eliminated.

The claim was that the disease was eradicated in the U.S.. They did not say it was eradicated world wide. This your "official definition" is irrelevant.

My bone of conention on this was that the Macleans article misused the word ERADICATED when its not correct...

The definition was correct. You just didn't bother doing the proper research.

Your ignorance should not be used to criticize others.

when it comes to vaccines I think the statistics aren't great to begin with. As shown, the deaths from flu are simply an estimate. We guess at what the effective rates are? etc.

Again, claiming something is an "estimate" does not mean that the numbers have been plucked from thin air. Scientists are smart; they usually have a good

Edited February 20, 2015 by segnosaur

Accountability Now · February 20, 2015

The fact that you quote studies does not mean that you are correct in your opinions. Basically what it means is that you don't understand the science behind it, and end up thinking the study means something it does not.

I am quoting the 'exact' results and conclusions of what these scientists are saying and not twisting a word. I know it doesn't fit into you your agennda which is why you claim that I don't understand science. You make that claim to anyone on here that disagrees with you so I honestly couldn't care if you say it or not. Its rather meaningless coming from you.

This has already been explained to you multiple times....

- Another poster pointed out that because the Canadian study was so small, the confidence intervals were too wide to definitively say that it was "ineffective". This was explained OTHER strains. It keeps people from getting sick with those other strains, yet you seem to harp on its ineffectiveness against ONE strain by suggesting it ise flu that are ineffective. But you're taking one study (doesn't work against one strain) and taking it out of context.,>

No...your reading skills have failed you. What was posted by the other poster was that the negative intervals do not mean that the flu vaccine would make you sick (ie have a negative benefit). He indicated that the sample size needs to be larger to zone in on those confidence intervals and get it above zero. I did agree with that. However the actual VE for the shot this year in Canada was next to zero. As per the INFLUENZA EXPERT:

There weren't enough cases of flu caused by H1N1 or influenza B viruses to assess whether the vaccine would have been more protective against them. That may change as the flu season progresses -- it is not uncommon to see late-season surges of influenza B illness. But for now, this year's shot's performance looks pretty dismal.

"I would say overall it's signalling no protection," said lead author Dr. Danuta Skowronski, an influenza expert at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.

You keep chirping about how its going to protect us from the other strains but as Dr. Skrowronski said there aren't enough of these other strains to even assess. Hence what's it going to protect us from? Sure they may come later in the season, but the season typically peaks in January/February. PS....today is Febuary 20th.

She also went on to say the following about the sample size which you said was too small:

Skowronski said that in statistical terms, the closer you get to showing that an intervention had no effect, the more people you need in your study to come up with narrow confidence intervals. For instance, to show a one per cent benefit of the vaccine, the researchers would have needed one million people in the study -- an unachievable feat. They actually had nearly 861, which is a good size for an interim analysis of flu vaccine effectiveness.

23% is certainly not 0. Not sure how many times I have to explain that.,>

How many times do I have to explain that Canada is not the US. We are north of the border, they are south. Do you need a visual?

The VE was 23% in the US. It was actually in negative number in Canada but as mentioned that only suggests it has no benefit. Here...as per the article you should have read the first time. Perhaps you are confused since the range goes from well below zero to 23% although the acutal VE stated is at -8%.

The Canadian estimate was a negative figure, minus eight per cent. That doesn't mean the vaccine made people who received a flu shot more susceptible to getting the flu. The confidence intervals -- the range within which the true number falls -- went from well below zero to 23 per cent. But because the numbers cross zero, the study did not find a statistically significant benefit of the vaccine.

Again...the US and Canada are different because they are actually seeing some matches going on there. Essentially none in Canada.

Skowronski said the lower effectiveness in Canada may relate to the fact that here essentially all the H3N2 viruses that have been tested are not a good match for the H3N2 virus included in the flu shot. In the U.S., about one-third of the viruses seen have been a match for the H3N2 component of the vaccine.

So, by your logic we should start giving credibility to flat earthers and creationists, because hey, they're "asking questions",>

So the old strawman...hey? Again...why is it all or none? I can either ask no questions or all questions according to you?

Did your doctor do tests? Blood work to determine the strain? Or did he just say "yeah could be the shot, get out of my office". mes don't g.,>

This is your response? A medcial doctor who says his opinion was that it was an adverse reaction to the shot must now have lab samples to prove its the flu. Do you require that same sort of confirmation for the 3,000-43,000 people that allegedly die from the flu?

In short....no. He never took samples just like he wouldn't take samples from most of the other people coming in for the flu LATER that season.

Yeah, the science is settled.

The fact that certain additives in a vaccine can invoke a certain reaction doesn't mean they contribute to autism, even if that reaction looks like something associated with Autism.,>

Until they figure out what actually causes autism or other auto-immune diseases that have increased dramatically then YES they do need to answer the question becasue as you said....the reaction LOOKS like something associated to autism. There are still credible questions to be answered...not your flat earth ones....credible ones.

No, you rely on studies that you don't understand, and misinterpretations about what science actually says.

Didn't over look it because, well, frankly, its a case of you misinterpreting the data.,>

See...your arrogance has blinded you once again. I have yet to INTERPRET anything. I have posted these studies and pasted the written conclusion of the scientists that wrote them. If you disagree with their findings then by all mean take it up with them and publish your findings that refute their paper. However, don't think that you have any sort of argument by saying that I'm 'misinterpreting' the data as I haven't. Again...this is a tactic you do with other posters yet you don't actually back it up.

Ok, notice the title of your study? it says "outside" flu season.,>

So what's your point on showing that its 'outside' of flu season. Trying to prove you can read? You failed that test many times already.

Heck, your study even points out that vaccinated people fewer vaccinated people were dying... they just tried to explain it in other ways.,>

Can someone please translate for me? I don't speak jibberish. Are you trying to say that the study shows fewer vaccinated people were dying? Wow....you continue to surprise me with your comprehension fails. Did you read the conclusion of the study....you know the part that actually tells you what they were looking for? Here...I'll post it AGAIN...

Conclusions: The 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed in patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination.

The 51% redcution in mortality was most like a result of CONFOUNDING. Less deaths? No...other factors.

You know, that's a common tactic the anti-vaxxers use too..."smallpox/Polio/etc. weren't eliminated by vaccines, it was better health".,>

Again...its a play on words that I have already said I don't like from either side. Vaccines 'eliminated' some and even 'eradicated' others however Vital Statistics/CDC shows the measles mortality REDUCED significantly before the vaccines came along. I have seen anti-vaxx sites claim the same about the other diseases but I haven't looked into it so I don't know. Of course by defintion, the vaccines eliminated/eradicated them.

Here's what I find ironic... I point out deaths due to influenza, and you jump up and down shouting "Estimates!" like they were pulled from thin air. Then, in order to prove your point, you quote a study that does a heck of a lot more fudging of date than the CDC did.

Thats the point with ALL of these studies. The data isn't accurate enough to be making strong conclusions....in other words the science isn't settled. When it comes to flu there are a number of factors that affect flu mortality including pre-existing condition, age, and even Vitamin D consumption (as per recent studies) So to rest your vaccine effectiveness on a direct relationship between number of people injected and number of deaths is quite broad and misleading.

I have not posted scientific studies in this thread, but I have in other threads discussing vaccines.

For example:

http://www.mapleleaf...e-2#entry670433

http://www.mapleleaf...e-3#entry876302,>

Oh good....I see you are this arrogant and abrubt with other posters on this site. Its not just me. Again...does everyone that disagree with you get told they don't understand science and have idiotic ideas?

So, you want studies? Here's one...

http://www.nejm.org/...3441204#Methods

With the initiation of the vaccination program for schoolchildren in Japan, excess mortality rates dropped from values three to four times those in the United States to values similar to those in the United States. The vaccination of Japanese children prevented about 37,000 to 49,000 deaths per year, or about 1 death for every 420 children vaccinated. As the vaccination of schoolchildren was discontinued, the excess mortality rates in Japan increased.

And unlike your studies, they didn't have to go and fudge statistics in order to get equivalent groups for comparison.

Really...they didn't fudge numbers? Apparently you didn't read the multiple follow up studies on the same thing that RE-DID the numbers where your study failed immensely. Like this one from 2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210121/). They found so many errors and confounding that it brought the numbers down significantly. But you didn't cherry pick your particular study for a reason...did you?

In 2001, Reichert et al. reported that the Japanese schoolchildren vaccination program prevented between 10,000 and 12,000 excess P&I deaths per season in the entire population, but the authors did not analyze mortality data specific to seniors [16]. Our estimate of 992 excess P&I deaths (95% CI: 3351,825) averted among seniors is substantially lower. Reichert et al. estimated mortality reductions by comparing excess P&I mortality rates in 1990 to those in the 1960 s. Notably, influenza-related excess mortality rates in the 1950 s60 s were declining sharply in all countries due to socio-economic changes. Excess mortality rates also declined during the years immediately following the 1968 A/H3N2 pandemic, likely due to the population-wide acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses over time (rather than to vaccination) [5], [28]. In addition, this study and others have shown that excess mortality estimates are very sensitive to the frequency of A/H3N2 virus circulation, which was not controlled for in the Reichert et al. study [16]. Therefore, we believe our evaluation of the schoolchildren vaccination program using mortality data specific to seniors, and including recent years for comparison, is more prudent and allows adjustment for important confounders.

It also notes the actual extra lives saved could be partly due to the introduction of antiviral medication....not just the vaccine.

Oseltamivir use has increased substantially in Japan since 2003 in all age groups, making Japan the country with the highest annual level of oseltamivir use per capita, comprising >70% of the world's consumption in 2009 [32], [33]. The decline in influenza-related mortality in the Japanese elderly observed after 2000 may be due in part to the routine use of oseltamivir and in part to increasing vaccination rates amongst the elderly, other high-risk groups, and children aged 613 years (Fig. 2, Table S1). While it is too soon to precisely evaluate to effect of oseltamivir use on influenza-related mortality in the Japanese population, high oseltamivir usage was limited to the last 3 years of our study and would only bias our analyses towards null hypotheses.

Of course....I will bring up the question of how can you even count the number of people saved from influenza death when you can't even know how many died in the first place? I also think its interesting that you chose to focus on Japan...a country that banned the MMR vaccine, still doesn't have a mumps vaccine and is now not allowing doctors to promote the HPV vaccine. I guess the question at the end of the day is if your study is true and so effective then why has Japan removed themselves from mandatory flu vaccination and why are they moving themselves from others as well? Perhaps there are risks that outweigh the reward?

Your exact statement was: ...will give 10% vaccine takers the shivers, fever, feeling sick, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, implying that 10% will get vomiting, 10% would get stomach pain, etc. Yet your very own reference shows the number of people getting those symptoms is nowhere near 10%.

You drag up the serious complications like some bogey man, and lump them in with the mild complecations, implying that both are common. Very deceptive of you.,>,>,>

Ok....remove vomitting and stomach pain. Up to 10% will get swelling at the injection site, fever, chills, malaise, chest tightness. Over 10% will feel fatigue. But yet 0% will get any protection.

From the CDC: Eradication has been defined in various ways...as extinction of the disease pathogen (3), as elimination of the occurrence of a given disease, even in the absence of all preventive measures (4), as control of an infection to the point at which transmission ceased within a specified area (5), and as reduction of the worldwide incidence of a disease to zero as a result of deliberate efforts, obviating the necessity for further control measures (1). (from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm)

Now, given the fact that the U.S. is not the world, then any discussion of the disease world wide is irrelevant. So, the only definition that is relevant is: ...control of an infection to the point at which transmission ceased within a specified area. Which is pretty much the definition of eliminated.,>,>

Another comprehension fail but this one is bad. Do you know what the word 'has' means? It means it did....in the past. The paper you quoted this from was written in 1999 and even at that point the author was stating Eradication HAS been defined many ways. If you would have read a little further down the paper, you would see where he offers current definitions which were the purpose of the Dahlen Workshops held in 1997. Definitions that were intended for the medical community to move forward on:

Elimination of disease:Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required. Example: neonatal tetanus.
Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis.
Eradication: Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox.

So Macleans had since 1997 to get this right but yet they're still using eradicated on a local scale? They even break out Elimination further....and measles isn't even Elimination of the disease in the US but rather Elimination of infections. Just another connotative pleasing touch to say it that way.

The claim was that the disease was eradicated in the U.S.. They did not say it was eradicated world wide. This your "official definition" is irrelevant.,>,>

Acutally they said it was eradicated in North America...not just the US. And as proven above they are not using the CORRECT defintion as per the ones agreed to in 1997. But hey...if you are ok with misusing defintions then there is a lot of truth to what the anti-vaxxers say.

The definition was correct. You just didn't bother doing the proper research.

Your ignorance should not be used to criticize others.

The defintion was not correct. You didn't even finish reading the paper that you Googled. You must have been so happy when you read that first line...like a kid in a candy shop.

Your ignorance should just not be used at all.

Again, claiming something is an "estimate" does not mean that the numbers have been plucked from thin air. Scientists are smart; they usually have a good,>

A good what? Cat's got your tongue?

Scientific modeling is good when you have great data and are able to dial in using controls. The data on influenza is not great and therefore the models are only so good. Once more appropriate data is accumlated, data which breaks out characteristics and demographics, then these models will be more meaningful. Until then the science is not settled.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Accountability Now

Sign In

U.S. Whooping Cough outbreak worst in 70 years

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Tell a friend

Member Statistics

Recent Achievements

Recently Browsing