This year flu vaccine only 23% effective according to CDC!

[jmdrake]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...tive/21804187/

Really folks, this is a no brainer. You can lie to yourself and believe you are "protected" by a vaccine that is only 23% effective, or you can eat healthy, take garlic, elderberry, megadoses of vitamin C, and chow down on some delicious kimchi. Even if you think the risk of vaccines is minimal, why take that risk at all when you can better protect yourself, against flu anyway, naturally?

[phill4paul]

"To The Parent of the Vaccinated Child Who Exposed My Family to Flu"

[William Tell]

"To The Parent of the Vaccinated Child Who Exposed My Family to Flu"

+Rep.

I'm glad I didn't get the stupid shot.

[jmdrake]

+Rep.

I'm glad I didn't get the stupid shot.

Me either. Here's a question to vaxxers. How low would the efficacy of the flu vaccine have to drop before you would drop it in favor of natural alternatives?

[mrsat_98]

Where are my glasses did that really say only 87% defective ?

[William Tell]

By "23% effective" do they mean that 77% of those who got the shot ended up with the flu? I don't know if that's what they meant or not. If that is the case, I wonder what percentage of Americans overall got the flu this year.

[William Tell]

A guy in the comments says:

In my household, they were 0% effective.

[donnay]

I have never taken a flu vaccine and never will. A strong immune system; not being deficient in vitamins and minerals is the only way to beat getting the flu and other diseases.

[jmdrake]

By "23% effective" do they mean that 77% of those who got the shot ended up with the flu? I don't know if that's what they meant or not. If that is the case, I wonder what percentage of Americans overall got the flu this year.

They mean that 77% of those vaccinated will have no immunity based on the vaccine itself. Imagine if you were on a boat that where only 23% of the liferafts were sea worthy. The boat might never sink. (Similar to you never being exposed to the flu virus anyway). The boat might sink and you might get on one of the 23 of 100 rafts that were good. (You developed immunity from the vaccine). The boat might sink but you might somehow swim to shore. (Somehow your immune system wards of the flu despite the fact that the vaccine doesn't work.)

Actually...that's still not a perfect example. What's really going on is that 100% of the vaccine is only effective against 23% of the prevalent viruses because the others have mutated. But if you concentrate on building up your immune system naturally, mutating viruses don't matter.

[William Tell]

Well, when are the Vaccine cheerleaders going to explain to us about how the CDC is wrong this time?

[CPUd]

Well, when are the Vaccine cheerleaders going to explain to us about how the CDC is wrong this time?

In the 10's of threads about the effectiveness (or lack of) of the flu vaccines, I haven't seen anyone argue that the flu vaccines are anything to write home about.

[Zippyjuan]

The difficulty with the flu shot is that they have to guess about a year in advance which strains of the flu will be the most common. They don't know for sure so they base it on what was most common the last couple of years. If you came in contact with the flu (even if you didn't get sick), or had last year's shot, you probably already have immunity to those. Then there is always some new strain popping up. The vaccine won't protect against that one (or there could be more than one which shows up). It spreads exactly because people don't have immunity to that one yet. The vaccine is pretty effective against the strains it is designed for but cannot offer any protection against strains it is not designed for- the new ones which circulate every year.

I don't get the flu shot- not because of the incredibly small risks of getting any vaccine, but because it really doesn't help most people. The fact that the flu vaccine isn't a particularly helpful one does not mean that all vaccines are bad or useless though.

[brandon]

The flu shot isn't really for normal healthy adults. If you're a person at risk of dying from the flu (or live with someone who is) I'd say a shot that gives you a 27% chance of immunity is still worth it. It's a shame that the vaccine isn't more effective yet.

[PaulConventionWV]

The difficulty with the flu shot is that they have to guess about a year in advance which strains of the flu will be the most common. They don't know for sure so they base it on what was most common the last couple of years. If you came in contact with the flu (even if you didn't get sick), or had last year's shot, you probably already have immunity to those. Then there is always some new strain popping up. The vaccine won't protect against that one (or there could be more than one which shows up). It spreads exactly because people don't have immunity to that one yet. The vaccine is pretty effective against the strains it is designed for but cannot offer any protection against strains it is not designed for- the new ones which circulate every year.

I don't get the flu shot- not because of the incredibly small risks of getting any vaccine, but because it really doesn't help most people. The fact that the flu vaccine isn't a particularly helpful one does not mean that all vaccines are bad or useless though.

Wow, finally a concession by the pro-vaxxers. The flu vaccine is worthless! Now if only you could expand that logic and apply it to other vaccines. How do we know we are getting the right strains of any disease?

[PaulConventionWV]

The flu shot isn't really for normal healthy adults. If you're a person at risk of dying from the flu (or live with someone who is) I'd say a shot that gives you a 27% chance of immunity is still worth it. It's a shame that the vaccine isn't more effective yet.

Right, because if you didn't get the vaccine, then your immunity would be absolute zero...

There are also absolutely no other ways in existence to improve your immune system health other than vaccines.

Think about what you're saying: Go to the doctor and get injected with some mystery fluid because it might protect you, but it probably won't... I wonder what your insurance agency would have to say about that. To me, that sounds like a bad deal for anyone, never mind people who are supposedly at risk.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

the pro-vaxxers.

Now, that's a good name for them. Pro vakksers. Heil, Vakksers.

Go to the doctor and get injected with some mystery fluid

Mystery fluid. That's another good one. Like a mix of oil, antifreeze, and some $#@! used by Colonel Sanders.

[amy31416]

Me either. Here's a question to vaxxers. How low would the efficacy of the flu vaccine have to drop before you would drop it in favor of natural alternatives?

I'm a "vaxxer," but there are differences--the 'flu vaccine sucks--and it has for a long time. It's about being reasonable, not blind.

[Zippyjuan]

Now, that's a good name for them. Pro vakksers. Heil, Vakksers.



Mystery fluid. That's another good one. Like a mix of oil, antifreeze, and some $#@! used by Colonel Sanders.

In another thread, somebody said they had insecticides in them.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

In another thread, somebody said they had insecticides in them.

Which one? Vaccines or Kentucky Fried?

[Zippyjuan]

Vaccines.

[brandon]

Right, because if you didn't get the vaccine, then your immunity would be absolute zero...

There are also absolutely no other ways in existence to improve your immune system health other than vaccines.

Think about what you're saying: Go to the doctor and get injected with some mystery fluid because it might protect you, but it probably won't... I wonder what your insurance agency would have to say about that. To me, that sounds like a bad deal for anyone, never mind people who are supposedly at risk.

I didn't say a single one of those things. You said them all. In fact I don't agree with any of them and don't understand at all why you are saying them. It's like you're trying to invent a person to argue with and for some reason involving me in it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Vaccines.

Eh, whatever. Frankly, I don't see much difference between "Doctor" Fauci and Colonel $#@!ing Sanders.

[Working Poor]

By "23% effective" do they mean that 77% of those who got the shot ended up with the flu? I don't know if that's what they meant or not. If that is the case, I wonder what percentage of Americans overall got the flu this year.

everyone I personally know who has the flu also got the vaccine...

[donnay]

In another thread, somebody said they had insecticides in them.

WWII Military Handbook Reveals Pesticide Chemicals Used In Infant Vaccines
http://vactruth.com/2011/09/10/wwii-...fant-vaccines/

Vaccine Ingredients: Non-Ionic Surfactants (Tween 80, Triton X-100, Nonoxynol-9)
http://vactruth.com/2011/08/23/vacci...0-nonoxynol-9/

Polio, Pesticides And The ‘Immunisation’ Programme

In the 1940’s, pesticides were introduced into farming, including the later banned DDT pesticide, and mass vaccination was begun with diphtheria anti-toxin, which up until that time had not been in widespread use.

Dr. Biskind, who wrote in a 1953 edition of The American Journal of Digestive Diseases, thought that the upsurge of polio was caused by industry introducing more and more poisons into people’s lives.

‘Central nervous system diseases (CNS) such as polio are actually the physiological and symptomatic manifestations of the ongoing government- and industry-sponsored inundation of the world's populace with central nervous system poisons.

It was even known by 1945 that DDT is stored in the body fat of mammals and appears in the milk. With this foreknowledge the series of catastrophic events that followed the most intensive campaign of mass poisoning in known human history, should not have surprised the experts.’

(Morton S. Biskind, MD. Public Health Aspects of the New Insecticides. American Journal of Digestive Diseases, New York, 1953, v 20, p331.).

Pesticide usage and incidence of polio mirrored each other.

Usage of chemicals in vaccines have also been linked with polio. Dr. Geffen in London reported 30 children who had been vaccinated with diphtheria and whooping cough vaccines and went on to develop polio within 4 weeks of vaccination.

‘'The paralysis affecting, in particular, the limb of injection.’

(Bradford Hill, A., Knoweldon, J. 1950. "Inoculation and Poliomyelitis". BMJ, July 1st, pp 1-6.).

By 1950, the UK Department of Health advised that vaccines were NOT used in areas where there was polio, because of the risk of them triggering polio.

It was reported that of 112 cases of paralysis admitted to the Park Hospital, London, during 1947-1949, 14 were paralyzed in the limb which had received one or more of a course of immunizing injections within the previous two months. In the majority of cases, the interval between the last injection and the onset of paralysis was between 9 and 14 days. Again, combined whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus injections were involved. This outbreak of polio followed an intensive immunization campaign during that time, 1947-49. Following these findings, the Ministry of Health recommended that diphtheria and triple vaccines should not be used in areas where polio was naturally present. From that time onwards, the incidence of paralytic polio decreased rapidly in Britain, even prior to the advent of Salk vaccination..." (Reported in the July 29th edition of the BMJ, 1950).

http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/...-Controversies

[jmdrake]

I'm a "vaxxer," but there are differences--the 'flu vaccine sucks--and it has for a long time. It's about being reasonable, not blind.

Fair enough. But some "vaxxers" push the flu vaccine just as hard as they do any other vaccine. (AngelaTC for example). And is it not reasonable to weigh benefits/risks for any vaccine?

[jmdrake]

The difficulty with the flu shot is that they have to guess about a year in advance which strains of the flu will be the most common. They don't know for sure so they base it on what was most common the last couple of years. If you came in contact with the flu (even if you didn't get sick), or had last year's shot, you probably already have immunity to those. Then there is always some new strain popping up. The vaccine won't protect against that one (or there could be more than one which shows up). It spreads exactly because people don't have immunity to that one yet. The vaccine is pretty effective against the strains it is designed for but cannot offer any protection against strains it is not designed for- the new ones which circulate every year.

I don't get the flu shot- not because of the incredibly small risks of getting any vaccine, but because it really doesn't help most people. The fact that the flu vaccine isn't a particularly helpful one does not mean that all vaccines are bad or useless though.

Thank you for this candid post. You and Amy fit into the "Well at least the flu vaccine isn't worth it" category of vaxxers. But here's the question. If the flu vaccine is worthless, why does the MSM and the CDC continue to push it as worthwhile? And if you can't trust the MSM and the CDC on the flu vaccine, why trust them on other vaccines? I don't go so far as to say all vaccines are worthless. But I do believe their worth is overstated. You seem to agree that is the case with the flu vaccine at least.

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't say a single one of those things. You said them all. In fact I don't agree with any of them and don't understand at all why you are saying them. It's like you're trying to invent a person to argue with and for some reason involving me in it.

I think you know why I said them. Notice you didn't actually explain what you were saying and instead tried to get out of it post-haste.

[jmdrake]

The flu shot isn't really for normal healthy adults. If you're a person at risk of dying from the flu (or live with someone who is) I'd say a shot that gives you a 27% chance of immunity is still worth it. It's a shame that the vaccine isn't more effective yet.

Here is the problem with that thinking.

1) You got the statistic wrong. It was only 23% effective, not 27%.

2) Vaccines are recommended for people who really aren't at significant risk for dying from the flu.

3) There is a risk of catching the flu from some flu vaccines. Some people take a vaccine that is a live attenuated virus. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm) So there's the risk of catching the flu from something that only gives you a minimal risk of being protected from the flu.

4) Other risks from all of the chemicals in the vaccine injection.

Now put that up against eating kimchi. There's no attenuated virus in it. It has some effect against viruses in general, not just one particular strain of the flu, and there are no chemicals. Seriously, why go with the vaccine when there is a cheaper, safer, and arguably more efficacious alternative?