How Effective Is The 2018 Flu Shot?

[angelatc]

http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/2018-h...-the-flu-shot/

....after last year’s flu killed 80,000 people—the highest U.S. influenza death toll in 40 years—many are questioning how effective the flu shot really is.

The short answer: No one really knows.

The long answer: This year’s flu shot is looking promising—so far.

researchers believe is one of the reasons last year’s flu season was so deadly—the virus mutated.

“We guessed right about the common strains that dominated last year’s flu season,” Gottlieb said. “It’s now believed that part of the reason that the vaccine was not as protective is that the flu strain used to manufacture the vaccine mutated very subtly during the development process.”

“This isn’t the first time that the vaccine strains have deviated in some important ways from the influenza strain that ends up circulating during the flu season,” Gottlieb said. “But we’ve learned a lot of lessons from these highly unfortunate incidents. And we’ve improved our scientific methods to reduce the odds that it happens again.

And a special congrats to DonnaY and the anti-vax cheerleaders for seeing some results from all that "research" ya'll target to young mothers:

Last year, most of the children who died from the flu had not been vaccinated, the agency said, adding that even if a person contracts the flu, a flu shot could lessen its severity.

[donnay]

Hmm..."fortune article." Yeah Big pHARMa makes a fortune off of scaring people.

[angelatc]

Hmm..."fortune article." Yeah Big pHARMa makes a fortune off of scaring people.

Based on 2017 flu outcomes, 80000 children would still be alive if they had scared them just a little more.

Meanwhile, the anti-vaxxers make a fortune off killing children. And here you are, in all your anti-science, anti-logic and anti-capitalism glory.

[donnay]

Based on 2017 flu outcomes, 80000 children would still be alive if they had scared them just a little more.

Meanwhile, the anti-vaxxers make a fortune off killing children. And here you are, in all your anti-science, anti-logic and anti-capitalism glory.

How come you believe government cooks numbers all the time but this one area you believe them hook, line and sinker?

[angelatc]

How come you believe government cooks numbers all the time but this one area you believe them hook, line and sinker?

Wow....I can't even begin to answer that, because it makes a pretty wild assumption about what I believe. Which actually has no bearing on the issue at hand, but still....

If you're asking me as to why I believe the numbers, it's because there's no evidence to disprove them. When and if such evidence emerges, I will examine it objectively and change my position if necessary. <- That's what makes me a reliable source.

If you can't make your next "point" without using the word "you!" don't bother.

[donnay]

Flu Stats: When the Numbers Don’t Add Up

By Cathy Jameson

I read that more than 80,000 Americans died from the flu last year. For years, a much lower figure of 36,000 deaths usually circulated in the news. At one point, the CDC gave a different estimate of 3,900 to 49,000. I couldn’t recall seeing numbers as high as 80,000 before, so I did a little bit of reading about the flu and how it’s tracked. With how many national, state, and local webpages there are devoted to flu statistics, I learned a lot! I haven’t had time to go through everything there is out there, but with that glaring headline that’s making the rounds I’ll be sure to keep reading.

The very first tidbit that caught my eye was the CDC’s yearly statement about flu deaths on their own website. After reading it on several flu summary pages, that 80,000 stat seems to negate what the NYT and other media sources are repeating:

How many people died from flu during the 2017-2018 season?

While flu deaths in children are reported to CDC, flu deaths in adults are not nationally notifiable.

How many people die from flu each year? (2016 – 2017)

CDC does not count how many people die from flu each year. Unlike flu deaths in children, flu deaths in adults are not nationally reportable.

How many people died from flu during the 2015-2016 season?

CDC does not count how many people die from flu each year.

How many people died from flu during the 2014-2015 season?

CDC does not count how many people die from flu each year. Unlike flu deaths in children, flu deaths in adults are not nationally reportable.

Ad nauseum to the 2006-2007 yearly flu summary page:

How many people died from flu during the 2006-07 season?

Exact numbers of how many people died from flu this season cannot be determined. Flu-associated deaths are only a nationally notifiable condition among children, and states are not required to report flu cases or to report adult deaths from influenza to CDC…

If the CDC is stating that they do not count adult cases, then where are they getting the 80,000 figure for deaths? Could it include the pediatric cases, those under the age of 18? I don’t see how if it does. The pediatric statistics are far from 80,000.

I had to keep reading.

What I learned was that while adult flu deaths are not nationally notifiable or required to be reported, complications from the flu in adults, like Influenza & Pneumonia, is tracked within the CDC’s flu database. So are Influenza-Like Illnesses. But not the flu itself. Since I needed more time to wrap my head around what they track and what they chose to report, I decided to take a break and look at those pediatric cases next. Those numbers looked solid.

Pediatric deaths from the flu are documented. The CDC asked for them to start being reported back in 2003 as pediatric flu-associated deaths became a nationally notifiable condition. In 2004, 152 children died from the flu. The following year saw a decrease with 39 deaths. Total cases since 2003 when the CDC began tracking flu deaths in the pediatric population to last year is 1,593.

NYT is off by one, (it’s 181 pediatric deaths reported in 2017-18) but they are right in stating that last year was the worst year for pediatric flu deaths according to the statistics I saw. Other numbers well over 100 deaths were reported several times in the last few years:

146 (or 148 depending on which chart you read) were recorded in 2015.

2013 saw 169 deaths.

2011 saw 115 pediatric deaths.

2010 saw an increase in flu deaths and also included those linked to the H1N1 pandemic. That year, the CDC reported that 348 children passed away.

Looking backwards from 2009 to 2005, less than 100, and some far less than 100 pediatric deaths were reported per year. As I gathered this information, it was interesting to note the changing of the wording some years – some stats had said flu deaths while others said flu-related deaths. I’m not a trained statistician, but curiosity took over. Was it the flu that caused the death, or was it something else? If it was something else besides the flu, I’d think that information wouldn’t be part of these statistics but should have its own separate category elsewhere.

One death is reason to mourn. Any death, no matter the circumstance, is reason to mourn as well. Seeing those pediatric statistics made my heart ache. They’re what drove me to push my instinct aside and get my child a flu shot one year. But I was still wondering about those adult numbers. To me, the numbers weren’t adding up. So, I went looking for more information on other charts and for multiple years in a row.

Most of the other information about adult flu cases were reported in percentages of cases, not straight up numbers like the pediatric cases are. For adults, the Pneumonia & Influenza Mortality Surveillance (P&I) category data was somewhat helpful on the flu data webpages. That gave me info on when the flu peaked in a particular year and how many cases were over or under the national baseline. Percentages of Laboratory-confirmed cases were also listed. But still - no solid numbers were shared. Information on the Influenza-Like Illness Symptoms (ILI) that are tracked didn’t offer specific numbers either. I did learn that the reporting comes from 122 cities in the US and that they’re counting ILI hospitalization and ILI outpatient visits. But no exact number of adult cases like we read about in the pediatric data were offered. Now, I’m not saying it’s wrong to use percentages or a range of data. I was just hoping to find and add up exact numbers myself like I had been able to with the pediatric numbers.

As has happened before, I had more questions than I started out when I took a break from reading.

-Why count actual kids and instead give ranges of percentages for adults? Those ranges may represent thousands or tens of thousands as recent news articles have eagerly reported; but why don’t officials count cases the same way?

-Who are the U.S. sentinel physicians (and providers) reporting the Influenza Morbidity reports and how many of them are there? How and why were these individuals chosen?

-Where are the 122 surveillance cities referenced in the flu season summaries, and why were those locations picked?

-I know it could significantly increase the numbers, but if we’re counting Americans with the flu in America, why aren’t all 19,534 cities in America included in the surveillance? Is it like how the CDC calculates the autism rate from only 11 states and only from a limited cohort of children born after a certain year?

I haven’t had time to find answers for those questions yet, but I will. While I wait to do that, I did have time to start looking at something else. I noticed one new addition to the flu season summary from the 2007 – 2008 year, and boy did it pique my interest. That was the year that the summary added that out of the reported deaths, a certain number were unvaccinated:

Of the 63 cases aged 6 months and older for whom vaccination status was known, 58 (92%) had not been vaccinated against influenza according to the 2007 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. These data are provisional and subject to change as more information becomes available.

Huh, I thought, they included vaccine status - what a novel idea! Since my son had a reaction post flu vaccine, I wanted to see what else the CDC had to say about the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. But that was the one and only year that I saw that information mentioned. I know we can find current data on how many people were compensated post-vaccination for flu (and other) vaccine complications, but I’d be very curious to know something more—has anyone tracked how many flu shots are administered yearly to how many flu deaths occur in the vaccinated yearly? Since we know how many flu vaccines are manufactured (163 – 168 million vaccines for 2018-19), surely we can do a little more math to see how many vaccines administered lead to flu prevention. On the flip side, we can see which ones result in laboratory-confirmed influenza, P&I, and ILI, too. Vax side effects cdc

If I was a betting woman, I’d say the vaccine will likely flop again as it has previous years. That’s because the CDC is telling us the flu shot is only going to be “at least 20% effective” this year. That also means it’s going to be at least 80% ineffective. Even with that terrible rate, everyone aged 6 months and older is being urged to get a flu shot. Experts have a “good hunch” that it’ll do the trick to prevent the flu. To them, and to the officials who tend to over exaggerate how great the flu shot is while pitching how bad each “flu season” will be, I’d rather not get it. The flu is a beast. This I know. But I keep going back to an old adage – you can’t believe everything you read about that hyped up shot. I’m going to apply that to what I saw in other articles as well, that last year was one of the worst flu seasons ever. I understand that it was bad, but was it really 80,000?

Even though I did read some very compelling flu statistics over the last few days, something’s still not adding up. How can it when the “CDC does not count how many people die from flu each year”? That’s clearly and constantly stated on the CDC’s webpages. I don’t know why it is when they definitively state a specific number of deaths reported year after year, like 80,000 last year.

80,000.

That number.

I’d like to research it a bit more because it sounded a little too unbelievable when I first heard it. After doing the reading I was able to on the flu last week, it still does.

Cathy Jameson is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.

--

Links if you’d like to do your own research:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season...-2017-2018.htm (previous years to 2006 can be accessed on the left side bar)

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weekl...6/weekly09.htm (2005 – 2006)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5413a2.htm (2004 – 2005)*

*I was able to go back to 1999 – 2000 on the FluView portal.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r2k0622g.htm (1995 – 2000)

https://gis.cdc.gov/GRASP/Fluview/PedFluDeath.html (tracking of pediatric cases)

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/index.htm (current flu vaccine supply information)

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pi...nt-table-2.pdf (listed vaccine ingredients)

https://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/st...uirements.aspx (vaccine exemptions by state)

https://hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/index.html (Information on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program)

Posted by Age of Autism on October 07, 2018 at 06:00 AM in Cathy Jameson | Permalink | Comments (34)

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/10/...nt-add-up.html

[Firestarter]

Mark Geier worked 10 years at the National Institute of Health, was a professor at Johns Hopkins University as a geneticist, and was the author of over 150 peer-reviewed publications. Geier studied vaccine safety and efficacy for more than 30 years and is basically pro-vaccine, but against the flu vaccine.

In the following video, Geier explains that because they can only test “old” strains of the flu, they don’t know the efficacy of flu vaccines for the coming flu season. Therefore the flu vaccine is really an “experimental vaccine” that they want to inject into 300 million people every year in the US alone.


Because in medical trials they only report on adverse effects for 2 weeks, they really don’t know about long-term adverse effects.
There has never been a study to evaluate what happens when you give yearly flu vaccines. An 80-year-old getting flu shots every year would get 80 shots, probably this will cause cumulative damage that the single dose in a medical trial won’t show: https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/get-your ... ne-in-u-s/

If you're asking me as to why I believe the numbers, it's because there's no evidence to disprove them. When and if such evidence emerges, I will examine it objectively and change my position if necessary. <- That's what makes me a reliable source.

The biggest quacks of all, are the big pharma trolls that copy-paste the most preposterous lies all over the internet...

Total cases since 2003 when the CDC began tracking flu deaths in the pediatric population to last year is 1,593.

Every single year we are made afraid of some massive flu outbreak, to immediately get a flu shot. Jon Rappoport has reported that there is, was no massive flu outbreak at all.
It’s just another media hype to make us get poisoned with flu vaccines. Health authorities even admit this year’s flu vaccine is only 10% effective.

Dr. Peter Doshi wrote that only 16% of respiratory samples taken from “flu patients” in the US show the presence of a flu virus. In other words: 84% of the reported cases don’t have the flu.
Therefore the vaccine couldn’t possibly work in 84% of the reported “flu” cases
In 2005, Doshi reported that of the “influenza and pneumonia” deaths that took 62,034 lives in 2001 — in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.

In 2009, Sharyl Attkisson reported “that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all”: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018 ... e-scandal/
(archived here: http://archive.is/7QXc5)

[AZJoe]

Based on 2017 flu outcomes, 80000 children would still be alive if they had scared them just a little more.

Meanwhile, the anti-vaxxers make a fortune off killing children. And here you are, in all your anti-science, anti-logic and anti-capitalism glory.

No Angela, The article does NOT say 80,000 children allegedly died from the flu. It says 80,000 people allegedly died from the flu. Proclaiming that all of them were children is just outright dishonesty. According to the CDC, the number of child flu deaths for the 2017-2018 is 185. 185 is a far cry from 80,0000. (Also of note, the CDC admits many of those had received the latest flu vaccine - but it didn't work. And when the CDC says most were unvaccinated, the CDC does not mean never vaccinated. It just means has not received the latest never ending conveyer belt flu vaccine rollout).

Further, the 80,000 figure is bogus. Over a five month flu season that would have been 16,000 people dying every month from the flu. That many people dropping dead would have been front page 24/7 media coverage. Anyone remember hearing it? No? Because it did not happen.

Here is where the CDC phony estimates come from. The CDC numbers are estimates of "flu related" deaths. It includes both actual flu and pneumonia and respiratory deaths to come up with that number. It just assumes all pneumonia and respiratory deaths are the flu, which of course is ridiculous. Pneumonia is a common complication of a variety of many causes including the result of system failures of old age - just dying of old age. The CDC itself admits that 80% of their estimate are people over age 65.

The last year the CDC actually separated out the flu vs pneumonia on their alleged "flu related" deaths was 2010 and the total was 55,227 alleged flu related deaths, of which only 4605 (8.3%) were flu and 50622 were pneumonia. Applying the same ratio to 2017-2018 would give us 6,670 total actual flu deaths for the 2017-2018 season. Even that small number ignores all other relevant factors that would compromise an immune system such as old age, poor health, chronic illness, bad diet, lack of exercise, obesity, diabetes, drug abuse, smoking, alcoholism etc.

[Danke]

I'm going in for my third flu shot this season on Monday. If one helps, can you imagine my super immunity with three?!

[angelatc]

No Angela, The article does NOT say 80,000 children allegedly died from the flu. It says 80,000 people allegedly died from the flu.

You are right!

Further, the 80,000 figure is bogus. Over a five month flu season that would have been 16,000 people dying every month from the flu. That many people dropping dead would have been front page 24/7 media coverage. Anyone remember hearing it? No? Because it did not happen.

Obvious logic flaws aside, an average of 70,000 thousand people die every year from the flu.

Here is where the CDC phony estimates come from. The CDC numbers are estimates of "flu related" deaths. It includes both actual flu and pneumonia and respiratory deaths to come up with that number. It just assumes all pneumonia and respiratory deaths are the flu, which of course is ridiculous.

That's not really ridiculous, it's just far more complicated than perhaps we think it should be.

CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year. There are several reasons for this. First, states are not required to report individual seasonal flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, seasonal influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications. Third, many seasonal flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as bacterial pneumonia) or because seasonal influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Also, most people who die from seasonal flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when seasonal influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Sensitive influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. In addition, some commonly used tests to diagnose influenza in clinical settings are not highly sensitive and can provide false negative results (i.e. they misdiagnose flu illness as not being flu.) For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of seasonal flu-related deaths.

OK back to you:

Pneumonia is a common complication of a variety of many causes including the result of system failures of old age - just dying of old age.

No, it's always an infection, either bacterial or viral. It's never just "old age."

The CDC itself admits that 80% of their estimate are people over age 65.

I think that we all agree that older people are naturally weaker people, and therefore more prone to die.

The last year the CDC actually separated out the flu vs pneumonia on their alleged "flu related" deaths was 2010 and the total was 55,227 alleged flu related deaths, of which only 4605 (8.3%) were flu and 50622 were pneumonia. Applying the same ratio however to 2017-2018 would give us 6,670 total actual flu deaths for the 2017-2018 season. Even that small number ignores all other relevant factors that would compromise an immune system such as old age, poor health, chronic illness, bad diet, lack of exercise, obesity, diabetes, drug abuse, smoking, alcoholism etc.

Statistical modeling would account for all those secondary factors. That's how statistical modeling works. It's more complicated than simple addition, which is what you're proposing.

But to be clear here - is your contention that only young, healthy, beautiful people should survive infectious diseases? Because I'm not sure why you think that those deaths should be weighted more heavily than those old, fat, drunk people.

[angelatc]

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/10/...nt-add-up.html

Jesus, Donna. It's right there in your article: I’m not a trained statistician, but

Protip: Whenever someone says right up front, "I don't know what the hell I'm taking about, but" you should stop reading.

[donnay]

Jesus, Donna. It's right there in your article: I’m not a trained statistician, but

Protip: Whenever someone says right up front, "I don't know what the hell I'm taking about, but" you should stop reading.

The thing it proves is, that people with common sense know the numbers are cooked to scare the hell out of people. As demonstrated in other posts 80,000 children did not die from flu last year--even according to the government.

[Brian4Liberty]

Last year’s flu vaccine was not effective at all, and was simply a duplicate of the vaccine the year before. As @Danke has said, for those two years, it was taking the same shot twice. It wasn’t twice as good though.

This year’s vaccine has been updated to better match circulating flus. The vaccine this year should be a better match. We won’t know until th flu season is over.

[AZJoe]

Obvious logic flaws aside, an average of 70,000 thousand people die every year from the flu.

Is Angela just making up numbers? Even the CDC phony numbers don't come up with a 70K average. The CDC average is only 42,000. And as already explained here, the CDC estimates are phony to begin with.

No, it's always an infection, either bacterial or viral. It's never just "old age." ... I think that we all agree that older people are naturally weaker people, and therefore more prone to die.

First this admission that pneumonia is triggered by "bacterial or viral" ( and also fungal btw) confirms that all pneumonia or respiratory deaths are not all from flu. This verifies the CDC estimates based on attributing all deaths where pneumonia or respiratory failure are listed as COD as flu deaths are phony inflated numbers.

Secondly, Angela denies that old age is a factor for developing mortal pneumonia and then in the very next statement admits that "older people are naturally weaker people, and therefore more prone to die." The fact that it is overwhelmingly old people confirms that systemic failures of old age is the dominant factor for developing mortal pneumonia.
Yes bacterial, or viral or fungi infection is the triggering event, but it is the systemic failure of old age that turns an otherwise normal event into a mortal pneumonia. Millions of people get infections or viruses including flu every year and they aren't all dying. Its overwhelmingly limited to to very elderly or people with otherwise compromised immune systems or serious health issues.

Statistical modeling would account for all those secondary factors. That's how statistical modeling works. It's more complicated than simple addition, which is what you're proposing.

This is just grasping at air making up stuff. Where is this "Statistical modeling would account for all those secondary factors. "? Give them to us. Show us.

The CDC methods are posted on its website.The CDC itself explains that it tallies all the deaths where either flu, pneumonia or respiratory failure is listed as the cause of death. In addition to assuming every pneumonia and respiratory failure COD is flu, the CDC further guesses that these cause of deaths are underreported so the CDC then estimates the total number to be two to four times that tally.

There is nothing in the CDC reports, or explanation of methods discussing, even mentioning, or let alone explaining how other health factors (old age systemic failures, poor health, chronic illness, bad diet, lack of exercise, obesity, diabetes, drug abuse, smoking, alcoholism etc. ) are the culprits that enable otherwise normal life exposures to develop into life threatening level of pneumonia or respiratory failure.

But to be clear here - is your contention that only young, healthy, beautiful people should survive? Because I'm not sure why you think that those deaths should be weighted more heavily than those old, fat, drunk people.

Huh? This is not only dishonest, and a false straw man; it is irrational, and illogical to the point of absolute idiocy. It doesn't even make any sense. Nor was anything said whatsoever calling for weighing any deaths more or less, or that some people should not survive.

Exposing the truth is somehow equated to saying certain people should not survive? Is it better to perpetuate falsehoods and lies? Is the way to make people healthier is to perpetuate lies and fakes estimate numbers, and ignore all the factors that enable ordinary life exposures to develop into mortal pneumonia? That would be ludicrous.

Exposing that that the CDC flu death estimate numbers are erroneous is not calling for the deaths of unhealthy people.
Pointing out that the primary factors for why some people develop mortal pneumonia from simple exposures while other don't, is not saying that certain people should not survive.

To the contrary, exposing the truth enables better choices and improves health. Exposing that estimates are erroneous, and highlighting the primary factors why some people develop mortal respiratory failure from ordinary exposures enables prevention, improvement of health not only to save more lives but allow people to live healthier lives.

[donnay]

"You must spread some Reputation [not the flu] around before giving it to AZJoe again."

Well said.

They all work hand-in-hand with Big pHARMa to push their vaccines. They are promoting double doses of flu vaccines to the elderly.

Once recent study, however, did bother to look at the question of whether the vaccine prevents transmission. Published on January 18, 2018, in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS, the study’s authors screened volunteers with confirmed cases of influenza and took breath samples. And among their findings was “an association between repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation” (emphasis added).

In fact, subjects who had received the influenza vaccine in both the current and the previous season were found to shed over six times more aerosolized virus than those who did not get a flu shot during either season.

https://www.collective-evolution.com...lly-dangerous/

They don't promote Vitamin B, C, D3, Chicken Bone Broth, Echinacea and Elderberry which all work to help people have a quick recovery with no adverse side effects.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Secondly, Angela denies that old age is a factor for developing mortal pneumonia and then in the very next statement admits that "older people are naturally weaker people, and therefore more prone to die." The fact that it is overwhelmingly old people confirms that systemic failures of old age is the dominant factor for developing mortal pneumonia.

Yes bacterial, or viral or fungi infection is the triggering event, but it is the systemic failure of old age that turns an otherwise normal event into a mortal pneumonia. Millions of people get infections or viruses including flu every year and they aren't all dying.
...

Of course old age is a huge factor. But they can’t put “old age” as cause of death for most people over the age of 70 who die. Old people die after falls all the time. The cause of death will be complications from a fall, not “old age”.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
They don't promote Vitamin B, C, D3, Chicken Bone Broth, Echinacea and Elderberry which all work to help people have a quick recovery with no adverse side effects.

Thanks for the reminder. Got to go throw a chicken carcass in a pot of boiling water...

[Swordsmyth]

"You must spread some Reputation [not the flu] around before giving it to AZJoe again."

Well said.

Covered

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.collective-evolution.com...lly-dangerous/

Once recent study, however, did bother to look at the question of whether the vaccine prevents transmission. Published on January 18, 2018, in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS, the study’s authors screened volunteers with confirmed cases of influenza and took breath samples. And among their findings was “an association between repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation” (emphasis added).

In fact, subjects who had received the influenza vaccine in both the current and the previous season were found to shed over six times more aerosolized virus than those who did not get a flu shot during either season.

They don't promote Vitamin B, C, D3, Chicken Bone Broth, Echinacea and Elderberry which all work to help people have a quick recovery with no adverse side effects.

Shedding is only theoretically possible with the nasal flu vaccine (the one you spray up your nose) (shedding is only theoretically possible with a live virus vaccine- the flu shot does not use any live viruses). But that too is nearly impossible.

Can nasal spray flu vaccine give me flu?

Flu vaccines do not cause flu illness. The nasal spray flu vaccine does contain live viruses. However, the viruses are attenuated (weakened), so that they will not cause influenza illness. The weakened viruses are also cold-adapted, which means they are designed to only multiply at the cooler temperatures found within the nose. The viruses cannot infect the lungs or other areas where warmer temperatures exist.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm

There has never been a documented case of a person getting sick from any live virus via shedding from somebody given a live virus vaccine.

[donnay]

Covered

Thank you!

[donnay]

Shedding is only theoretically possible with the nasal flu vaccine (the one you spray up your nose) (shedding is only theoretically possible with a live virus vaccine- the flu shot does not use any live viruses). But that too is nearly impossible.



https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm

There has never been a documented case of a person getting sick from any live virus via shedding from somebody given a live virus vaccine.

That's not what the above study says. No one was talking about the nasal mist anyways.

[Zippyjuan]

That's not what the above study says. No one was talking about the nasal mist anyways.

The study looked at people who were already sick- not who had received the vaccine. The article (not surprisingly) misrepresents what it actually says.

The study link from your article: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081.full

We screened 355 volunteers with acute respiratory illness; the 178 volunteers who met enrollment criteria provided 278 visits for sample collection. We confirmed influenza infection in 156 (88%) of the enrolled participants using qRT-PCR; 152 had at least one positive nasopharyngeal (NP) swab and 4 (3%) were confirmed based on positive aerosol samples alone.

They were shedding because they had the flu.

[donnay]

The study looked at people who were already sick- not who had received the vaccine. The article (not surprisingly) misrepresents what it actually says.

The study link from your article: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081.full



They were shedding because they had the flu.

Reading with understanding always helps.

Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Vaccination was not associated with coarse-aerosol or NP shedding (P > 0.10). The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A (P = 0.03) but not for influenza B (P = 0.83) infections (Table S4).

[Firestarter]

According to big pharma we need a flu shot every single year, because the flu virus mutates.
If this is true the best big pharma could do is develop a vaccine for the previous year...

I'm going in for my third flu shot this season on Monday. If one helps, can you imagine my super immunity with three?!

It could be funny if it wasn't so horrible! There is also evidence that being poisoned yearly with the advised flu vaccines results in lower antibody responses - immune deficiency.
The more influenza vaccinations you get poisoned with in your lifetime, the less your immune system can fight the flu virus in subsequent seasons.

After the 2009 “flu epidemic”, the Canadian flu surveillance network reported that Canadians who had received a flu shot in late 2008 were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to suffer from an adverse reaction from an H1N1 infection that required medical attention, compared with those who didn't get a shot.

In 2016, Skowronski published a report that people, who were consecutively vaccinated in 2012, 2013 and 2014, have a higher risk of being infected with the flu.

Big pharma supporting “doctors” maintain that people should take their flu shot - especially seniors, children younger than two and people suffering from chronic medical conditions (like immune deficiency?): https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/serial-fl ... -1.3147903
(archived here: http://archive.is/1afvT)


In the following study, 115 children (6–15 years) were injected with the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo on average they were followed for some 272 days (unlike the couple of days in “normal” vaccine trials…).

There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of respiratory illness (ARI or FARI) or confirmed seasonal influenza between subjects injected with TIV and those who received placebo, but TIV recipients did have a significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on serologic evidence…

TIV recipients had an enormous increased rate of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (390) compared to the subjects that got placebo (88) - a 340% increase in the rate of non-influenza infections.


Benjamin J. Cowling et al. – Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/
(archived here: http://archive.is/xz5sb)

[Working Poor]

My mom coded after having a flu shot within 5 minutes. She was told that she could not leave the hospital unless she had the shot I begged her not to allow it and promised her I would get her out of the hospital. She coded 5 more times after that. I should have let her go at that time rather than put her thru what she went thru for the next year.

i insisted that a VAERS report be filled out. The nurses in this huge hospital system knew nothing about reporting vaccine injury. I had to find the forms for them. If you have a vaccine and have any negative symptoms you owe it to humanity to report it to VAERS. So many children end up in the emergency room with seizures and high fever within days of having vaccines and this is never reported. You must report asap or you have no case in court if you don't.

SUpport your immune system with good diet and enjoy better health.

[Brian4Liberty]

Last year’s flu vaccine was not effective at all, and was simply a duplicate of the vaccine the year before. As @Danke has said, for those two years, it was taking the same shot twice. It wasn’t twice as good though.

This year’s vaccine has been updated to better match circulating flus. The vaccine this year should be a better match. We won’t know until the flu season is over.

And now we know...

And here’s a new data point on the effectiveness of this year’s flu vaccine. A family member that got the vaccine this year just came down with the flu. We’ll see if I get it too.