Blog about flu vaccine that has been circulating at the hospital my wife works at

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Originally posted by: v1001
I'm not getting one either and never will. I'm ok with getting the flu once in a while.

are you ok with dying?

Because the chances of dying from the flu are so incredibly high.

BTW I am selling meteor insurance, only $20 every season! Don't skip out or you will wish you had it when a rock falls out of the sky and damages you or your property! Take your chances you say? Would you take your chances driving without a seatbelt? Of course not, that would be stupid, and so would not buying meteor insurance.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DrPizza
My insurance covers it 100%. Pretty cheap, if you ask me. And, even at $25 (not saying that you're using that as an excuse not to get the shot, but some people will), and assuming that without the shot, I'd average getting the flu once every 7 or 8 years... Hell, I'll happily pay $200 out of pocket to greatly reduce my risk of getting the flu & missing work for a week or more. Missing work causes wayyyy too much work for me.

that's a noble outlook, but in reality I'd be willing to guess a very small fraction of our public would sign up for $200 flu shots. People would rather use their paid sick time.

*sigh* Just a day or so I was talking about people missing obvious simple arithmetic.

$25 per shot, 7 or 8 years, 7 * 25 = $200. So, it'd be $200 over 8 years to avoid the flu.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DrPizza
My insurance covers it 100%. Pretty cheap, if you ask me. And, even at $25 (not saying that you're using that as an excuse not to get the shot, but some people will), and assuming that without the shot, I'd average getting the flu once every 7 or 8 years... Hell, I'll happily pay $200 out of pocket to greatly reduce my risk of getting the flu & missing work for a week or more. Missing work causes wayyyy too much work for me.

that's a noble outlook, but in reality I'd be willing to guess a very small fraction of our public would sign up for $200 flu shots. People would rather use their paid sick time.

*sigh* Just a day or so I was talking about people missing obvious simple arithmetic.

$25 per shot, 7 or 8 years, 7 * 25 = $200. So, it'd be $200 over 8 years to avoid the flu.

they get paid regardless though...you are missing reality in your fear equation.

I am 38. Maybe had a 'flu' once. I have never ever been laid up more that a few days from work.

If someone else can't do my job when I am gone, I better be making 7 figures or more. If not they better be willing to accept the time it's going to take to catchup.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeff7
You can be infectious before you show any symptoms at all.

Agreed. However, I am under no obligation to protect others from dangers of which I am unaware. If someone is worried about contracting influenza from me when I am asymptomatic, then they need to get the flu shot, not me.

Originally posted by: Jeff7
30,000 per year isn't a threat to our society, you're quite right there. But it's also a society that at least claims to value life, so if a significant of those 30,000 otherwise premature deaths can be prevented, it may well be worth the trouble.
And there's the loss in productivity due to a long illness, which has an economic impact. There are also the intangibles to consider, such as emotional loss from deaths, or stress from being sick and/or missing time from work and quality time with family and friends.

If I worked at a hospital or in a nursing home or a daycare facility, I concede that a flu shot may well be something that I would consider worthwhile, but in each case those professions entail at least a partial commitment to the care of others who are in some way unable to care for themselves. However, I don't interact with the very young or the very old on a daily or even a monthly basis.

Furthermore, your points only hold if we assume that an individual's duty is to society and not to himself (or herself). I do not place society's needs above my own and I am not ashamed of this fact.

I have weighed the risks to myself given my current situation and they do not constitute a significant reason to go out of my way to obtain the flu shot. I do not consider the risks to others because I assume that they are likewise able to weigh their own risks and choose to receive the flu shot or not.

ZV

I agree with you 100%. Also, bonus points for over-thinking this and then explaining it. I do the exact same thing and my wife hates it, lol.

 

[alkemyst]

wouldn't just living in a plastic bubble be cheaper in the long run esp the chances of still getting a flu even with the shot?

 

[JujuFish]

I've never had the flu to my knowledge (unless it was as a child).

I've also never gotten sick from the vaccination either.

As long as there's not a shortage, I don't mind getting vaccinated, but it's not a big deal either way.

 

[ScottyB]

"The vaccine costs too much. Cheap dumb ass. The vaccine costs less than a funeral, less than Tamiflu, less than a week in the hospital. "

This fuck face needs to stick a baseball bat in his ass. Unless you are already very sick, the flu is not going to kill you or send you to the hospital.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
"The vaccine costs too much. Cheap dumb ass. The vaccine costs less than a funeral, less than Tamiflu, less than a week in the hospital. "

This fuck face needs to stick a baseball bat in his ass. Unless you are already very sick, the flu is not going to kill you or send you to the hospital.

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Random Variable]

Are we arguing about flu vaccines or about vaccines in general? Because before the advent of vaccines, infectious diseases caused most deaths. Nowadays we're shocked when anyone without serious underlying conditions dies from a infectious disease.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
"The vaccine costs too much. Cheap dumb ass. The vaccine costs less than a funeral, less than Tamiflu, less than a week in the hospital. "

This fuck face needs to stick a baseball bat in his ass. Unless you are already very sick, the flu is not going to kill you or send you to the hospital.

I think it's a fair bet to say that more money is spent on hospitalization for the flu annually in the U.S., than is spent on flu vaccinations.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

DrPizza, who would have thought this thread would deliver so well

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits
i don't know anyone saying take airborne or vitamin c to decrease the risk of getting swine flu... i am hearing, however, vitamin d, l-lysine, and echinacea from medical doctors and chiropractors alike.

personally, i'm against taking the flu vaccine... not because i'm afraid of it or anything, but because it's ineffective and gives more money to pharmaceutical companies. even though there's been a geometric growth in the flu shot given per year since the 80s, the number of deaths due to flu stays the same. it's mainly because the cdc predicts what flu strain will be big for a certain year and vaccines are made based on that prediction. however, there are a bunch of different flu strains that are out there, so the shot people get don't protect them from that strain. it's like having bad weathermen in charge of predicting what flu vaccine to manufacture for a certain year.

also, the vaccine they're using is very similar to the one that caused more harm than good back in '76. i'm sure the public doesn't want to risk getting guillain-barre syndrome if they can avoid it... especially when the swine flu has a mortality rate that's the same as the seasonal flu.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/..._h1n1_vaccine_dangers/

excuse me if i don't wanna get a shot for something i probably won't have OR more than likely won't die from. whatever doesn't kill me usually makes me stronger.

Bashing flu vaccines and linking metacafe videos really isnt helping your credibility as a healthcare provider. The method theyre making the h1n1 vaccine is the same method they use to make all flu vaccines. The chance of GBS is NEGLIGIBLE. It's like saying you want ot avoid chiropractics because theres a risk you'll break your neck.

Yes # of flu deaths stay the same while the # of old people is rising dramatically. If the flu shot didnt do anything, shouldnt the rate of flu deaths incraese to mirror the increase in the most susceptible population?

Please provide actual, peer reviewed, data that says the vaccine does more harm than good. Dont link metacafe videos or random websites

don't worry about where i got the video... just worry about the content of the video.

also, this was what i was talking about...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200063.html

i also came across this video too... not exactly comforting. i'm just saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SmFxyust0

i'm not saying no one should ever take it... i'm sure eventually, they'll come out with a safe h1n1 vaccine... i'm just not convinced this one is it yet. also, i think it should be reserved for those who are at risk, since it's apparently more difficult to make. they're making it the same way they make the seasonal flu vaccines (which was how they made it in 1976, too).

I'm not even just focused on the # of deaths. Getting the flu itself sucks ass and a pretty sizable portion of the US gets it per year. Why not do everything you can to protect yourself and avoid missing work for a week

my point was that the flu shot is ineffective because they manufacture a vaccine for just one strain of flu. as you know very well, there are lots of strains of flu. getting a vaccine for one doesn't protect you from the dozen other that might affect you. this is why the graph shows what it shows... flu shots = bullshit. they're just a way to get big pharma more money.

they have been developing a vaccine, however, to immunize you from ALL strains of flu. whenever that comes out and has been proven 100% safe and effective in short and long-term studies, then i'd gladly take it. until then, for me to get a flu shot is basically a way for me to support an industry i despise (i honestly wouldn't if they didn't lie in their studies to get dangerous drugs out to the public and brainwash people into asking their doctors about a drug they honestly don't need).

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits
i don't know anyone saying take airborne or vitamin c to decrease the risk of getting swine flu... i am hearing, however, vitamin d, l-lysine, and echinacea from medical doctors and chiropractors alike.

personally, i'm against taking the flu vaccine... not because i'm afraid of it or anything, but because it's ineffective and gives more money to pharmaceutical companies. even though there's been a geometric growth in the flu shot given per year since the 80s, the number of deaths due to flu stays the same. it's mainly because the cdc predicts what flu strain will be big for a certain year and vaccines are made based on that prediction. however, there are a bunch of different flu strains that are out there, so the shot people get don't protect them from that strain. it's like having bad weathermen in charge of predicting what flu vaccine to manufacture for a certain year.

also, the vaccine they're using is very similar to the one that caused more harm than good back in '76. i'm sure the public doesn't want to risk getting guillain-barre syndrome if they can avoid it... especially when the swine flu has a mortality rate that's the same as the seasonal flu.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/..._h1n1_vaccine_dangers/

excuse me if i don't wanna get a shot for something i probably won't have OR more than likely won't die from. whatever doesn't kill me usually makes me stronger.

Bashing flu vaccines and linking metacafe videos really isnt helping your credibility as a healthcare provider. The method theyre making the h1n1 vaccine is the same method they use to make all flu vaccines. The chance of GBS is NEGLIGIBLE. It's like saying you want ot avoid chiropractics because theres a risk you'll break your neck.

Yes # of flu deaths stay the same while the # of old people is rising dramatically. If the flu shot didnt do anything, shouldnt the rate of flu deaths incraese to mirror the increase in the most susceptible population?

Please provide actual, peer reviewed, data that says the vaccine does more harm than good. Dont link metacafe videos or random websites

don't worry about where i got the video... just worry about the content of the video.

also, this was what i was talking about...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200063.html

i also came across this video too... not exactly comforting. i'm just saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SmFxyust0

i'm not saying no one should ever take it... i'm sure eventually, they'll come out with a safe h1n1 vaccine... i'm just not convinced this one is it yet. also, i think it should be reserved for those who are at risk, since it's apparently more difficult to make. they're making it the same way they make the seasonal flu vaccines (which was how they made it in 1976, too).

But you have no credible safety data to back up that its any less safe than teh vaccines we have now. Unless you are claiming regular flu shots are unsafe as well. Once again, please stop digging up youtube videos and newspaper clippings. Find me an abstract from a credible peer reviewed journal that that says flu vaccines do more harm than good.

i never claimed that. i claimed that the regular flu shot is bullshit... not unsafe. if i ever claimed something like that, i gladly take it back because i was wrong, but you'd be hard pressed to find a quote of me ever saying something like that.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: eits
i don't know anyone saying take airborne or vitamin c to decrease the risk of getting swine flu... i am hearing, however, vitamin d, l-lysine, and echinacea from medical doctors and chiropractors alike.

personally, i'm against taking the flu vaccine... not because i'm afraid of it or anything, but because it's ineffective and gives more money to pharmaceutical companies. even though there's been a geometric growth in the flu shot given per year since the 80s, the number of deaths due to flu stays the same. it's mainly because the cdc predicts what flu strain will be big for a certain year and vaccines are made based on that prediction. however, there are a bunch of different flu strains that are out there, so the shot people get don't protect them from that strain. it's like having bad weathermen in charge of predicting what flu vaccine to manufacture for a certain year.

also, the vaccine they're using is very similar to the one that caused more harm than good back in '76. i'm sure the public doesn't want to risk getting guillain-barre syndrome if they can avoid it... especially when the swine flu has a mortality rate that's the same as the seasonal flu.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/..._h1n1_vaccine_dangers/

excuse me if i don't wanna get a shot for something i probably won't have OR more than likely won't die from. whatever doesn't kill me usually makes me stronger.

Seriously, I'm thinking about heading to my chiropractor tomorrow for a chronic, nagging back pain. I have no problem with chiropractors. But, I'd think that anyone who calls himself a doctor should be able to analyze the data out there and realize that the benefits of the vaccination FAR outweigh the dangers. Any professional health care provider who relies on anecdotal evidence or metacafe videos...

in general, yes... on a statistical standpoint. but that doesn't mean the risks are minimal. either way, the vaccine needs to undergo more studies to become more safe in my opinion... or at least proven to be as close to 100% safe as possible with no long-term or serious side effects.

i also want to reitterate, yet again, that i don't have a problem with vaccinations. it's just which kind of vaccination that i have a problem with... for example, the chicken pox vaccine, h1n1 (so far). i'm for most childhood immunizations and i argue with those who don't like any vaccinations whatsoever. i'm pretty sure i've said this at least 20 times throughout the course of my being in these forums.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: eits
also, the vaccine they're using is very similar to the one that caused more harm than good back in '76. i'm sure the public doesn't want to risk getting guillain-barre syndrome if they can avoid it.

Guillain-Barre Syndrom from vaccines affects about 1 person per million (source). Chiropractic manipulations cause strokes in patients somewhere between 1 in 40,000 and 1 in 10 million manipulations (source). By your logic, no one should ever get a chiropractic manipulation. Thanks for playing.

um, guillain-barre syndrome was the major side effect of the 1976 swine flu vaccine. it hurt more people than it helped.

also, chiropractic adjustments are associated with stroke in anywhere between 1:500,000 or 1:5,600,000... not 1:40,000. and, no, they don't "cause" stroke. they are associated with. in research, you can't really say something causes something else... you can say there's a strong correlation to or is strongly associated with. in fact, the latest study i heard about suggests that most of the cases of stroke that were associated with chiropractic care involved patients who walked in the door already in the middle of having a stroke. the dumbass chiropractor, thinking it's just a headache and not bothering to do any orthopedic tests or neuro exams (which is definitely NOT the standard or what a prudent chiropractor should do, just for the record), goes ahead and administers and adjustment, making it worse, sending the patient to the hospital where medical doctors correctly diagnose the stroke.

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/...ll/strokeaha;32/5/1054
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/short/165/7/907
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=94

the likelihood of dying from taking an advil is higher than the likelihood of getting a stroke from chiropractic.

anyways, back to the topic (swine flu virus)...

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: eits
my point was that the flu shot is ineffective because they manufacture a vaccine for just one strain of flu. as you know very well, there are lots of strains of flu. getting a vaccine for one doesn't protect you from the dozen other that might affect you. this is why the graph shows what it shows... flu shots = bullshit. they're just a way to get big pharma more money.

they have been developing a vaccine, however, to immunize you from ALL strains of flu. whenever that comes out and has been proven 100% safe and effective in short and long-term studies, then i'd gladly take it. until then, for me to get a flu shot is basically a way for me to support an industry i despise (i honestly wouldn't if they didn't lie in their studies to get dangerous drugs out to the public and brainwash people into asking their doctors about a drug they honestly don't need).

Your first point is wrong. They manufacturer the flu vaccine to fight against 3 different strains that they think will be the most prevalent the following flu season - generally, this would probably be achieved by looking at strains that are infecting people towards the end of the previous flu season. Protecting against what will most likely cover 50-75% of all influenza for the season is good enough.

A vaccine for all strains of flu will be a long way off - a fairly rapidly mutating virus is a hard target to make a broad spectrum vaccine. Maybe some of the work I'm doing will eventually pay off in creating one.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: eits
my point was that the flu shot is ineffective because they manufacture a vaccine for just one strain of flu. as you know very well, there are lots of strains of flu. getting a vaccine for one doesn't protect you from the dozen other that might affect you. this is why the graph shows what it shows... flu shots = bullshit. they're just a way to get big pharma more money.

they have been developing a vaccine, however, to immunize you from ALL strains of flu. whenever that comes out and has been proven 100% safe and effective in short and long-term studies, then i'd gladly take it. until then, for me to get a flu shot is basically a way for me to support an industry i despise (i honestly wouldn't if they didn't lie in their studies to get dangerous drugs out to the public and brainwash people into asking their doctors about a drug they honestly don't need).

Your first point is wrong. They manufacturer the flu vaccine to fight against 3 different strains that they think will be the most prevalent the following flu season - generally, this would probably be achieved by looking at strains that are infecting people towards the end of the previous flu season. Protecting against what will most likely cover 50-75% of all influenza for the season is good enough.

A vaccine for all strains of flu will be a long way off - a fairly rapidly mutating virus is a hard target to make a broad spectrum vaccine. Maybe some of the work I'm doing will eventually pay off in creating one.

i stand corrected about my first point. however, it still is just a guessing game that does nothing in affecting the public in any major way.
http://media3.washingtonpost.c...24/GR2005102401299.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200042.html

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: eits
i stand corrected about my first point. however, it still is just a guessing game that does nothing in affecting the public in any major way.
http://media3.washingtonpost.c...24/GR2005102401299.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200042.html

It's not like throwing darts blindfolded at a dartboard with all the flu strains on it. It's an educated analysis of rising strains of H1N1, H3N2, and influenza B at the end of a flu season which is used to manufacturer new ones. Not simple "guessing" as you so put it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: eits
my point was that the flu shot is ineffective because they manufacture a vaccine for just one strain of flu. as you know very well, there are lots of strains of flu. getting a vaccine for one doesn't protect you from the dozen other that might affect you. this is why the graph shows what it shows... flu shots = bullshit. they're just a way to get big pharma more money.

they have been developing a vaccine, however, to immunize you from ALL strains of flu. whenever that comes out and has been proven 100% safe and effective in short and long-term studies, then i'd gladly take it. until then, for me to get a flu shot is basically a way for me to support an industry i despise (i honestly wouldn't if they didn't lie in their studies to get dangerous drugs out to the public and brainwash people into asking their doctors about a drug they honestly don't need).

Your first point is wrong. They manufacturer the flu vaccine to fight against 3 different strains that they think will be the most prevalent the following flu season - generally, this would probably be achieved by looking at strains that are infecting people towards the end of the previous flu season. Protecting against what will most likely cover 50-75% of all influenza for the season is good enough.

A vaccine for all strains of flu will be a long way off - a fairly rapidly mutating virus is a hard target to make a broad spectrum vaccine. Maybe some of the work I'm doing will eventually pay off in creating one.

i stand corrected about my first point. however, it still is just a guessing game that does nothing in affecting the public in any major way.
http://media3.washingtonpost.c...24/GR2005102401299.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200042.html

Just a wild shot in the dark eits, but maybe you should read up on what you talk about BEFORE you make claims??? Oh, and you should probably work on reading comprehension too...

Just an idea to keep you from consistently looking like a complete dumbass.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: eits
my point was that the flu shot is ineffective because they manufacture a vaccine for just one strain of flu. as you know very well, there are lots of strains of flu. getting a vaccine for one doesn't protect you from the dozen other that might affect you. this is why the graph shows what it shows... flu shots = bullshit. they're just a way to get big pharma more money.

they have been developing a vaccine, however, to immunize you from ALL strains of flu. whenever that comes out and has been proven 100% safe and effective in short and long-term studies, then i'd gladly take it. until then, for me to get a flu shot is basically a way for me to support an industry i despise (i honestly wouldn't if they didn't lie in their studies to get dangerous drugs out to the public and brainwash people into asking their doctors about a drug they honestly don't need).

Your first point is wrong. They manufacturer the flu vaccine to fight against 3 different strains that they think will be the most prevalent the following flu season - generally, this would probably be achieved by looking at strains that are infecting people towards the end of the previous flu season. Protecting against what will most likely cover 50-75% of all influenza for the season is good enough.

A vaccine for all strains of flu will be a long way off - a fairly rapidly mutating virus is a hard target to make a broad spectrum vaccine. Maybe some of the work I'm doing will eventually pay off in creating one.

i stand corrected about my first point. however, it still is just a guessing game that does nothing in affecting the public in any major way.
http://media3.washingtonpost.c...24/GR2005102401299.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200042.html

Just a wild shot in the dark eits, but maybe you should read up on what you talk about BEFORE you make claims??? Oh, and you should probably work on reading comprehension too...

Just an idea to keep you from consistently looking like a complete dumbass.

Not only that, but the methodology of targeting strains expected to be common is covered by the mass media every year. One would think a "medical" professional would be aware of such common/general medical knowledge.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: eits
i stand corrected about my first point. however, it still is just a guessing game that does nothing in affecting the public in any major way.
http://media3.washingtonpost.c...24/GR2005102401299.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200042.html

It's not like throwing darts blindfolded at a dartboard with all the flu strains on it. It's an educated analysis of rising strains of H1N1, H3N2, and influenza B at the end of a flu season which is used to manufacturer new ones. Not simple "guessing" as you so put it.

my first semester in med school, my biochem professor pretty much stated that the determination of what flu shot vaccines would be given out each year was a prediction of what strains would be major due to data from the previous year. that sounds kinda like guessing to me. i didn't mean it to sound like it was a shot in the dark or anything. later on, my microbiology professor stated pretty much the same thing (he worked at nih for 20 years as a virologist or something). this is basically why flu shots are not as affective as the public thinks they are. this is also why people like you are trying to develop an overall flu shot to vaccinate you from all strains, regardless of the mutation (if i remember correctly, that's the goal... i read about it and heard about it on npr).

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: eits
my point was that the flu shot is ineffective because they manufacture a vaccine for just one strain of flu. as you know very well, there are lots of strains of flu. getting a vaccine for one doesn't protect you from the dozen other that might affect you. this is why the graph shows what it shows... flu shots = bullshit. they're just a way to get big pharma more money.

they have been developing a vaccine, however, to immunize you from ALL strains of flu. whenever that comes out and has been proven 100% safe and effective in short and long-term studies, then i'd gladly take it. until then, for me to get a flu shot is basically a way for me to support an industry i despise (i honestly wouldn't if they didn't lie in their studies to get dangerous drugs out to the public and brainwash people into asking their doctors about a drug they honestly don't need).

Your first point is wrong. They manufacturer the flu vaccine to fight against 3 different strains that they think will be the most prevalent the following flu season - generally, this would probably be achieved by looking at strains that are infecting people towards the end of the previous flu season. Protecting against what will most likely cover 50-75% of all influenza for the season is good enough.

A vaccine for all strains of flu will be a long way off - a fairly rapidly mutating virus is a hard target to make a broad spectrum vaccine. Maybe some of the work I'm doing will eventually pay off in creating one.

i stand corrected about my first point. however, it still is just a guessing game that does nothing in affecting the public in any major way.
http://media3.washingtonpost.c...24/GR2005102401299.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2005102200042.html

Just a wild shot in the dark eits, but maybe you should read up on what you talk about BEFORE you make claims??? Oh, and you should probably work on reading comprehension too...

Just an idea to keep you from consistently looking like a complete dumbass.

uh, i'm not sure what you're talking about. i said that, given the statistics that are out about the flu shots administered vs death rate, it seems the flu shot is not as affective as people wish...

unless the steep increase of flu shots given was coincidental to staving off a massive death rate in order to keep it at bay around where it was the previous years, it doesn't give enough support to the claim that flu shots protect you from getting the flu each year.

i completely agree 100% with the take home message at the end of the article:

Take-Home Messages

To promote vaccine use, many in the public health community have overstated the risk of flu-related death and the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing it. While the flu vaccine may have some important benefit (less flu-related illness), we really do not know whether it reduces the risk of death. For younger individuals -- for whom the chance of flu-related death is extremely small -- any death-protection benefit can only be very modest (and it is unlikely we will ever reliably know whether it even exists). However, we do know that the vaccine reduces the risk of being sick and time lost from work. But because the effect is small, individuals will have to judge for themselves whether it's worth the bother.

We are not suggesting that Americans forgo flu vaccines. We simply want to help people make informed decisions.

For many people, getting the vaccine is a reasonable choice. And many may reasonably choose not to get it. (Consequently, the use of flu vaccination rates by Medicare and others to measure health care quality probably does not make sense.)

Regardless, public health officials should not exaggerate risks or benefits to promote vaccination. Exaggeration carries a price: Not only do some people get scared and engage in behaviors that increase their risk (like waiting in a crowded clinic for a flu shot). They may also grow cynical and end up ignoring health messages that really matter.

if i said something contrary to this quote or made you think that i did, i apologize.

personally, i don't get the flu shot. i don't feel it's worth getting and i don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry. that's why i don't get it. i wouldn't tell immunocompromised or elderly people not to get it. i didn't even tell any of you people not to get it. i just gave my point of view and some information as to why i personally don't get it.