Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you. I do think that flu vaccine is a crap shoot and I don't think it's healthy to get those ingredients injected into one's body. I do believe that it's possible that the op's reaction was due to the flu vaccine. Some here say that there's no way. I'd say that it's impossible to know for sure one way or the other.
Also, the vaccines are very ineffective to begin with:
The Lancet article does not say what you think it does.
"Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69–91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years."
"Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60–93).
It then says that vaccines are most effective in young children and less so in seniors. That is why there is a higher dose vaccine available for seniors now.
Your second link:
It says vaccines prevent the flu in 1.5 out of a 100 adults. It notes that 2.7 out of 100 unvaccinated adults in the study get the flu. That means that vaccines would prevent the flu in 1.5 out of those 2.7 people, because the other 97.8% would not get the flu anyway. Adams then plays with numbers either totally ignorant of what they mean or deliberately being deceptive.
If 2.7 out of a hundred in an unvaccinated group get the flu and only 1.5 out of a hundred in a vaccinated group get it, the effectiveness is 1.5 divided by 2.7. That gives us an effectiveness of 55.5%. That means that you are 55.5 % less likely to get the flu if you take the vaccine than if you don't. You do realize that 1.5 out of a hundred is fewer people than 2.7 out of a hundred, don't you?
The Lancet article does not say what you think it does.
"Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69–91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years."
"Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60–93).
It then says that vaccines are most effective in young children and less so in seniors. That is why there is a higher dose vaccine available for seniors now.
Your second link:
It says vaccines prevent the flu in 1.5 out of a 100 adults. It notes that 2.7 out of 100 unvaccinated adults in the study get the flu. That means that vaccines would prevent the flu in 1.5 out of those 2.7 people, because the other 97.8% would not get the flu anyway. Adams then plays with numbers either totally ignorant of what they mean or deliberately being deceptive.
If 2.7 out of a hundred in an unvaccinated group get the flu and only 1.5 out of a hundred in a vaccinated group get it, the effectiveness is 1.5 divided by 2.7. That gives us an effectiveness of 55.5%. That means that you are 55.5 % less likely to get the flu if you take the vaccine than if you don't. You do realize that 1.5 out of a hundred is fewer people than 2.7 out of a hundred, don't you?
Not sure what was wrong with the link, I couldn't get to it either. But I cut off the end, went to the main website, did an on-site search for flu vaccine, and found the page that she was trying to link to that way. It took me all of 45 seconds to do.
I don't need a vaccine for the flu suzy_q. I am confident I can survive any exposure and I'm putting my health in a situation in which a virus will not be able to affect me.
Not sure what was wrong with the link, I couldn't get to it either. But I cut off the end, went to the main website, did an on-site search for flu vaccine, and found the page that she was trying to link to that way. It took me all of 45 seconds to do.
I don't need a vaccine for the flu suzy_q. I am confident I can survive any exposure and I'm putting my health in a situation in which a virus will not be able to affect me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
