Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge Flu Vaccine Information needed

I'm looking for some evidence-based research in support of the flu shot....... stuff that shows it’s low risk, talks about potential benefits, risks of not getting it (particularly with a young family)... that kind of stuff..... Peer-reviewed would be great.

My wife and I have always got the flu shot and can't remember when we last caught the flu. However, our son-in-law is a naysayer and we are advocating for our grandchildren. I've taken a quick look for information to fuel the discussion but it means wading through literally thousands of documents to find anything.

I'm hoping that an FTM member who has a medical background, or who is just someone who's done the research, can point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance.

Out of curiosity, how often did you and your wife get the flu before you began getting vaccinated?

It isn’t clear whether your SIL simply doubts the efficacy of flu vaccines, or if he is an anti-vaxxer. Either way, until you get a tailored response to your query, the following links offer a plethora of useful articles on the topic:

- Google search = flu vaccine benefits and risks

- Google search = vaccination risks vs benefits

In addition to the above, it is good to realize that flu vaccines aren’t ‘full-proof’, both because of the way they are developed (flu viruses are moving targets because of their mutability), and because of the different geographical areas (with potentially different flu strains) they target. This means that you may get infected by a flu virus even after receiving a flu shot, particularly if you travel abroad by airplane. Usually, such flu cases will be less severe than the ‘unprotected’ versions, as I personally experienced recently.

Of course, you mean "foolproof".

I would add to your directives that one or more vaccine monographs (which thoroughly describe the flu vaccine production and efficacy) are also instructive.

More important is the so-called herd immunity effect: there's a point at which if enough people are properly immunized, those that are not will be protected.

Even more important is that as we age, our immune system's responsiveness becomes less robust. That's why the elderly (ostensibly those over 65 and especially those in long-term care facilities) should be getting the high-dose version of whichever flu vaccines are being used for same. Unfortunately, at the present time, the high-dose (= double-dose) versions are only available as trivalent (= containing hemagglutinin of 3 strains of the influenza viruses) vs the standard flu vaccines, which are now quadrivalent (4 strains, this season 2 influenza A and 2 influenza B strains).
So, if you're going to be sociable and in particular have contact with infants and children (whose immunity may be minimal) — note that the first deaths of this flu season occurred in the US South in children — being vaccinated against the flu is an excellent way not to infect and potentially kill your own kin.

My wife can't recall ever having the flu whereas I do remember getting it, and it was more than once. Catching that disease is such a dreadful experience it's probably not possible to forget the event, even if one doesn't remember when. We've both been getting the flu vaccine for close to forty years during which neither of us has been afflicted.

Anti-vaxxer, which really bothers me because of the potential for introducing the disease to the home.


Thanks for these. I really like that such credible sources as the CDC and the Mayo Clinic pop to the top. The CDC link is particularly good, with its subsequent links to associated papers.

So, I thought I'd look around and see what the anti-vaxxer arguments might be, and found that the web has many wacko, totally dishonest sites spewing out garbage. And they seem to like quoting "authoritative medical experts". One site has a video with a Dr. Mark Geier claiming that your flu shot will cause Guillain-Barré Syndrome. (The CDC informs us that you are more likely to get that disease as a result of actually getting the flu). I checked Wikipedia and here's part of what they said about Dr. Geier:

"Mark R. Geier (born 1948 in Washington, D.C., U.S.) is a self-employed American physician and controversial professional witness who has testified in more than 90 cases regarding allegations of injury or illness caused by vaccines. Since 2011, Geier's medical license has been suspended or revoked in every state in which he was licensed over concerns about his autism treatments and his misrepresentation of his credentials to the Maryland Board of Health, where he falsely claimed to be a board-certified geneticist and epidemiologist.

Mark and his son, David Geier, are frequently cited by proponents of the now-discredited claim that vaccines cause autism. Geier's credibility as an expert witness has been questioned in 10 court cases. In 2003, a judge ruled that Geier presented himself as an expert witness in "areas for which he has no training, expertise and experience." In other cases in which Geier has testified, judges have labeled his testimony "intellectually dishonest," "not reliable" and "wholly unqualified." Another judge wrote that Geier "may be clever, but he is not credible." "

I have a relative who is a doctor, and he encourages getting a flu shot every year. Good enough proof for you? Probably not.

I went to CVS last week to ask about it. That's the only pharmacy that will take my insurance. The guy said they had two kinds of flu shots, the strong kind and the weak kind. They were out of the strong one.

By all means, give me the watered down version.

WTF?

See my comments in post #50359 in this thread.

Add to my previous discussion two recent articles on the flu vaccine:

Should I Get the High-Dose Flu Vaccine?

How to Turbocharge Flu Protection

Also, re post #50359:
"... the high-dose (= double-dose) versions are only available as trivalent (= containing hemagglutinin of 3 strains of the influenza viruses) vs the standard flu vaccines, which are now quadrivalent (4 strains, this season 2 influenza A and 2 influenza B strains)."
Correction:
The high-dose version contains 4 times the antigen of the regular-dose version: 60 µg vs 15 µg of hemagglutinin of each strain.

In my search for information I found there’s certainly a lot of “over the top” rhetoric about flu vaccines being full of toxins. Some even claim the pharmaceutical companies put antifreeze in it. Antifreeze? Really? One of the biggest exponents of this nonsense is a Jenny McCarthy who claims that vaccines caused her son’s autism. However, she also claims she was able to “cure” him with biomedical interventions and diet.

Ms. McCarthy’s rationale that vaccines cause autism? “If obesity can trigger diabetes, then vaccines can trigger autism.” Ms. McCarthy’s credentials? She was a Playboy Playmate.

I am floored that anybody believes this crap. What I found is:

• Single dose-shots of the flu vaccine and the flu vaccine nasal sprays do not contain mercury compounds. The multi-dose flu shot does contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into 49% ethylmercury and is used to prevent bacterial contamination of some vaccine containers. It has not been used in vaccines for children since 2001.

Ethylmercury is processed differently by the body and does not accumulate. Methylmercury, is the neurotoxin that can build up in the body and is found in fish.

There is no danger in receiving a vaccine with thimerosal, and it’s been extensively studied, even for cumulative effects on children over several years.


• Formaldehyde is used safely in small amounts in several flu vaccines to inactivate the virus so it cannot cause disease. Formaldehyde also occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables:about 2,000 µg of formaldehyde in an average banana and from 8,600 to 13,200 µg in a pear.

The amount of formaldehyde in flu vaccines ranges from 5 µg per dose (Fluarix) to 25 µg per dose (FluLaval) to 100 µg per dose (Fluzone).

The human body produces formaldehyde for a variety of functions, such as making amino acids, and has about 2,600 µg of formaldehyde per liter of blood. So the tiny amount in the flu shot – which does not stick around and accumulate – makes little difference to your body.

ryck,

If you could site your references for the findings you've listed in the post above, it would help tremendously.

I too have a relative who is locked into most of the trash info regarding vaccination and I would very much like to offer legitimate alternatives to that garbage info with an eye to protecting the 4 year old that is involved in such decision-making.....

During the course of your research, have you run into any substantive data regarding people who stopped taking the vaccine once they'd begun?

It seems to me that such info, if available, must be considered when making a decision on behalf of a person who will someday be enabled to reverse that decision.

The vaccine is NOT cumulative. Flu, like many (most?) viruses is characterized by its ability to mutate rapidly into new strains that are either immune to or do not trigger release of the antibodies that worked before. So, other than the preservatives and the inert carrier the contents change every year based on the best medical estimates of what particular strains will predominate in the forthcoming flu season. So the efficacy of this years flu shot this year is independent of the previous year's vaccine and the efficacy of next year's vaccine is independent of this year's.

That is why it is highly unlikely any study such as you suggest would have been conducted and if it had been conducted the results would arguably be meaningless.

What he said.
And I refer again to the 2 articles cited in post #50369 which deal substantially with those issues.

Responding to both you and joemike...

All that's been said here and in all the sources I've looked at does no more than suggest that stopping taking the vaccine shouldn't put you at greater risk of getting the flu that year or down the road, but I've seen nothing that flat out says so, and for that reason, combined with the number of people who've told me over the years that they got the flu after skipping the shot, I'm astonished that neither the "experts" nor the "crackpots" have undertaken a study, particularly considering the amount of money that's available in this country for - let's be polite and say - dubious research. (I'm not the greatest researcher, but I've thrown the question at Google in a bunch of different ways, and if such a study has been conducted, Google hasn't found it.)

And further, I'll argue that there's absolutely no basis for thinking that consistent results of such a study would be any less meaningful than the consistent results of any other study; they may fly in the face of logic, but rather than negating them, it would make them all the more intriguing.

And add to the equation the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has been historically and notoriously shortsighted about drug testing, and the medical profession has marched in lockstep, and if that doesn't ring a bell, ask a Thalidomide baby, an early cortisone taker, or a woman who's suffered second(?) generational cervical(?) cancer (among many others).

Sure....pleased to help. Here are the bulk of my sources. I know it's not all because, as I was nearing the end of my 'mission' and was finalizing arguments from the research, I stopped keeping a list of links. However, I think you'll find this is a pretty good start. You'll probably spend a fair amount of time at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as it provides a lot of links too.

Since there is a four year old child at risk, I am sure you'll find the story at my first link quite compelling. It may not be a scientific study but it certainly gives one cause to think in terms of what is really at stake. Good luck, I hope you're successful.

FYI, we had success at this end. Our son-in-law has come around where the two boys are concerned and they are getting the shot. Our grand daughter is only 2 months, which is too young for a shot. Unfortunately our son-in-law is not getting the shot himself. (next project )


https://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatter...ntable-disease/

https://vaxopedia.org/2017/12/27/what-are-the-benefits-of-the-flu-shot/

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/flu-influenza/prevention-risks.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/flu-influenza.html

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a18708943/flu-shot-side-effects/

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/...Flu-Season.aspx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3994812/

http://www.who.int/influenza/surveillance_monitoring/updates/2011_11_04_GIP_peer_reviewed/en/

http://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/use/en/

https://ictr.johnshopkins.edu/news_annou...get-vaccinated/

https://www.hopkinsrheumatology.org/rheumtv/flu-vaccine-answers-common-questions/

http://marshfieldresearch.org

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/risa.12124

• Anecdotal 'evidence' is not evidence in any meaningful qua scientific sense. Otherwise Jenny McCarthy would be a Nobel prize winner. (As it stands, she's merely an Ignoble Prize winner.)

• Those who claim they got the flu after having been vaccinated fall into various camps:
- They actually didn't have the flu but rather a head cold (rhinovirus). In most cases no laboratory confirmation of which virus(es) were involved was carried out.
- If they actually developed the flu (demonstrated by laboratory confirmation), it is likely that they were already harboring it when they were vaccinated; ergo too late for the flu vaccine to be value.

• Those who claim to have gotten the flu after skipping the shot might or might not have benefited from receiving same. No sensible research is possible in this arena.

• The only ethical research which could tease out all the ramifications of flu shot vs no flu shot is observational, whereas the 'gold standard' for definitive results is prospective research, which would involve designed-in human health risks (some of which would lead to fatalities), which is decidedly unethical. Of course, we could return to days of yesteryear and perform such on unwilling subjects (eg, prisoners) to get our data, but that in itself would introduce experimental biases which would vitiate the results.

• The vaccine manufacturers and the WHO have provided considerably more than a yeoman's service in delineating and defining the influenza issues. And, as illustrated in the articles I referred to, science is about to make a major breakthrough in subduing the influenza threat which will ultimately make annual flu shots a thing of the past.

Thanks ryck,

Congratulations on your results.....I'm hopeful for my 4 year old grandson in this effort.

Also and otherwise ...

Ancillary to but pertinent to the discussion in this thread, albeit adding to the confusion vis-à-vis interpretation of scientific medical studies is a recent commentary — The Year’s Most Important Study Adds to Uncertainty in Science — in Medscape Medical News. Enjoy.

The link above takes one to a free sign-up for Medscape. Will it be obvious which article you reference if I choose to log in?

It should. In fact, if you access Medscape registration via the link given, once you register, it should immediately open that article for you.
If not, you can search within the site.

(FYI: I registered many years ago because there are several medical interest areas I wanted to be kept current on. I've never needed to re-login [as long as I access the site via my home computer]. That's held true through Mac OS and browser upgrades and updates.)

More than just a 5-Minute Quiz: Influenza

Lots of relevant info (especially to this thread's discussion) and worth the time investment.

What to Know About Getting a Flu Shot This Year, No Matter Who’s Paying

You mean Jenny McCarthy, M.D.?

The word "toxins" has taken on magical qualities. Like "organic". These things come and go. Get rid of your television and newspaper. It's all strictly Pavlovian.

Ok, here's my amateur analysis.

Jenny McCarthy M.D. can't accept that she would have a child less beautiful, less perfect, than her. Therefore someone has to be blamed. The search for a scapegoat begins. Someone must have poisoned her. Or the child. Hmm. Click. Then she believes that she is the only one in her predicament, which more charitable people would never consider a predicament.

There's an old quote by someone (Cicero?) that to be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to remain a child.

And then there's the old celebrity takes up a cause thing.

No. I mean Jenny McCarthy, the actress, who wrote a book about how she knew better than the doctors and claims to have healed her son of autism. This one.


I am unable to locate any Jenny McCarthy M.D.

Following up on earlier discussion, this article might be of interest:

Universal Influenza Vaccines: Progress in Achieving Broad Cross-Protection in Vivo

Or go directly to the journal:
American Journal of Epidemiology 2018; 187 (12): 2603-2614.

Add this to that:

How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers

Terrific piece...thanks for posting it.

The incredible irony in all of this is that so many of the anti-vaxxers, given they now have children, were likely vaccinated as children. So, they have neither experienced the diseases nor seen the ravages of the diseases that their parents witnessed. One of the readers, an M. Morris, said it best:

“Having spent the last 20 years living in Vietnam where vaccination against childhood diseases only became widely available in the last 15 - 20 years, I have met so many adults living with the consequences of polio, measles, and meningitis. Metal body braces, limb braces, partial or full blindness, deafness, paralysis, reduced mental capacity, dramatic skin scarring... these diseases have haunted so many lives, long after their resolution. And the after-effects are still visible on a daily basis. Perhaps this is why parents are so diligent in vaccinating their children.”

Since the great influx of vaccines in the '50s and '60s and the concomitant diminution of the plethora of childhood diseases, there are multiple generations which likely have never heard and could not answer the questions posed via "sick jokes" related to same which abounded at the time, especially in grade school. For example:
Q: What has a head and can't swim? A: An iron lung.

When the nuclear-powered submarine Thresher unexplainedly went down with its crew off Cape Cod in 1963, that got superseded by:
Q: What's gray and can't swim? A: The Thresher.

And now the children of the anti-vaxxers are thinking more rationally than their parents. Three cheers for them.

My beef is NOT with vaccinations per se, but with the process that rushes them to market without adequate, and I mean maybe even generations, test periods.

If I got it as a kid and it hasn't been discredited in the many years that have passed since then, I"m OK with it, but I'll never get the picture of the thalidomide baby I knew by sight years ago, who flaunted her disability with sleeveless dresses, out of my head.

I'm not sure that the awful thalidomide tragedy quite equates with vaccinations, even from the point of rushing to market. Thalidomide was a sedative that some doctors started prescribing for a use it was not intended - relieving morning sickness. The consequence of this misuse was horrific.

And the vaccinations for diseases that are popping up again after being eradicated, such as measles, definitely conform with any definition of a long test period.

My problem with the anti-vaxxers is that they seem to think their beliefs make it okay for them to foist a danger onto others. i.e. "Even though my child is not vaccinated, he or she should still be allowed to attend school."

I'm willing to bet that any anti-vaxxer with a child who has a peanut allergy, or who becomes ill from scents, is okay with the laws that don't allow other children to bring peanut butter sandwiches to school or which prevent teachers from wearing perfume.

A recent commentary, To Maintain Trust in Science, Lose the Peer Review, adds a bit more depth to the discussion. Among other things,

"Social Media Didn't Create Antivaxxers
"... The modern antivaccine movement was not started on Facebook or Twitter, but by a peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet, one of the world's leading medical journals. Even as the harm of this fraudulent study became clear, it took more than a decade for the journal to retract it."

I believe vaccinations should be mandatory, the same as many other pieces of safety legislation....seat belts, et cetera. And, I become an even more staunch believer when I read things like this mother's story.

Y'all be wantin' to read this fairly definitive treatise:

Michael Kinch.
Between Hope and Fear : A History of Vaccines and Human Immunity.
New York: Pegasus Books, 2018.
ISBN 978-1-68177-751-1
pp xviii + 334
US$27.95 / CDN$36.95

Once more, with feeling:

One More Time, With Big Data: Measles Vaccine Doesn’t Cause Autism

which references the study (open access = free article), Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study, in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

(Take that, Jenny McCarthy! )

Bang on......and, of course, the Aerie-head Pumpkin in the White House is on the side of the anti-vaxxers. From a CNN piece written by Michael D'Antonio:

"Trump first weighed in on vaccines in 2012 on Twitter, writing, "Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism...." Then, he tweeted two months later, "Autism rates through the roof--why doesn't the Obama administration do something about doctor-inflicted autism."

And he tweeted these falsehoods despite the fact that countless of scientific studies have concluded that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

The danger, of course, is that Trump is eroding public confidence in authorities like the Centers for Disease Control, which strongly recommend vaccination. And no number of CDC bulletins will undo the damage that he has done."

As your link concludes, we need a vaccine against stupidity.

For those afflicted a nice plate of BSE-infected ragout would do the trick.

I think those are called Darwin Awards

L.O.L. V1, you have been missed! Welcome back.

"And he tweeted these falsehoods despite the fact that countless of scientific studies have concluded that there is no link between vaccines and autism."

I am shocked!

Add to that the following:

Should Adults Get a Measles Booster Shot?

Oh joy! Another shot to add to the list of booster and or improved vaccines I aim suppose to get. Makes me think of the "shot clinic" when I was in the military getting ready to go to Southeast Asia.

Not if you're in the age-exempt cohort (as described in the article and as you would seem to be).
The definitive way to determine your immune status for any virus-caused disease is to have your antibody titer vis-à-vis same determined (ie, simple blood test).*

(* Back in the '60s, when I was exposed to mumps as an adult — not a nice disease in males — I had my antibody titer determined and found that I was immune, which meant that I had been exposed to mumps as a child even though I had never been visibly ill with same [while my sister had a full-blown bout of mumps].
To round out this aside, antibody titers determined in the past decade indicate that I still have immunity to mumps and measles, the latter also must have presented in childhood with very mild, if any, disease symptoms of which I have no memory.)

Are you saying that your immunity was the result of mild exposure and not by vaccination?

Certainly exposure (without qualification) but the disease in both cases was obviously mild, possibly without visible symptoms (which was certainly the case with the mumps and not possible for me to confirm with respect to measles, since anyone who might have witnessed same is no longer with us).
Epidemiologists have commented that virtually everyone pre-1957 had measles to one degree or another because it was so prevalent at the time. (Things apparently went to hell in a handbasket after that.)

What a shame ...

Brother and Sister of Robert F. Kennedy Jr Accuse Him of Spreading Misinformation on Vaccines

So true, a shame indeed.

Back into the fray ...

How Anti-Vaccine Sentiment Took Hold in the United States