Slashdot Mirror
Flu Shot Doing Poor Job of Protecting Older People This Year
New submitter Gunilla sends this news from an AP report:
"It turns out this year's flu shot is doing a startlingly dismal job of protecting older people, the most vulnerable age group. The vaccine is proving only 9 percent effective in those 65 and older against the harsh strain of the flu that is predominant this season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday. Health officials are baffled as to why this is so. But the findings help explain why so many older people have been hospitalized with the flu this year. Despite the findings, the CDC stood by its recommendation that everyone over 6 months get flu shots, the elderly included, because some protection is better than none, and because those who are vaccinated and still get sick may suffer less severe symptoms."
An anonymous reader adds information about a new drug that treats influenza by hijacking its own infection mechanism. The compound "binds to an enzyme on the surface of the flu virus called neuraminidase. This enzyme is responsible for severing the connection between the flu virus and human cell so it can move on and infect other cells. The new class of drugs — DFSAs — permanently bind to the enzyme, blocking its action and stopping it from spreading further, the journal Science reported (abstract). Currently available antivirals also work by attaching to this enzyme. But DFSAs do so in such a way that the flu virus cannot evolve to be resistant to the drug without rendering itself useless."
Tell me about it, I had that flu a month ago. But I had a serendipitous out-of-box thought about diverting myself with old TV, specifically NCC-1701-D.
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
The CDC just keeps shooting themselves in the foot. Admit the problem and QUIT telling everyone to get the flu shot every year. It doesn't work as advertised and should not be relied on a the main defense against the flu.
- Cochrane Review - Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults-
- Dr Lisa Jackson's out of season influenza vaccine research
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/337.short
Using the proper tools for the job is very important and vaccines work best against stable targets like smallpox. Against the influenza virus it is a total joke. They go to manufacturing in June/July and the flu has 3-6 months to mutate and they wonder why it fails? Give it up. It does not work.
The more the CDC promotes something that clearly does not work the more people are going to throw out the baby with the bathwater and think that they are lying about all vaccines. Good to hear there are some advances in stopping the flu because the current approach has been a total failure.
Old people already have a rich 'immunity memory' to protect them, vaccinations won't have much to add to that. The problem is more to do with generally weaker immune systems - give them some vitamin C instead.
I for one got the flu twice, despite having had a shot. Each time I had different symptoms (including hypothermia) and was told it was a different strain of the virus.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Fuck you.
With homeopathy, there is no need to test the results of taking a substance, putting it in water, then constantly diluting the amount of that substance in the water until there is only one molecule of that substance left in the water. Because water has such great memory, it "remembers" the powerful healing abilities of the substance while completely forgetting all the urine, feces, saliva and other bodily fluids the water has come in contact with.
Because of this miraculous memory, that one molecule has more healing and restorative powers than the most powerful, science-based vaccines, vaccines which do nothing except make people sick and keep big pharma rolling in the money like they do for afflictions such as smallpox, rinderpest and polio.
Unlike traditional science-based vaccines, homeopathic medicines can be done in the safety of your own home. No need to get doctors involved with their 8-10 years of medical training and untold hours of visiting patients, doing research and consulting with other so-called "medical experts". One can dispense with such safety protocols because no matter what, homeopathic medicines have been rigorously tested under the most stringent conditions including having a crystal suspended above them while the dilution occurs.
Not once has any side effect ever occurred from taking a homeopathic medicine. That one molecule in the water won't let it happen because of the exponential power it has from being the sole piece left of the original substance.
So do yourself a favor and pass on traditional vaccines and medicines. Homeopathic cures are the wave of the future, able to solve the world's medical ills in a single glass of water. It's only because the medical community doesn't want you to take matters into your own hands bypass the time-tested methods of science-based medical trials that homeopathy has such a bad rap.
Ignore the naysayers, the ones whose ills have been cured by Western medicine, they're just anomalies. Homeopathy is where it's at.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Should we could keep this up until population-leveling killer flu strains evolve? That would be fun!
Or should we just stop now and deal with our little flu bouts like grown-ups? Nah, that's no fun. We'd miss all the media coverage on TPC - The Pandemic Channel!
Sent from my ENIAC
What's more, you're ignoring the fact that this year it worked for 9% of the people over 65 who got it.
And YOU are ignoring the increased risk of exposure to flu people have by going to wherever the flu shot is administered.
That 9% number does not stand in a vacuum. There are many other factors and with that protection number being so low, to me it makes little sense to go somewhere and risk greater exposure to other people from which you would get the flu to begin with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just how much money is being spent on flu shots each year? At 9% effectiveness, is the value for dollar really there?
At some point the CDC has to fess up to reality - their preferred method of telling everyone to get a shot that doesn't work isn't a good idea. The longer they try to pretend it is, the more money will be wasted and the more people will be convinced that the CDC is full of shit.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
If you came down with the flu within 72 hours, you got the shot too late each and every time. You do not have much protection yet within 1 or 2 days of receiving the shot, and that's all the time your body had to get to know the flu shot since you usually don't show signs of infection until a day or two after getting most diseases.
As such, you're just blaming the wrong things. I would suggest you get the flu shot as early as you can, since you seem to be in a rather infected environment, so you can maximize your protection.
My wife, my son, and I have received the flu shot at least 10 times each and none of us have ever come down with the flu so using your logic, I can confirm that the flu shot is 100% effective...
Or perhaps your logic is wrong and your data points probably fabricated.
I had the flu shot this year and still got the flu a couple months later. However it was a mild case of flu, so I think the vaccine did some good. I go to the gym regularly several times a week and take exercise classes as well as use the exercise machines. In the exercise clases I am exposed to plenty of sweaty and less than sterile mats, dumbells, balance balls, etc, and we lay on the floors a lot. Perhaps it was unrealistic to think a vacine could completely protect me from that much exposure to germs.
Unless we can turn back time and redo something, along with a control group, this isn't exactly something where the cause can be pinpointed.
How many people who are 65+ and didn't take the vaccine were infected?
How many 65+ got the vaccine and were infected?
How many 65+ got the vaccine and were not infected?
How many 65+ had what specific vaccine?
What geographic areas had people 65+ that were infected, and the same for those not infected?
Which provider company did those who got the vaccine and did/did not become infected receive it from?
What manufacturing company was associated with the vaccines of those who were infected and those who were not infected?
What were the dates, batch numbers, and lot numbers of those who were infected and not infected and were 65+?
The questions just go on and on and on.
Maybe the older are just less healthy this year. Maybe the solar cycle has something to do with it. Maybe the weather. Perhaps the virus' enzyme has mutated and this is a point of concern. By chance the virus has mutated and it was a complete fluke.
You know not to get off topic but it's a good reference point: The closest asteroid pass to Earth happened on the same day as the completely unrelated largest meteor entry and air burst of this century. Shit happens.
I think the problem is that people take an obviously true statement like
1. Modern medicine and technology can work miracles (compared to the olden days)
and equate this with a decidedly untrue, dangerous, and unprovable statement like
2. Modern medicine and technology should always be trusted
Let's consider that human beings are behind every instance of modern medicine and technology. So let's rephrase those statements accordingly:
1. Human beings can work miracles (compared to the olden days)
Would anyone like to equate that obviously true statement with
2. Human beings should always be trusted
Anyone? Bueller?
I have never had a flu shot and have not had the flu since i was 6. I am now 24, Just because you have not got it since taking the shot does not mean it saved you. This is why science uses double blind studies multiple times not just people randomly saying how much they think something did or did not work.
Just to clarify I am not agreeing with either of you, in fact I think that both comments mean nothing.
Since I can find only one report of a death from a flu shot, ever, which unfortunately comes from a biased site, I am sorry for your loss of your 7 year old girl named Kaylynne (I hope if you try for another child you use a dictionary and check the correct spelling for the name, though--it will definitely save everyone a lot of grief):
http://vactruth.com/2012/01/14/dies-in-mothers-arms/
It seems that where you get your shot is the key.Some places just have gotten bad doses of the stuff. Real case scenario to back this up unfortunately.
"But DFSAs do so in such a way that the flu virus cannot evolve to be resistant to the drug without rendering itself useless"
Anyone else get Jurrasic Park flashbacks reading this?
"I got the Flu shot and I had a Flu for 72 hours!" or "it only works 9% of the time? Big Pharm SUCKS!" Sorry to hear that your 80 year-old grandma had a fever after getting a flu shot. but people take too much stuff for granted.
It was not that long ago that the Spanish Flu wiped out millions of people. If want something more recent visit Africa. They only had 550,000+ deaths for malaria.
If you something worth while, post it. Otherwise people don't care you got a flu shot and got sick anyways; stuff happens, grow up.
9% now and 80% when it's the next black death...
please continue spreading ignorance, sure the regular flu-shot is pointless but that money pays for researching EVERYTHING you ignorant DUMB IDIOT BRAIN DEAD ZOMBIE DOUCHE!!
Mmm, big Parma.. great cheese and cured ham there.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Yet more displays of terrible logic on your part. My data points disagree with yours, therefore I must be a big-pharma shill...
Laying it out in plain english: You used 3 data points to conclude the flu shot was bullshit. I countered with 10 equally useless data points that conflicted with yours. You throw a hissy fit.
Until last year, I had never gotten a flu shot, or the flu (at least, like you, not since I was a kid). Last year, my girlfriend made me get a flu shot, and I also haven't gotten a flu. Therefore, I can state that getting a flu shot is 100% effective, not getting a flu shot is also 100% effective, and the best way to prevent getting a flu is "don't be a kid".
During an interview about the Flu shot a professor went completely in defensive mode when asked about reported low efficiency of the Flu shot given to elderly: "This is typical Belgian. It's oh so cosy to visit grandma and grandpa with the snotty grandchildren that are cuddled all the time. In other countries children are not even allowed in an old people's home."
Maybe we try to find a shortcut to inheritance professor?
The logic here is perfectly sound :) I like it. The only way to stop humans from getting the flu is to kill all the kids before they get it. I will see you later tonight behind the school, bring your bat.
There's a weird bug on the mobile view where if you click show comment it clicks the link automatically! argh. I had avoided seeing that site for over a decade and now I saw it twice, bleugh! (Please fix mobile view?)
Although %9 for personal protection isn't so hot, I still see why the CDC isstill pushing for vaccination. To avoid epidemic reproduction of the virus, we need to keep the rate of reproduction below one new infection per individual already infected. In that sense, even just %9 immunity could have a large impact on a group. Wikipedia has a good read on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_of_infectious_disease
And yet when he stopped getting the shot, he stopped getting the flu at all. It could be a million to one coincidence or it could be that he was having a reaction to the vaccine that is nearly indistinguishable form the flu. My bet is on the latter.
Tamiflu is not a vaccine.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Yes, administering flu vaccines to seniors is of little use. We know this. Their immune systems aren't able to mount an effective response to the vaccine and develop proper immunity.
What you need to do is vaccinate everyone around them (Families, caregivers, etc.) and protect them via herd immunity.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Tamiflu is NOT a vaccine.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And YOU are ignoring the increased risk of exposure to flu people have by going to wherever the flu shot is administered.
The most common vaccinations are now readilly available everywhere people gather.
Schools, colleges, churches and community centers of every description.
The supermarket and general merchandise big box retailer like Walmart and Target.
Rite Aid, Walgreens. and countless other neighborhood drug stores.
Physician's offices, outpatient clinics, and hospitals.
Group homes. Nursing homes.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
The shot is only "9% effective" in the older segment of the population that they claim "needs" it the most. What they really don't want to admit is that a placebo is 21% effective. Might cause a little too much attention to that flu shot.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Statistics doesn't care about single data points, Flu shot saves lives.
If a family member had an adverse reaction, I would question getting it myself, but for the average person, go ahead.
I actually considered this once. I don't pay anything directly because it's a "covered" item in my health plan, but I would pay $25 out of pocket if I got one. So here goes:
When I was younger - in my 20s& 30s I got a flu - or flu-like symptoms requiring I miss work for 3 or more days - four times. I started getting the flu vaccine about 8 years ago, and I haven't had the flu for about 11 or 12 years.
Let's say my typical chance is once every 5 years. (4x in 20 years). If I were only to get the flu once every 10 years (56% effective in my target age group), that means that, on average I will miss 3 days less of work in 10 years. I'm a consultant, so I bill $150/hr, and I get nothing if I don't work. Whether I show up at the office or not, I pay for rent, electricity, licensing, insurance, etc. So...3 days at 6 billable hours in a typical day is $2700 is lost income (note I'm not counting the 3-4 hours of admin time a day, which is all rolled into those billable hours). $2700 a year over ten years is $270 a year, or an 11:1 payback on my "investment" of $25. As a bonus, I don't end up paying for a doctors visit, or for medications, or for the general crappiness I feel, or take the chance that my wife and daughter are then more likely to get it as well. Break even, without medication costs and such, would be around $13.60/hr.
If it were the worst case of 9% if I were over 65 and still working, then we're really talking statistical, but that would mean a theoretical reduction of 18 hrs/5yrs*9% = $49 a year return on a $25 flu shot, plus the above associated effects and medical costs, and the chance of dying from the flu because I'm just old and more likely to get a secondary infection.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...is that majority of people volunteer for vaccine shots.
Thanks for the tip!
Million to one coincidence? Highly unlikely. Since the flu shot doesn't work instantly, and this person gets diseased almost exactly when he gets a flu shot, my bets are that however/wherever he travels to get his flu shot exposes him to people who have the flu. Thus, he gets the flu on his way to getting the flu shot. This is not an unusual scenario, a lot of people go to silly places to get a flu shot, like a hospital ER or a doctor's office (sometimes it's even the only choice!). Those are the types of places where one finds sick people. No surprise that being in the vicinity of sick people increases your chances of being sick. Personally, I get my flu shot at work (voluntarily offered for free by my company because it saves them from having sick employees). Many pharmacies offer it as well (yes, sick people visit pharmacies, but they don't normally hang out there for hours on end). Some cities even offer clinics in places such as city hall, or other makeshift places that normally don't primarily attract the sick (I had mine one year at a sports arena). Those are much better choices.
He'd do way better just finding a different way to go and get a flu shot, and that he should get it somewhere else. The he would not only not get the flu, but he would be protected against it should he ever have to go to that ridiculously infected place ever again.
Or he can keep choosing not to get it, and then provide us with data that he got the flu without the flu shot as well, so there's no point in choosing either option.
My friend don't know what a flu shot is. He get's sick (flu) for 2 days once in 3 years, i too.
If your immune system is compromised no vaccine will help you, same as.. if you're immune system is not compromised - you DON'T need a vaccine.
Don't have a quotation, just a personal experience. But if it'll make you feel easier, just mod me down.. and stuff that chemical experiment you call food in your and your children throats. Maybe my tin foil hat is protecting me.. who knows.
What's so wrong with flu ? Ok it's 'inconvenient'.. but if you get it once every 2-3 years..what's the problem ? Your immune system needs some _natural_healthy_enemies every now and then. Do you actually need a mix of god knows what in your system ?
And I'm gonna be harsh a bit.. since we're all "evolution theorists" here (meaning: you should be able to accept ugly truth).. so we should accept the fact, that if you gonna die from something benign as flue..hey.. that 'design' carried us to where you are now. What more do you want... it works.
And yet when he stopped getting the shot, he stopped getting the flu at all. It could be a million to one coincidence or it could be that he was having a reaction to the vaccine that is nearly indistinguishable form the flu. My bet is on the latter.
That would be an idiotic bet, since such a reaction is essentially unknown and would be a seventy-million-to-one coincidence.
A sensible bet would be that he waited until he noticed people around him started coming down with the flu, and he said, "Welp, better get the shot!" by which point he had already caught it.
i've never had a flu shot in my life and i've never had the flu. i can confirm that the flu doesn't exist.
Actually if you'll bother to look it up, it is quite a common reaction, though it is usually short lived and milder than the disease.
There is every reason to believe that some people would have a more severe reaction than others based on quirks of their immune system.
Million to one that he just happens to get the flu EVERY SINGLE TIME within 72 hours of shot AND he just happens to not get the flu AT ALL at any time of the year when he doesn't get the shot.
Goatse right? You stepped into that one.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This seasonal ritual is not really meant to actually offer disease prevention, but to condition the citizenry to anxiously wait in long lines for Father Government to issue them their periodic ration of good health. ...what a brave new world.
the plural of anecdote is not data
I said, that 9% isn't a good number, but pretending like they were giving these shots out knowing that whom they would and would not work for is just plain wrong.
That may have been the situation several months back.
But about the start of January they HAD stats. At that time they did a big publicity blitz, claiming that:
- This year's flu had a particularly high mortality among seniors,
- But this year's vaccine was quite effective against it.
- In particular: It both substantially (though far from completely) reduced the incidence among seniors and reducing the severity among most of those it didn't fully protect.
I think the numbers they were claiming had the death rate among immunized seniors running well under a third that of the unimmunized.
I'm in California, where the flu was just starting to show up. On the basis of those claims of high mortality and high protection, and the fact that I hadn't yet gotten a shot, I went out and got one.
I don't see how those claims could be reconciled wtih the ACTUAL numbers showing 9% instead of mid-30s % for full protection and the high mortality among seniors being due to the inoculation being largely ineffective.
So I, and no doubt many others, balanced the risks of the shots against a risk of PREVENTABLE mortality. If the latter was deliberately overstated, we may have made bad decisions as a result.
Note that the risks of the shot, for seniors, includes identity theft: The shots are free for those on Medicare part A. But the medicare I.D. number is the social security number with a letter added at the end. If you get the "free" shot (say, at a pharmacy or doctor's office) the provider ends up with your name, address, and social security number on a single form. Presto: Another point-of-failure for identity security.
(Note that pharmacies DON'T get seniors' SS# for drugs: Those are under part D, handled by insurance companies which assign a non-SS# identifier, and only the insurance company's database has your medicare I.D. with the unencrypted SS# embedded in it.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I know most of you nerds will just laugh at my anecdotal evidence and dismiss anything that wasn't synthesized and studied in a lab environment as quackery. That said, I have a hobby of experimenting with various herbs and supplements until I find combos that work for me (and the ones that nearly kill me). The combo of echinacea, C, and zinc has always worked for me, as well as several friends and family. I don't take these as daily supplements, only when I start to feel sick or know I've been exposed. I know that especially with echinacea, you build a tolerance that defeats the purpose of kickstarting your immune system before it realizes it needs to be in high gear. I usually take something along the order of 50mg zinc once a day, 400mg echinacea throughout the day (4-5 times), and a megadose of 1000mg of C per day. I know the studies on these supplements are debatable, but it's always worked for me. I haven't had a flu shot in 20 years and I've had 1 mild case of the flu since then, and one fairly severe. The severe one was some sort of strange deadly illness I caught from a stray cat. I'm sure it would have destroyed lesser men, but I managed to defeat it and keep it from turning into a pandemic. That's a whole-nother story.
Also: Some of the early results hinting that megadoses of vitamin C were good for cancer patients general health turned out to be the result of the vitamin C causing the subjects to vomit up (and greatly reduce the absorbed amount of) the chemotherapy drugs they were also taking. This reduced the side-effects of the chemotherapy drugs, giving the appearance of a benefit.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
One of the reasons I don't get flu vaccine is because I expect the corporations to give you last years stock (which is no good for the current year) because it's cheaper then making new stuff.
The other reason I don't get flu vaccines is I don't catch the flu. Probably because I have NEVER gotten a vaccine to begin with.
Be seeing you...
Nearly 100% effective according to Obama HigherCommand.
Oh ... The Sequester Thingy
Well.
Looks like Obama Subordinates are doing their fair share to "concentrate the pain" to Republican Districts, particularly districts served by Chairs and members of the Commerce and Budget and Defense committees.
Well well well.
So the Face of Sequester Raises It Self.
And it is the head of OBAMA.
Hay !
Want to Rule The Sequester ?
KILL Department of Homeland Security ! All Employees and Especially The Janet 'Planet' Napoleon AH HA The Face Rises From The Toilet.
A good day to die is coming !
A fraction of the cost, no big government program needed, and kills every virus it enounters, so far, except Ebola.
that if you are in an age range in which the flu vaccine is more effective, it is your civic duty to get one so you lower your chances of passing the flu onto those with which vaccines are less effective.
Insightful? Really? I take you haven't seen all the flu shot stands in places like the mall and Wally World,
I've seen them but I'm not stupid enough to go near the place where most of the people with flu would end up at when at Wal Mart (because remember: a lot of people only get the shots when they start feeling sick, even though then it is too late). Are you? Really?
Furthermore no, I really don't go into those places during flu season much at all - during the winter I reduce shopping trips and and more careful about washing my hands after shopping. But the other areas of the store have a very low risk of infection compared to, again, the place where all the sick people go.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The most common vaccinations are now readilly available everywhere people gather.
And again, going where "most people gather" is the stupidest thing an older person could do during flu season.
I don't see why that point does anything but re-enforce what I am saying.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The real takeaway is that it's ~50% effective in the rest of the population.
And of course you have a control group given a placebo to compare against, right? I mean you wouldn't just use a 50% number that could be people who wouldn't have got the flu anyway, right?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh yeah? Well, I THOUGHT about getting a flu shot this year, but I didn't get one, and I didn't get the flu. Therefore, I can state that thinking about getting a flu shot but not getting one is also 100% effective.
What you mentioned isn't proof, it's correlation. Show us the studies instead of being a fit throwing baby.