Flu shots - do you get them?

[Draka]

In which case her example isn't a contradiction of the myth being referred to, which is that a flu vaccination can give you flu.

No, she got the flu shot and she was ill shortly afterwards. Correlation doesn't prove causation. It could have been the cause but so could countless other things.

It's possible she suffered from a very extreme side-effect of the vaccination but it isn't the only explanation for her experience and I don't think the most likely based on her limited description.

Vaccines containing live viruses can indeed give you mild symptoms of what they're vaccinating you against. Flu vaccines do not contain live virus though.

Why is it not the most likely when many people have the same experience? There are many people who have severe reactions to vaccines in general, including flu vaccines. And while what they may be suffering from as a result of the flu shot may not be medically and technically recognized as the flu, the layman is going to look at it as equivalent to the flu and they are going to look at it as that they have the flu. Shortened as it may be. So it can be said as many times as you like that the shot doesn't give a person the flu, for the person that gets hammered by the most severe of side effects...if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck...it's a duck. They know what they experienced and are likely to not get the shot again no matter how many times you tell them they didn't experience what they experienced. I'm just not one for trivializing a person's experiences.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why is it not the most likely when many people have the same experience?

Because the extent of the symptoms she describes sounds a lot like a healthy person with a fairly mild flu than the usual extent of side-effects from flu vaccines. Again, I'm not saying it certainly wasn't the cause in her case, only that I don't think it's the most likely explaination. I was more concerned to emphasise the fact that you can't get flu from a flu vaccine because that's a dangerous myth that can discourage people from getting the vaccine who should, hence putting themselves and others at greater risk.

And while what they may be suffering from as a result of the flu shot may not be medically and technically recognized as the flu, the layman is going to look at it as equivalent to the flu and they are going to look at it as that they have the flu.

All the more reason to be clear on the facts rather than mislead people with a false perception.

I'm just not one for trivializing a person's experiences.

I've at no point trivialised anyone's experiences. I've made a series of statements of widely recognised medical fact and expressed some personal opinion on the likely causes of flu and/or flu-like symptoms in the period immediately after receiving a flu shot on the basis of those facts.

 

[Alceste]

I keep seeing reading comprehension issues here. First off, as I've said before, if you only have it a day or two it's not the actual flu. She said a couple days and she didn't say she had the flu...she said she had flu symptoms. That the shot gave her flu symptoms. That the shot gave her flu symptoms so bad it took her out of commission for a couple days. That she was so sick she missed work. So, yes, the shot made her sick. It may not have given her the actual flu, but the shot did have such bad side effects on her as to lay her out for a while with symptoms equivalent to the flu itself. The very thing it was suppose to keep her from suffering from. That is indeed possible as many vaccines have side effects that can range up to the very symptoms of the very things they are suppose to immunize you against. Anyone that has taken children for vaccines and gets the little handouts on each vaccine and bothers to read them can attest to that. Yes...you can feel sick as a side effect of a vaccine. That is what Alceste is saying happened to her.

Thank you, Draka, for your excellent reading comprehension. this is the exact story I told, correct in every detail.

 

[Alceste]

In which case her example isn't a contradiction of the myth being referred to, which is that a flu vaccination can give you flu.

No, she got the flu shot and she was ill shortly afterwards. Correlation doesn't prove causation. It could have been the cause but so could countless other things.

It's possible she suffered from a very extreme side-effect of the vaccination but it isn't the only explanation for her experience and I don't think the most likely based on her limited description.

Vaccines containing live viruses can indeed give you mild symptoms of what they're vaccinating you against. Flu vaccines do not contain live virus though.

I was ill the very day I got the shot, and my symptoms were exactly the symptoms reported by a small percentage of people who receive the shot.

Adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals are very common. I'm surprised you are so incredulous about it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals are very common. I'm surprised you are so incredulous about it.

I like all the newer ones which seem to all share the side-effects of "suicidal thoughts" and/or "sudden death."

 

[Draka]

I like all the newer ones which seem to all share the side-effects of "suicidal thoughts" and/or "sudden death."

I specifically like the drugs designed for depression that have the side effects of suicidal thoughts. Um...what? Defeat the purpose anyone?

 

[Draka]

Thank you, Draka, for your excellent reading comprehension. this is the exact story I told, correct in every detail.

I can read! :jiggy: I can read!

 

[Alceste]

I like all the newer ones which seem to all share the side-effects of "suicidal thoughts" and/or "sudden death."

Jeez.

That's worse than the discovery, after badgering women into taking birth control pills long after menopause "to prevent osteoporosis", doctors discovered it multiplies the risk of breast cancer several times over.

 

[illykitty]

I specifically like the drugs designed for depression that have the side effects of suicidal thoughts. Um...what? Defeat the purpose anyone?

That was what my old meds were like and it did have that effect on me... Yet the doc wanted to up the dosage! I started out at 10mg, then got worse so they upped to 20 then upped again to 40. I was getting really dark.

Well I said screw the doc, got off them and now I'm feeling so much better!

 

[Falvlun]

So, how much has the use of flu vaccines reduced the number of people who get the flu in the general population? Please be specific.

Reread that article. It depends on the year, and whether the virus has been well matched, and which strain of influenza you are asking about (the same vaccine may give 70% efficiency for one strain, but 90% for another.) It also depends on age group and health condition.

Examples from the CDC:

The presence of chronic medical conditions may also affect the effectiveness of influenza vaccines. For example, in an observational study of people 50–64 years of age, the vaccine was 60% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza among otherwise healthy adults 50–64 years of age, but only 48% effective among those who had high-risk medical conditions (Herrera et al., 2006).

In a four-year randomized, placebo-controlled study of inactivated and live influenza vaccines among children aged 1–15 years, vaccine efficacy was estimated at 77% against influenza A (H3N2) and 91% against influenza A (H1N1) virus infection (Neuzil et al., 2001). A two-year study of children aged 6–24 months found that the vaccine was 66% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in one year of the study (Hoberman et al., 2003).

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled influenza virus challenge study among 92 healthy adults (LAIV, n = 29; placebo, n = 31; inactivated influenza vaccine, n = 32) aged 18–41 years assessed the efficacy of both LAIV and inactivated vaccine (Treanor et al., 1999). The overall efficacy of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-documented influenza from all three influenza strains combined was 85% and 71%, respectively

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among 4,561 healthy working adults aged 18–64 years assessed multiple endpoints (i.e., targeted outcome measures), including reductions in self-reported respiratory tract illness without laboratory confirmation, absenteeism, health care visits, use of antibiotics, and use of over-the-counter medications for illness symptoms during peak and total influenza outbreak periods (Nichol et al., 1999). The study was conducted during the 1997-1998 influenza season, when the influenza vaccine and circulating A (H3N2) viruses were poorly matched. Vaccination was associated with reductions in severe febrile illnesses of 19%, and febrile upper respiratory tract illnesses of 24%.

For the live nasal spray variety:

In season one, when vaccine and circulating virus strains were well-matched, efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed illness from influenza was 93% for participants who received two doses of LAIV. In season two, when the A (H3N2) component was not well-matched between vaccine and circulating virus strains, efficacy was 86% overall.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Reread that article. It depends on the year, and whether the virus has been well matched, and which strain of influenza you are asking about (the same vaccine may give 70% efficiency for one strain, but 90% for another.) It also depends on age group and health condition.

Perhaps you need to reread the difference between "efficacy" and "effectivness." Testing efficacy in lab-controlled conditions doesn't necessarily correlate to real world effectivness. Where are the numbers on real world reduction of flu cases (i.e., effectiveness)? You're the one arguing that such numbers exist. If so, then show them.

 

[HonestJoe]

I was ill the very day I got the shot, and my symptoms were exactly the symptoms reported by a small percentage of people who receive the shot.

Adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals are very common. I'm surprised you are so incredulous about it.

I'm not incredulous about it, I'm just questioning your 100% certainty that your symptoms were caused by the flu shot.

As I've already said, my primary objection was your claim that your experiences proved the myth that you can get flu from flu shots, which isn't only wrong but a dangerous myth that causes people who should get a flu shot not to do so.

 

[Falvlun]

Perhaps you need to reread the difference between "efficacy" and "effectivness." Testing efficacy in lab-controlled conditions doesn't necessarily correlate to real world effectivness. Where are the numbers on real world reduction of flu cases (i.e., effectiveness)? You're the one arguing that such numbers exist. If so, then show them.

OMG. Those labs were about real world people. They didn't keep kids locked up in a lab for an entire year to study them. Those kids were out in the real world.

Your position is simply ridiculous. If you want real numbers, then take the percentage of efficiency (average 60%) and take the number of people who got the flu vaccine, and figure it out. Say a million people got the flu shot, then your number is 600,000.

The flu vaccine works exactly like any other vaccine out there. It stimulates the body to produce antibodies against the particular influenza strain they were working with.

If other vaccines work, then the flu vaccine works. Period. End of story.

Do you want to argue that vaccines don't work? Feel free. But I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your position is simply ridiculous. If you want real numbers, then take the percentage of efficiency (average 60%) and take the number of people who got the flu vaccine, and figure it out. Say a million people got the flu shot, then your number is 600,000.

Your position is ridiculous because that isn't even in the realm of the accurate determination of the real world reduction in flu cases. The actual number of flu vaccine doses distributed as of last week (according to the cdc) is 134.8 million doses. By your estimation that means the flu vaccine has prevented 81 millions cases of the flu. If you cannot understand the problem with this, then I can't really help you.

The flu vaccine works exactly like any other vaccine out there. It stimulates the body to produce antibodies against the particular influenza strain they were working with.

If other vaccines work, then the flu vaccine works. Period. End of story.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way - just saying "end of story doesn't make it so. When it comes to the flu vaccine, there are a myriad of factors which make it different than other vaccines, and there is no indication that an increase in flu vaccine doses distrubted has actually ever reduced the number of cases of the flu in the real world.

Do you want to argue that vaccines don't work? Feel free. But I'm not going to do your homework for you.

This is humorous considering the fact that you apparently haven't even bothered to read the links that you've posted. In addition, you're simlply offering up a ridiculous strawman - nowhere have I stated or implied that vaccines don't work. In fact, I've specifically pointed out the difference between the flu vaccine and other vaccines in that their measureable effects were immediate and significant.

Now, if you choose to believe that getting the flu vaccine is worthwhile, that's your choice, and I think certain high-risk individuals should get it, but there's very thin evidence that it will significantly reduce your actual chances of getting the flu. Additionally, the number of people who report side-effects, including flu-like symptoms, is significant enough to be a consideration for not getting it.

 

[Koldo]

Your position is simply ridiculous. If you want real numbers, then take the percentage of efficiency (average 60%) and take the number of people who got the flu vaccine, and figure it out. Say a million people got the flu shot, then your number is 600,000.

Actually, that would mean that this specific million of people would have caught the flu on that year without the vaccine.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not incredulous about it, I'm just questioning your 100% certainty that your symptoms were caused by the flu shot.

As I've already said, my primary objection was your claim that your experiences proved the myth that you can get flu from flu shots, which isn't only wrong but a dangerous myth that causes people who should get a flu shot not to do so.

It's not a "dangerous myth" that the flu shot, like any other medication, has a risk of side effects. Seriously. And it's surprising to me how desperately you want to believe that the headache, fever, chills, aches and pains I suffered immediately after getting the shot, despite having no contact with any sick people and no respiratory symptoms, were caused by something other than the shot.

The symptoms I suffered are known side effects of the shot, for some people. Pretending there is no risk is much more irresponsible than acknowledging it.

What is your theory, anyway? You do realize that flu is primarily a respiratory illness, right? And that it lasts week or so?

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, that would mean that this specific million of people would have caught the flu on that year without the vaccine.

True.

But that is true of any vaccine.

That's why KT's desire for the *actual* number of cases of flu that the flu vaccine has prevented is a ridiculous request. You can't figure out that number for any vaccine. Therefore, the efficiency of the flu vaccine, which is rigorously tested just like any other vaccine, is the relevant number.

If he thinks that the science is lying about the efficiency of the flu vaccine, then that's his battle to fight. But putting unrealistic and ridiculous demands on it, like figuring out the actual number of cases prevented in the real world, is simply silly and ignores how science about this stuff works.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

True.

But that is true of any vaccine.

That's why KT's desire for the *actual* number of cases of flu that the flu vaccine has prevented is a ridiculous request. You can't figure out that number for any vaccine. Therefore, the efficiency of the flu vaccine, which is rigorously tested just like any other vaccine, is the relevant number.

If he thinks that the science is lying about the efficiency of the flu vaccine, then that's his battle to fight. But putting unrealistic and ridiculous demands on it, like figuring out the actual number of cases prevented in the real world, is simply silly and ignores how science about this stuff works.

I don't need an actual number - just something empirical which shows even a measurable effect on the general population from increased distribution of the flu vaccine. If it's preventing 60% of cases of the flu, then there should be ample empirical evidence of this in the general population.

You can try to ignore me, or repeatedly engage in straw men and ad hominem attacks, but you still haven't provided anything solid which addresses my point. If you have something along those lines, please do so, otherwise stop embarrasing yourself by attempting to paint me as silly. It's transparent, and it's ridiculous.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not a "dangerous myth" that the flu shot, like any other medication, has a risk of side effects. Seriously. And it's surprising to me how desperately you want to believe that the headache, fever, chills, aches and pains I suffered immediately after getting the shot, despite having no contact with any sick people and no respiratory symptoms, were caused by something other than the shot.

The symptoms I suffered are known side effects of the shot, for some people. Pretending there is no risk is much more irresponsible than acknowledging it.

What is your theory, anyway? You do realize that flu is primarily a respiratory illness, right? And that it lasts week or so?

The severity of your case was rare. These side effects do occur, again rarely, but generally in a rather mild form. In addition, it is not outside the realm of possibility that you got sick from something else.

I think the "dangerous myth" is not that the flu vaccine can have side effects. After all, basically anything has side effects. The dangerous part is when they are presented as more common than they are, when they are presented as more severe than they are, and because all these anecdotal stories-- often, though not always, based on misinformation-- add to the general hysteria people have about vaccines.

Your case very well may be a legitimate one about the adverse side effects about flu vaccine. It just should be made just as clear that this was a rare thing.

I mean, I work with ~35 people. We all got the vaccine. And besides a slightly sore arm muscle for about a day, none of us had any other side effect.

But of course, nobody remembers these anecdotal stories. They will only remember yours.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't need an actual number - just something empirical which shows even a measurable effect on the general population from increased distribution of the flu vaccine. If it's preventing 60% of cases of the flu, then there should be ample empirical evidence of this in the general population.

You can try to ignore me, or repeatedly engage in straw men and ad hominem attacks, but you still haven't provided anything solid which addresses my point. If you have something along those lines, please do so, otherwise stop embarrasing yourself by attempting to paint me as silly. It's transparent, and it's ridiculous.

I think your argument is silly. That is not an ad hominen. I believe I have presented more than enough evidence. I am disinclined to provide more. Any simple search of the internet will give myriads of data about the usefulness of the flu vaccine-- and the popular myths-- that surround it.

I could care less what you think about my disinclination to do your own homework.