Flu Shots

[Procida]

It's totally logical for Lone Simonsen to take this approach. Her main aim, since 2000, hasn't really been to challenge the lack of science. In fact, that's a red herring, and i wonder why she even bothers, unless its to maintain some sort of veneer of "accountability".

Simonsen's main aim is, and always has been, to use the old japanese approach, vaccinate everyone who might transmit, to vaccinate the older people with stronger vaccines, and more doses and to aggressively treat with antivirals.

Much of that was laid out in a document, not for public circulation, but which I have a copy of.

It's called "Prevention and Control of Influenza in the United States: preparing for the next pandemic." January 1996, (WP3.0\flu plan\Draft #6) held at the Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Maryland, on February 29, 1996.

While the document was not for public circulation salient points were published in JAMA, January 17, 1996, vol 275, No. 3 Page 179-180

On page four it states quite clearly that the principal objective is to vaccinate the entire USA population. Amongst a huge raft of other things.

discussion of the Simonsen study is a dead duck issue, since it's not going to make a jot of difference to The Plan (which is what the 1996 document was called), which will go ahead, period.

Why argue the dust, when the mantlepiece will never shift?

Fact is the vaccine will stay, everyone who wants it can have it and more, and discussion about it is a waste of breath.

 

[Procida]

Those are all speculative reasons. This is why I propose a moratorium to determine if the flu shot does or does not contribute to flu death.

Never going to happen, because it doesn't matter. The rationale is that old people will die anyway, and most old people who die after receiving a flu shot have die of whatever is written on the death certification, but it won't be the vaccine that killed them.

What matters is the bigger picture. It's important that everyone is vaccinated, regardless of whether it works, so that capacity to manufacture is there for when the pandemic comes.

Flu vaccine manufacturers couldn't care less if the vaccine works or not, any more than the cold medicine manufacturers care whether that they don't work, and are dangerous in under twos....

How do you think they got away with the decades of sales for cold medicines for kiddies? Of course the manufacturers will fight FDA to continue sales. You bet that decision will be watered down. Cold medicines are one of their best income earners.

And so will flu vaccine be, when everyone takes the vaccine every year.

Think about it. What more could you want from a company, then guaranteed income poking 260+ million americans every year?

That's where to stick your investment dollar. In flu vaccine manufacturing companies, and those making AIDS vaccines. You can't go wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They can't back it up, because of the logistics. The situation which applied in 2003 applies today:

Here's the html link from Google search since the other is a Word Doc.

Welcome to the forum.

There is a certain amount of evidence gained from 30+ years of manufacturing and using influenza vaccine. If the process has worked for that long, why should it not work the next time? And this year's vaccine has two of last years strains and one new strain from 2006. That is pretty common, so there is often data on one or more of the vaccine strains in the trivalent vaccines.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Never going to happen, because it doesn't matter. The rationale is that old people will die anyway, and most old people who die after receiving a flu shot have die of whatever is written on the death certification, but it won't be the vaccine that killed them.

What matters is the bigger picture. It's important that everyone is vaccinated, regardless of whether it works, so that capacity to manufacture is there for when the pandemic comes.

Flu vaccine manufacturers couldn't care less if the vaccine works or not, any more than the cold medicine manufacturers care whether that they don't work, and are dangerous in under twos....

How do you think they got away with the decades of sales for cold medicines for kiddies? Of course the manufacturers will fight FDA to continue sales. You bet that decision will be watered down. Cold medicines are one of their best income earners.

And so will flu vaccine be, when everyone takes the vaccine every year.

Think about it. What more could you want from a company, then guaranteed income poking 260+ million americans every year?

That's where to stick your investment dollar. In flu vaccine manufacturing companies, and those making AIDS vaccines. You can't go wrong.

You seem to have a number of unsubstantiated claims in this post. You are over generalizing.

I agree a lot of manufacturers happily and knowingly profit from bogus products. HeadOn, Airborne, Listerine just to name a few are knowingly marketed fakes. Some drug producers do care about quality since that is a marketing issue.

But you and a million other people convinced of the Big-Pharma-all-for-profit conspiracy forget the fact there is a prescriber involved in prescription drugs. And we are not stupid, we aren't duped, and only a few of us are in on the profit sharing.

Your flu vaccine conspiracy is totally unsupported imagination on your part. it would be great if we had the capacity to make flu vaccine for everyone when the next big one hits. Right now we are at about 5%. It ain't gonna be pretty when it happens.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Public health agencies are promoting flu vaccinations and when there wasn't enough vaccine the last couple years, public health also instituted some policies to encourage reluctant manufacturers to produce more vaccine. This year more producers are in the market.

You need to stop putting everything into a single category: drug company profit. Everything medical does not revolve around that concept. Believe it or not, a whole bunch of people in medicine are professionals who gain satisfaction from doing a good job. Some of them are public health officials and practitioners. Public health practitioners recognize the benefit of getting more flu vaccine doses to the public. They recognize the benefit and the barriers. Public health has a mission which includes promoting things like flu vaccination because it benefits public health. I don't know a single provider who has stock in a drug company or makes decisions about their job based on promoting the pharmaceutical industry's profit margin.

Drug companies are not charged with the mission of promoting public health. Of course they don't want to produce vaccine there is no market for. Because flu vaccine is only good for the specific season, production has to be matched to the market. But sometimes the demand changes during the flu season. A couple years ago an increase in pediatric deaths from flu occurred sparking a demand for flu vaccine. But supplies were already used up.

Year before last half the supply was contaminated and had to be tossed. There were only 2 flu vaccine manufacturers producing vaccine for the US market. That was bad.

In order to address these problems, the public health has to guarantee a market for vaccine. We can't expect the manufacturers to over produce but if we need a back up supply then overproduction is called for. So public health has been trying to address these problems.

You seem to think any marketing of something which evidence shows benefits the public health is just a marketing scheme for someone's profit. That is naive.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my posts. Looking at the efficacy of flu vaccine it certainly seems worthwhile (IMO) making sure there is sufficient manufacturing capacity when flu turns much more deadly again for young healthy people. What I object to is using fear to motivate people. It seems a bit strange for someone like yourself who would like people to be more rational, being ok with a marketing campaign that uses irrational fear to motivate them.

Perhaps my naivety is that I believe people could be motivated to get a seasonal flu vaccination without spinning the message. But if I am being naive, shouldn't the JREF and other promoters of critical thought just give up now?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But you and a million other people convinced of the Big-Pharma-all-for-profit conspiracy forget the fact there is a prescriber involved in prescription drugs. And we are not stupid, we aren't duped, and only a few of us are in on the profit sharing.

Were not prescribers duped as to effects of the drug thalidomide?

 

[Procida]

Welcome to the forum.

why thankyou.

There is a certain amount of evidence gained from 30+ years of manufacturing and using influenza vaccine. If the process has worked for that long, why should it not work the next time?

did you not read Lone Simonsen's first article? Which stated that for the last 30 years, the vaccine basically hasn't worked in the elderly?

And this year's vaccine[/url] has two of last years strains and one new strain from 2006. That is pretty common, so there is often data on one or more of the vaccine strains in the trivalent vaccines.

Exactly what are you trying to tell me?

How to suck eggs?

As it happens I know more about the process than you ever will.

It's highly likely that the coming vaccine for the coming flu season will not match at all, because the viruses are mutating faster than was thought.

 

[Procida]

You seem to have a number of unsubstantiated claims in this post. You are over generalizing.

And you don't?

I agree a lot of manufacturers happily and knowingly profit from bogus products. HeadOn, Airborne, Listerine just to name a few are knowingly marketed fakes. Some drug producers do care about quality since that is a marketing issue.

And your point, with regard to the flu vaccine... is... what?

But you and a million other people convinced of the Big-Pharma-all-for-profit conspiracy forget the fact there is a prescriber involved in prescription drugs. And we are not stupid, we aren't duped, and only a few of us are in on the profit sharing. /i]

You are the one saying "you are not stupid" etc.

To me, the word conspiracy is ridiculous. I'm happy to make my money where the takers are. So long as people are prepared to buy cold medicines that don't work, and flu vaccines they don't need, but do want, then I'm happy.

If you think something will do you good, then go for it, because at least you will have a 30% placebo effect as a head start. And if it doesn't do you any good, and actually harms you, that's not going to harm me, because CDC and FDA and VAERS do such a good job of making sure that anything alleged to be from a vaccine is attributed to something else.

As far as I am concerned, where my money is, is nothing to do with a conspiracy. it's a win/win situation.

Everyone thinks they are intelligent, and smart, and if they want to give their babies cold medicines and vaccines because it reinforces their belief that they are intelligent and smart, then they are welcome to it.

But when you put your money into financial investment, ethics has no place in judgement. Besides, what is not ethical for one person is highly ethical for another. I know heaps of people who despise Walmart, but have their money there, because that's where the masses spend their dollars.

it's not a conspiracy. It's called "Welcome to the real world."

Your flu vaccine conspiracy is totally unsupported imagination on your part. it would be great if we had the capacity to make flu vaccine for everyone when the next big one hits. Right now we are at about 5%. It ain't gonna be pretty when it happens.

there is no conspiracy. The flu vaccine is crap, and has been since 1954. Up until 1976, the person in charge of it, continually told the DBS it was crap, and that all came out in a usa senate hearing.

It's there in print if you chose to chase it down.

Long Simonsen basically took the data from the time that doctor resigned to now, and said that the vaccine is still crap.

BUT.... rather than feed the anti-vaccine sails, she has taken a prudent course. She's telling the FDA and CDC that they have done the "right" thing with the wrong data.

And that to justify what they've done all along, and make people think its really a matter of medical semantics, they need to give the vaccine to everyone else (which helps me immensely), and make new, more potent vaccines for the elderly to compensate for immunological senescence. Those vaccines will be more expensive, and even better value.

All she's doing is re-wallpapering the old building, creating a crown for herself, and given the CDC and FDA gratefully received wiggle room. As well as giving encouragement to the anti-viral development, so make sure you have shares in them as well.

Whatever, when it comes to any drugs or vaccines.

So long as the shares stay high, that's all that matters, because those investing them them will make their money off those who chose to have the vaccine... whether it works or not... or chose to give their kiddos cold medicines, whether they work or not.

What you don't get, skeptigirl, is that I'm not a conspiracist. I don't care.

I'm quite happy for people to shoot themselves up with whatever they want, so long as they do what they do, with their eyes wide open, not under the illusion that its the be-all and end all if they don't.

It's the best marketting strategy out to make people run around like headless chooks believing that the world will end with the next pandemic if there is not enough vaccine.

and its great for investors too. That's why its done. It's called marketting massage. It's nothing to do with a conspiracy. Every time you watch your telelvision, and watch an advertisement, you are using your free will to tacitly opt in to marketting massage, to the benefit of investors.

Again, its the real world, and the same applies with vaccines.

 

[Procida]

Were not prescribers duped as to effects of the drug thalidomide?

No they were not duped.

Most prescribers were aware that there were serious doubts. they chose to say nothing about it, just as the CDC and FDA knew from 1976, that the flu vaccine was rubbish.

This is what amazes me about Lone Simonsen's article. She says on page 661:

We find it peculiar that the claims that influenza vaccination can prevent half - or more - of all winter deaths in elderly people have not been more vigorously debated. That influenza vaccination can prevent ten times as many deaths as the disease itself causes, is not plausible

Either she is stupid, or she is naive. FDA and CDC know full well that the data is rubbish. But why debate it for goodness sake!!! The vaccine will be used regardless. And Lone Simonsen, is just one more cog in the wheel to all the CDC and FDA to vaccinate everyone, because she says:

Influenza vaccines have convincingly been shown to be effective in preventing influenza infection in healthy adults

Now, you can believe that, or not, as you chose. After all, we've been told that the influenza vaccine has convincingly been shown to be effective in elderly since the late 1950's and its only now, that Lone Simonsen has started to talk about what we've all known for decades; that the flu vaccine is a dog. (which is an insult to a dog).

But with her approval, and with her comments a few years ago endorsing the vaccination of babies, and children, she's worth them cultivating, by saying nothing. Okay, she makes them look a bit daft, but essentially she's saying "never mind, you did the right thing with the right motives, but lets do more..." so they will buy that quite happily.

The illusion is created that if we are "honest" about one thing (that the vaccine in the elderly is a dog) then people will assume that we are honest about it being useful in babies, children, and healthy young adults. It's called "playing the field while at the same time neutralising the opposition".

Anyone with a marketting degree can tell you that. Ask Novaks. he's the expert. That's why they employ him.

Back to Thalidomide.

In USA Thalidomide didn't get approved because the lady in charge knew all about the issues and refused to register it. All the thalidomide children in the USA were the result of parents who chose to go offshore and buy something, and use it outside of registration. That was their choice, and by chucking that die, they paid the price. It wasn't her fault their kids were damaged. She did the right thing.

I've only one piece of advice with regard to the flu vaccine, and that's to buy shares in it.

 

[Procida]

deleted

 

[Procida]

deleted. sheesh....

 

[Procida]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my posts. Looking at the efficacy of flu vaccine it certainly seems worthwhile (IMO) making sure there is sufficient manufacturing capacity when flu turns much more deadly again for young healthy people.

Why do you object to that? Just about every advertising campaign is based on a human emotion.

When the house or life-insurance salesperson comes to your house and does the spiel which is crafted to create fear and unsettle you, so that he can convince you to buy his product, and you will feel good because now you don't have to worry about being afraid, how is that any different?

If you study the way vaccine campaigns have been run since 1950, every single one has been based on creating fear, creating a market, people complying, so they no longer feel fear.

Fear, is the very foundation of all advertising. "Fear" that you won't be accepted by your peers because you have B.O.,; have the wrong shoes, and the wrong car; that you won't be "loved" because you don't dress right; don't eat enough junk food; or drink the right alcohol.... The whole of society is based on keeping up with the rest so that you fit into the tribe.

Eveyrthing most people do, and say -- the way they present themselves to society at large is underpinned by the word "fear".

I honestly can't see why that bothers you. it's reality. If you buy into it, then that's silly, but most people do. That's why marketters use the strategy.

And if you don't believe me, just go and turn on your TV and look at the real motive behind every advertisement. While the first word that comes to your mind might be acceptance, the underlying emotion tapped is "fear of not being accepted".

Vaccine strategies are simple. Fear of pain, fear of illness, fear of death. Fear of pain, illness and death is the most basic human emotion, and the simplest string to pull of them all. The others only rank slightly higher in the pyramid.

But using fear as a marketting campaign is the most rational financial move, because it works.

So what does that say? Does it say that people are stupid? Probably. That's why the majority of society was once (and plainly still are, but in a different context) flat earthers.

What I object to is using fear to motivate people. It seems a bit strange for someone like yourself who would like people to be more rational, being ok with a marketing campaign that uses irrational fear to motivate them.

Perhaps my naivety is that I believe people could be motivated to get a seasonal flu vaccination without spinning the message. But if I am being naive, shouldn't the JREF and other promoters of critical thought just give up now?

If you used rational thought, then you'd have to deal with the fact that flu pandemics have always been around, and that there are many people alive today, who have never had a flu vaccine and who have never had the flu at all. And there were many people who nursed family and or patients, and went through the 1918 flu pandemic and never got sick.

Or if you want to take tetanus as another example, you would have to deal with the fact that before there was even a vaccine on the market, even in a society which had no clean water, no sewage, people who didn't like baths, and who lived in, on and around horses all the time, tetanus rates were about 7 per million per year.

The problem with logic, is that someone will have to ask why it is that the other 999,993 per million never got tetanus.

When someone asks that question, people start to realise that nasty though tetanus was in the worst of circumstances, and still is today, if you do get it, that surprisingly the majority of us never got it. (another deviation of rational logic is that no-one talks about all the studies which show natural immunity to tetanus, or for that matter, natural immunity to rabies amongst trappers.) That might "confuse" the issue. The issue is getting people to take the shot.

You do what it takes, to make people say yes.

Even with tetanus, the quickest and easiest way they will get you to have a booster, even if you don't need one, is to persuade you that if you don't, you will get the most awful tetanic spasms, pain, and die. And you wouldn't want that would you? So you say yes.

Since when does rational thought, or rational decision making come into vaccines, or anything else when it comes to a marketting campaign?

Anyone who was rational, might decide that the chances of them getting tetanus was so remote they could skip the vaccine.

Or someone else apply rationale, might say that even though the chances are super remote ,they would have it anyway.

Both decisions are logical, and done by free-choice without the use of coercion.

The problem is that most people don't know that their chances of getting tetanust without a shot are super remote. And most people also don't know that you won't be getting tetanus alone in that booster shot. You'll also be getting diphtheria, whooping cough and haemophilus.

Never mind that your rational chances of getting diphtheria and haemophilus are minisculely less than your chances of being killed by lightening.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Just one question. If the flu vaccine is so obviously ineffective for the elderly, why do the NHS spend money on providing it (free) to over 65s (and a few other risk groups) in the UK? Its not like we just jump on the bandwagon and provide everything that is recommended in the US. We don't include the chickenpox vaccine for example (although they are re-examining that at the moment.

Same with things like tetanus. Nobody needs to use fear to get us to have a tetanus shot. The doctor tells us that given what has happened we should have one just as a precaution (if it is a while since we had one) and pretty much everyone goes along with that. No mention of spasms and doctors implying that it is likely that we will get teanus. That's the thing about precautions, you don't just have to take into account how likely something is, you also have to take into account what the consequences of the (remote) possibility. For example, I could go out in my car one day without wearing a seatbelt, because the chances that I will actually be involved in an accident on that day are pretty low. But the consequences of not wearing a seatbelt if that low possibility did happen are very serious, so I wear my seatbelt. It is the same with vaccines, but instead of the risk increasing over days (number of days I drive my car) it is increased over the population.

 

[kellyb]

If the flu vaccine is so obviously ineffective for the elderly, why do the NHS spend money on providing it (free) to over 65s (and a few other risk groups) in the UK?

1) it might work a little bit, sometimes
2) the ineffectiveness was just figured out a couple of years ago
3) as with many things, the research is conflicting

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Were not prescribers duped as to effects of the drug thalidomide?

No, not at all. There is a known risk in prescribing any drug that side effects not apparent in drug trials might show up when the drug is released and more widespread use occurs. The overall benefits of bringing new drugs to market by far outweigh the risks that some of those drugs are going to harm people.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, not at all. There is a known risk in prescribing any drug that side effects not apparent in drug trials might show up when the drug is released and more widespread use occurs. The overall benefits of bringing new drugs to market by far outweigh the risks that some of those drugs are going to harm people.

Really, so the benefit always outweighs the harm?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

why thankyou.

did you not read Lone Simonsen's first article? Which stated that for the last 30 years, the vaccine basically hasn't worked in the elderly?


Exactly what are you trying to tell me?

How to suck eggs?

As it happens I know more about the process than you ever will.

It's highly likely that the coming vaccine for the coming flu season will not match at all, because the viruses are mutating faster than was thought.

At this point, neither of us knows what the other knows so insulting my intelligence and knowledge base will not earn you any more credibility in this forum.

I have read the studies which found little decrease in the death rate among seniors after the widespread introduction of influenza vaccine. I have also read substantial research which contradicts that finding. Linda has posted links to a wide variety of studies. Why do you only rely on a single one?

The reference in my post to past strains was in reply to the claims influenza vaccine is released untested each year.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really, so the benefit always outweighs the harm?

Are you referring to a single drug, or to the process of developing and introducing new drugs into the market place?

For a single drug, the evidence is often incomplete until it reaches widespread use. Since one cannot foretell those side effects prescribers are conservative using newly developed drugs. We tend to use them when existing drugs are ineffective.

The alternative would be to never introduce new drugs. So, yes the benefit of developing and introducing new drugs as a whole by far outweighs the risks. We have lengthened the life expectancy and improved the quality of life for countless more people than those who have been harmed.

What would you suggest? Never introducing new drugs? Studying them in hundreds of thousands of volunteers before releasing them to the market? Delaying introduction of drugs with the potential to cure fatal diseases because the research is incomplete?

As for Thalidomide^WP

Thalidomide was chiefly sold and prescribed during the late 1950s and early 1960s to pregnant women, as an antiemetic to combat morning sickness and as an aid to help them sleep. Before its release inadequate tests were performed to assess the drug's safety, with catastrophic results for the children of women who had taken thalidomide during their pregnancies.

You are referring to something which occurred almost 50 years ago. Are you aware that the field of evidence based medicine really only began in earnest ~100 years ago? So you are using an example from the time when evidence based medicine was a mere 50-60 years old. Prescribers were not "duped" at that time. They had substantially less evidence to go on. Are you suggesting we should halt the progress we've made in a mere 100 years because for all the benefit there has been some harm?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Are you referring to a single drug, or to the process of developing and introducing new drugs into the market place?

I am referring to what you wrote.

The overall benefits of bringing new drugs to market by far outweigh the risks that some of those drugs are going to harm people.

I highlighted it when I quoted you. I left the rest of the quote to allow for context of your thoughts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am referring to what you wrote....

I wrote about both. Which of the two things I wrote about were you referring to?

Ducking my answer I see. No comments I take it, on what would you suggest be done to correct this injustice you perceive?