Flu ***

[John Brown]

My mother spent a couple of years in one as a kid.

She was lucky that Phil's grandmother didn't milk her.

 

[Jake]

Too young obvs

 

[Lons]

The vaccine reduces my risk of catching flu by 30% or more. That's a hugely greater reduction in risk than from side effects. Maybe 100 times greater, maybe 1,000 times, maybe more.
I can see why vaccines are scary - there is a known, tiny, risk because you know you've been vaccinated. If you don't understand risk, catching flu might seem less risky as you might not get it. You have to run the numbers to realise that it's by far the opposite, but in my experience most people can't really take in numbers

Yep.
The same people are happy enough to take a risk using a table saw, spindle moulder or other tools, driving or crossing the road or even smoking or drinking. I wonder how many of those opposing vaccines never pour alcohol down their throat. Most things we do every day have a risk element you just need to be aware of and manage the risk, the benefits of vaccines are there to be seen and those who refuse them without valid medical reason and then catch those illnesses should be placed right at the end of any consideration for treatment and left to fend for themselves.

 

[artie]

From Attorney Leah Durant | Vaccine Lawyer

3. Flu Shot Injury Claims are Most Common, But More DTP Claims Involve Fatal Injuries

Of the 19,021 claims filed, over 4,000 involve flu shot-related injuries (including 197 fatal injuries). However, while flu shot injury claims are most common, the most claims involving fatal injuries result from vaccinations for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP). Since October 1988, 696 families have sought compensation for fatal injuries and illnesses linked to DTP vaccinations.

4. Vaccine Injury Claims are on the Rise

The number of vaccine injury claims filed under the VICP has risen each year since 2011, and 2017 saw a 13-year high in the number of claims filed. In total, 1,243 individuals and families filed claims for compensation in fiscal year 2017. So far, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has already received 339 claims for the 2018 fiscal year.

 

[Lons]

t's the USA where they'll file for damages if they prick their finger on a thorn.

Flu vaccine is produced by private manufacturers, so supply depends on manufacturers. Vaccine manufacturers have projected that they will supply as many as 194 to 198 million doses of influenza vaccine for the 2020-2021 season.

 

[sploo]

From Attorney Leah Durant | Vaccine Lawyer

3. Flu Shot Injury Claims are Most Common, But More DTP Claims Involve Fatal Injuries

Of the 19,021 claims filed, over 4,000 involve flu shot-related injuries (including 197 fatal injuries). However, while flu shot injury claims are most common, the most claims involving fatal injuries result from vaccinations for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP). Since October 1988, 696 families have sought compensation for fatal injuries and illnesses linked to DTP vaccinations.

4. Vaccine Injury Claims are on the Rise

The number of vaccine injury claims filed under the VICP has risen each year since 2011, and 2017 saw a 13-year high in the number of claims filed. In total, 1,243 individuals and families filed claims for compensation in fiscal year 2017. So far, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has already received 339 claims for the 2018 fiscal year.

So.. first thought: pharma companies are to be viewed with suspicion because they profit from the fear of viruses; in order to sell vaccines. However, a vaccine lawyer's site is OK because they're definitely not profiting from the fear of vaccines?

Anyway - let's say that the claim of 197 fatal injuries (directly related to flu shots) is true - I suspect that number may be dubious, but let's just run with it. Figures from Public Health England estimate that an average of 17,000 people died each year from the flu (between 2014 and 2018).

Yearly effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies (and varies by the virus type); however, something around 50% appears to be a reasonable average.

Based on that data, even if there were 197 deaths per year in the US (I'm assuming the 197 figure above is probably a total over several years), it would still be much safer to get a flu shot (with the low risk of an adverse reaction) than the risk of death by flu.

What other figures I could find for deaths caused by flu shots (usually a result of allergic reactions) were tiny; in the order of <2 per million. If only 2 people per million in the UK died (from catching the flu) then flu death numbers would be <150 per year (the actual figure is over 100x larger).

Point being; life is 100% fatal; something will kill you - but the evidence would suggest it's unlikely to be a vaccine. The virus the vaccine protects you against however...

 

[artie]

So.. first thought: pharma companies are to be viewed with suspicion because they profit from the fear of viruses; in order to sell vaccines. However, a vaccine lawyer's site is OK because they're definitely not profiting from the fear of vaccines?

Anyway - let's say that the claim of 197 fatal injuries (directly related to flu shots) is true - I suspect that number may be dubious, but let's just run with it. Figures from Public Health England estimate that an average of 17,000 people died each year from the flu (between 2014 and 2018).

Yearly effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies (and varies by the virus type); however, something around 50% appears to be a reasonable average.

Based on that data, even if there were 197 deaths per year in the US (I'm assuming the 197 figure above is probably a total over several years), it would still be much safer to get a flu shot (with the low risk of an adverse reaction) than the risk of death by flu.

What other figures I could find for deaths caused by flu shots (usually a result of allergic reactions) were tiny; in the order of <2 per million. If only 2 people per million in the UK died (from catching the flu) then flu death numbers would be <150 per year (the actual figure is over 100x larger).

Point being; life is 100% fatal; something will kill you - but the evidence would suggest it's unlikely to be a vaccine. The virus the vaccine protects you against however...

Now that's what I call a reply, not one snide comment or personal attack.

 

[RobinBHM]

Now, people dying of TB, as they used to, would be a lot more visible

Measles for example.

the anti vaxxers have lowered the % of children immunised against measles sufficiently for measles to come back

what is rather frustrating is the the anti vaxxers are actually relying on those who have the vaccine to create herd immunity to protect them from getting it.

A rather selfish attitude is you ask me.

 

[John Brown]

It seems the anti-vaxxers in chief woupd rather children got sick and/or died, rather than admit they might have been wrong. That's what I find scary.

 

[RogerS]

It seems the anti-vaxxers in chief woupd rather children got sick and/or died, rather than admit they might have been wrong. That's what I find scary.

Scary ? I'd say downright immoral.

 

[profchris]

The deed is done, my arm was perforated an hour ago. So far so good.

But I promise to report back if it kills me.

 

[John Brown]

The deed is done, my arm was perforated an hour ago. So far so good.

But I promise to report back if it kills me.

Yes, I'm still alive, having been jabbed last week. My knees hurt and my back aches a bit more than in the past, when I wasn't eligible for free jabs, but I think that may be correlation without causation.

 

[sploo]

Now that's what I call a reply, not one snide comment or personal attack.

I would admit to being a bit sarcastic about the motives of a vaccine lawyer, but on this subject (pros and cons of vaccines) there isn't really any need to insult or base things on opinion; there's so much data available that shows the risks from vaccines are minuscule, and much, much, lower than the risks posed by the viruses they aim to prevent.

In life we make choices; crossing a road poses a risk of death, but the risk is low and the benefits (of getting to where we need to be) outweigh the danger.

I don't really have a problem with adults who choose to be unvaccinated; the contentious issue is that they then pose a transmission risk for those who would like to be vaccinated but can't due to some underlying health condition or allergy. In essence you then have one person exercising their right to choose, but are implicitly imposing their choice of risk on those who do not have that choice.

 

[artie]

I would admit to being a bit sarcastic about the motives of a vaccine lawyer,

Your Lawyer analogy didn't quite stand up. Because he is not causing fear in the first place, just lining his pockets after the damage is done.
But I was so chuffed with a civil and thought out approach, I went on to work with a somewhat renewed faith in human nature

 

[RobinBHM]

I think Andrew Wakefield was responsible for a lot of the anti vaxxer movement.

I remember parents were very fearful at the time of the MMR vaccine for their children.

I do believe there are some risks and maybe issues with the MMR being a combined vaccine

There is a concern surrounding the swine flu vaccine (that I think is included some years in UK flu season vaccine) as it may cause Guillain-Barré syndrome, which in rare cases can be permanent.

Although the numbers were small: 45 million people vaccinated against the 1976 swine flu, four hundred and fifty people developed the rare syndrome Guillain-Barré

 

[SammyQ]

Wakefield? What a debacle that was:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
Astonishing that the Lancet accepted, and published, a paper where n=12!!

By 1998 I, and thousands of other A level teachers, had, for over two decades, been drumming into future doctors, surgeons, dentists, scientists, the perils of deducing ANYTHING from miniscule sample sizes, as we taught basic statistics ( χ2, t test, Student's t, confidence limits, etc). Then the Lancet, of all journals, goes and gives page space - and thereby credence - to what was later " to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history". WHERE WERE THEIR REVIEWERS??? WHAT WERE THEY ON?? Feet of clay, no doubt, and a serious pall cast over the ability to employ - and enforce - simple rules of scientific rigour by the so-called medical specialists.

Sam

 

[AJB Temple]

I agree with that Robin. When our eldest was born I think the Wakefield thing was in full flow and my Dutch partner was very reluctant to have our son vaccinated, her primary concern was that it would cause meningitis and autism. It took me a long time to persuade her that the vaccine risk was far less than the disease risk, but I paid at the time for vaccines to be administered separately, which was quite tricky to organise. This put her mind at rest to a degree.

 

[sploo]

Your Lawyer analogy didn't quite stand up. Because he is not causing fear in the first place, just lining his pockets after the damage is done.
But I was so chuffed with a civil and thought out approach, I went on to work with a somewhat renewed faith in human nature

Isn't that lawyer something of the definition of an ambulance chaser?

I don't really see how someone who makes a treatment for a condition causes fear any more than someone who seeks out people who claim to have been damaged by that treatment.

To flip the argument on its head: the lawyer is a hero for getting justice for those harmed by medicines, but by that logic, the medical company is also a hero for saving many people who would have died without the treatment.

 

[AJB Temple]

Wakefield is active again and his views have got traction in America: How disgraced anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield was embraced by Trump's America

 

[sploo]

Wakefield? What a debacle that was:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
Astonishing that the Lancet accepted, and published, a paper where n=12!!

By 1998 I, and thousands of other A level teachers, had, for over two decades, been drumming into future doctors, surgeons, dentists, scientists, the perils of deducing ANYTHING from miniscule sample sizes, as we taught basic statistics ( χ2, t test, Student's t, confidence limits, etc). Then the Lancet, of all journals, goes and gives page space - and thereby credence - to what was later " to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history". WHERE WERE THEIR REVIEWERS??? WHAT WERE THEY ON?? Feet of clay, no doubt, and a serious pall cast over the ability to employ - and enforce - simple rules of scientific rigour by the so-called medical specialists.

Sam

Indeed. Ignoring the subject, the controversy, and the impact; the fact is that the original paper was an absolutely terrible piece of research; that didn't meet even basic standards to have been taken seriously. The problem is that the Lancet smelled a big story and rushed to be the one that carried it first. Had they done even a basic review of the paper it would have set off major alarm bells; so they certainly deserve some of the blame for the mess it caused.

For those unfamiliar with the details: there was no control group, only a tiny number of patients (all of whom had pre-existing medical conditions), he broke medical ethics by both having an undeclared financial interest in damaging the MMR vaccine's reputation, and finally, he performed non-medically-indicated procedures on children (i.e. potentially dangerous procedures in order to gain samples, that were not required for the patient's treatment).

If he'd been researching, say, bowel disease in geriatric patients, it would have received little public attention. The fact it was related to vaccines means that a man who's a crook (and a dangerous doctor) is seen by some as a champion against big pharma; that's the real tragedy.