Greetings all,
This week I would like to add a contrarian viewpoint to the topic of how wonderful flu shots are and everyone including pregnant mothers, children, healthy adults, and even very sick folks who are being admitted to the hospital, all should straight away, every year get their flu shots. I say poppycock. I base my opinion on the below medical literature. BTW, it is widely accepted in the world of vaccinations that 90% of negative reactions are NOT reported and so they are then NOT included in the official statistics of vaccine side effects. I put together the below information for an elderly friend of mine who has respiratory issues and last year after receiving the Pneumococcal and flu vaccine he ended up with a temporary case of paralysis (transient Guillain Barré Syndrome, if such a thing even exists). Wow! OK, so this year his pulmonary doctor recommends he bypass the more likely suspect in last years dual vaccines, ie the Pneumococcal vaccine and to just get the flu vaccine. Well about one week later he has a serious case of bronchitis and lung involvement, coughing up pretty bad stuff and not doing very well. Thankfully he is slowly recovering and though on the verge, did not end up in the hospital. So I did a bit of research to support my position and here it is. There is lot’s more out there, vaccines are a most interesting topic but flu vaccines are in a separate category in my mind regarding their efficacy. So this is my opinion. Not medical advice, but worthy of consideration. Now do you own research and come up with your own INFORMED opinion.
DrB
Start here: From the British Medical Journal , 2014
www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6182Views & Reviews No Holds Barred
Margaret McCartney: What use is mass flu vaccination?
BMJ 2014; 349 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6182 (Published 20 October 2014)Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g6182
- Margaret McCartney, general practitioner, Glasgow
- margaret@margaretmccartney.com
It’s flu vaccination season again. People over 65 and those aged six months to 65 years who have a clinical risk factor (such as heart disease, asthma with regular inhaled steroid use, or chronic kidney disease) are eligible for the vaccine, along with people who live in residential care homes, pregnant women, and carers. Health and social care workers in direct contact with patients are also being encouraged to have the vaccine. But does it work?1 2 3 4
For each healthy adult, a Cochrane review found that vaccination saved an average of just 0.04 days off work and concluded that no evidence supported it as a routine public health measure.5 And among over 65s, Cochrane reviews found only poor quality data and were unable to draw conclusions of any benefit, thus recommending more trials.6 As for children, Cochrane again found the available studies to be of poor quality: the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case ranged from seven (live vaccine) to 28 (inactivated vaccine),7 and effectiveness varied greatly depending on the season.8
The evidence is uncertain among people with asthma9; however, flu vaccination does seem to usefully reduce exacerbations in people who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.10 And a review of flu vaccination trials for healthcare workers who looked after older people in long term residential care found no meaningful difference in the number of cases of laboratory confirmed flu, admissions to hospital, or deaths from respiratory infections in residents.11
So, why are we vaccinating so many people in whom we have no proof that it works? We should surely be doing randomised controlled trials of the vaccine in healthy over 65s and healthcare workers, at least.
The NHS has a “Flu Fighter” campaign to encourage uptake and offer incentives for staff to bare their biceps. In return for vaccination, hospitals have offered their staff entry into cash prize draws, as well as chocolates, lollipops, cakes, biscuits, stickers that read “I’m a Flu Fighter,” and even an extra day’s annual leave, some freedom of information requests have shown. But will those days off work be offset by the average 0.04 days saved through vaccination?
Treating children is one thing; treating adults like children is quite another. The Department of Health wants trusts to achieve a 75% uptake in flu vaccination for staff,1 when it would be better off ensuring that resources are used where they can do some good. I would have the vaccination if a high quality trial showed that it was worth it for me or my patients. But flu vaccination is offered millions of times every year at huge opportunity cost; given so much uncertainty, this policy is impossible to justify.
Notes
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g6182
The below from:
Why have three long-running Cochrane Reviews on influenza vaccines been stabilised?
The underlying assumption that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of non-influenza is contradicted by a recent report from the follow up of a trial by Cowling et al.8 In 115 participants, those who received trivalent influenza vaccines had higher risk of acute respiratory infection associated with confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.31–14.8) compared to placebo recipients. The agents were mainly rhinoviruses and coxsackie/echoviruses; ILI episodes occurred shortly after a peak of influenza activity.
ILI stands for influenza‐like illness (ILI). Over 200 non flu viruses can cause it.
However there is no reliable system to monitor and quantify the epidemiology and impact of ILI, the syndrome that presents clinically. Few states produce reliable data on the number of physician contacts or hospitalised cases due to ILI, and none tie these data to the proportion of ILI caused by influenza. We do not know for certain what the impact of ILI is, nor the impact of the proportion of ILI caused by influenza. Prospective studies apportioning positivity to the scores of viruses probably causing ILI are rare, as interest is focused on influenza. The standard quoted figure of 36,000 yearly deaths in the US is based on the “respiratory and circulatory deaths” category including all types of pneumonia, including secondary to meconium ingestion or bacterial causes. More recently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have proposed estimates of impact ranging between 3,000 and 49,000 yearly deaths. When actual death certificates are tallied, influenza deaths on average are little more than 1,000 yearly. So, the actual threat is unknown (but likely to be small) and so is the estimation of the impact of vaccination.
Dr Bastomski comments:
The above is consistent with what Dr. Brownstein writes in his blog about how the CDC uniquely combines flu and pneumonia under one category, and while the vast majority of deaths in this category are directly attributable to pneumonia, the CDC claims the combined total as the result of the flu. Just ain’t so. Or what Brownstein calls fake news.
The below is from
Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly
Cochrane Systematic Review – Intervention Version published: 17 February 2010
Main results
We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non‐RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non‐RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.
Authors’ conclusions
The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly‐funded randomised, placebo‐controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.
Dr Bastomski comments:
Does not sound like any kind of resounding vote of confidence for millions of elderly across the globe to be injected with flu vaccine given their potential side effects. At best in healthy non elderly folks, 2 out of 100 will get the flu. If you vaccinate then 1 out of 100 will get the flu. So 99 people need to vaccinated for one to benefit. But what of the potential side effects to the 99 who are taking it for no benefit at all?
The efficacy rate taken from : https://theconversation.com/the-flu-vaccine-is-being-oversold-its-not-that-effective-97688
See:The below from:
The flu vaccine is being oversold – it’s not that effective
June 5, 2018 6.44am EDT
See: https://theconversation.com/the-flu-vaccine-is-being-oversold-its-not-that-effective-97688Elsewhere the flu vaccine’s efficacy rate is reported as 99% ineffective, necessitating 71 healthy adults to get vaccinated for one of them to benefit. See: www.drbrownstein.com/flu-vaccine-fails-99-in-new-cochrane-review/ his blog being published on February 4, 2018. I will copy his whole blog as a PS to this email below.
The authors found that flu vaccines probably reduced influenzas in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% with.
That means that the difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is 1.4% or 0.014. Therefore, 71 people would need to be treated with the flu vaccine to prevent one case (1/1.4%). In other words, the flu vaccine did nothing for 70 out of 71 who received it. That means this study found the flu vaccine failed 99% (71/72).
Side effects such as URI and Guillain Barré Syndrome do occur, and I quote from Cochrane study on the elderly and flu vaccine results:
Safety
We included data on local and systemic side effects. For local side effects we included tenderness, sore arm, swelling, erythema and induration. Similar local symptoms were pooled in the analysis due to small data sets. Systemic symptoms were general malaise, fever, headache, nausea and respiratory tract symptoms.
Four RCTs (Govaert 1993; Keitel 1996; Margolis 1990a; Treanor 1994; Analysis 17) reported data about local and systemic adverse events observed within a week from administration of parenteral inactivated vaccine (2606 observations). Treanor 1994 also reported data about live aerosol vaccine (Analysis 18). All side effects reported in trials were included in the analysis, even if they were not significant. Vaccines usually induced systemic side effects (general malaise, fever, nausea, headache) more frequently than placebo, but no outcome showed statistically significant results. Local adverse events, such as tenderness and sore arm, were significantly more frequent in the treatment arm than in the placebo arm. The only studies assessing rare adverse events were three surveillance studies assessing Guillan Barré Syndrome with neither cohort nor case‐control design (Kaplan 1982; Lasky 1998; Schonberger 1979) ( Table 1). Case finding was carried out by interviewing neurologists or by searching discharge diagnoses databases. Vaccination rates in the relevant populations were estimated from specific survey or from national immunisation survey. All studies were conducted in the USA and assessed the entire population irrespective of age. Lasky 1998 and Schonberger 1979 reported outcome stratified by age, allowing data extraction for elderly people. We reported the results of these studies in the ‘Guillain Barré Syndrome’ table ( Table 1). The strong and significant association between A/New Jersey/76 swine vaccine and Guillan Barré Syndrome, during the 1976 to 1977 influenza season was not confirmed in subsequent seasons when other vaccines not containing A/New Jersey/76 were used.Open in table viewerTable 1. Guillain Barré Syndrome
| Study | Influenza season | Vaccine | Population | Age | RR (95% CI) |
| Schonberger 1979 | 1976 to 1977 | A/New Jersey/76 or A/New Jersey/76 and A/Victoria/75 swine vaccine | All the USA pop. | > 64 years | 5.2 (3.9 to 7.0) |
| Kaplan 1982 | 1979 to 1980 | Inactivated trivalent | All the USA pop. | > 18 years | 0.6 (0.45 to 1.32) |
| Kaplan 1982 | 1980 to 1981 | Inactivated trivalent | All the USA pop. | > 18 years | 1.4 (0.80 to 1.76) |
| Lasky 1998 | 1992 to 1994 | Inactivated trivalent | 21 million | > 64 years | 1.5 (0.7 to 3.3) |
Discussion
Summary of main results
Our findings show that according to reliable evidence, the effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in elderly individuals is modest, irrespective of setting, outcome, population and study design. Our estimates are consistently below those usually quoted for economic modelling or decision making. In view of the known variability of incidence and effect of influenza, we constructed a large number of comparisons and strata to minimise possible heterogeneity between studies and aid comparability. We also performed sub‐analysis of studies describing better defined epidemic periods. Despite our attempts, we noted significant residual heterogeneity among studies that could be explained only in part by different study designs, methodological quality, settings, viral circulation, vaccine types and matching, age, population types and risk factors. We think the residual heterogeneity could be the result of the unpredictable nature of the spread of influenza and influenza‐like illness (ILI) and the bias caused by the non‐randomised nature of our evidence base. Our sensitivity analysis did not affect the final result.
From Dr. Brownsteins blog of Feb 04, 2018 below:
Flu Vaccine Fails 99% in New Cochrane Review
For over 20 years, I have been writing and lecturing about how the flu vaccine fails nearly all who get it. I have written about the failure of the flu vaccine in past blog posts and in my newsletter, Dr. Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health.
Cochrane is a global independent network of researchers in more than 130 countries who strive to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of illness. They do not take Big Pharma money. Therefore, their studies deserve attention when they are released.
On February 1, 2018, the Cochrane group released its latest findings on the flu vaccine. (1) The scientists studied randomized, controlled trials comparing the flu vaccine with placebo or no intervention. They included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines in healthy adults. The studies were conducted between 1969 and 2009.
The authors found that flu vaccines probably reduced influenzas in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% with.
That means that the difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is 1.4% or 0.014. Therefore, 71 people would need to be treated with the flu vaccine to prevent one case (1/1.4%). In other words, the flu vaccine did nothing for 70 out of 71 who received it. That means this study found the flu vaccine failed 99% (71/72).
There was more bad news for the flu vaccine in this study. The flu vaccine is touted as decreasing the risk of hospitalizations from the flu. I’m not sure how that happens since the vaccine has never been shown to be very effective against preventing the flu. In this study they found the risk of hospitalization in those that received the flu vaccine declined from 14.7% to 14.1%. That is a 0.6% decline. That means the flu vaccine fails over 99% (165/166) in preventing hospitalizations. Furthermore, the independent researchers found the flu vaccine “…may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work.” To make matter worse, the flu vaccine was shown to cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%. Oy vey.
Why would anyone get a flu vaccine when it fails 99% who receive it?
Why would any physician prescribe a therapy, which is associated with serious adverse effects, that fails 99% who receive it?
Why are health care workers forced to receive a flu vaccine when it is consistently shown to fail nearly 99% who get them? And, there is not a single well-done study showing that vaccinating health care workers with the flu vaccine protects against the spread of flu.
Folks, the flu vaccine is a disaster. I can understand why President Trump does not get the flu shot. I cannot understand why anyone would allow themselves to be injected with a failed flu vaccine.
(1) Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018. Feb. 1,2:CD001269
And some YouTubes on the matter. I particularly like Dr. Suzanne Humphries as she has done her homework on the sacred cow of vaccinations. MD, Nephrologist, Professor and totally disillusioned by the vaccine industry. Check out her YoutTube talks on Vitamin C and if you are really into it, on her background as to how a normal pro vaccine MD came to be disillusioned with vaccines.
See:https://youtu.be/c-N6X-VEXEY About 3 minutes
andhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhA2ll9ikfE About 6 1/2 minutes
OK, that is it for me on the topic. Buyer beware – And take your Vitamin C. Stay away from sugar, it suppresses your immune system.
Sincerely,
Dr. Bastomski
Dr. Jacob Bastomski, a board-certified chiropractic neurologist, has served the Santa Barbara area since 1981. As a Santa Barbara chiropractor, Dr. Bastomski seeks to improve health through functional neurology and clinical nutrition.
Please contact us anytime at (805) 569-5000 if you’re looking for a holistic approach to alleviate a chronic condition, especially if traditional medical approaches have failed. Dr. Bastomski’s Back to Health Wellness Center is located at 1900 State St. Suite H in Santa Barbara
