Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I haven't had a flu jab for years and strangely rarely go down with each new strain of flu that emerges ….. and if I do have a bout …. luckily it is less severe and short lived compared to my colleagues who get innoculated each year like clockwork.

A doctor told me antibiotics kill a wide range of the micro flora and fauna on and in the body that are beneficially in making us healthy …… living a 'dirty' lifestyle can often give you a stronger immune system in the long run and when a new superbug emerges your natural defences will possibly, 9/10, do a better job at fighting this super intruder than a body flushed of it's natural defenders and an 'ineffectual' anti-biotic/anti-viral swimming around in your bloodstream.

Some thinking says less is more ….. Catch 22 decision ….. especially for the young and elderly.
 
The statistics about the flu bear out. Unfortunately, my dad stumbled & cracked his head on the tile floor last night --had to call 911 & he couldn't be taken to any local hospitals/ER's because they were at capacity with flu patients. We had to go to a hospital farther out in another county. Accident happened at 6:30PM and he had to wait for a room 'til 2AM. Doh me, I asked if there were lots of accidents --even after reading this thread --but the hospital staff said they were full because of flu cases.
 
if the flue vaccination was oral and or more effective i might be interested. ten % effective is just not worth it.

oseltamivir ( tamiflu ) should be lower cost and over the counter
 
if the flue vaccination was oral and or more effective i might be interested. ten % effective is just not worth it.

oseltamivir ( tamiflu ) should be lower cost and over the counter
Yearly flu shots decrease mortality by over 50%.

Also, the medical community is unsure about tamiflu. On average, it only chops one day off the life of the flu and the side effect profile is awful.

From drug website:
What are the possible side effects of oseltamivir (Tamiflu)?
Stop using oseltamivir and get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat; a red and blistering or peeling skin rash.

Some people using oseltamivir have had rare side effects of sudden confusion, delirium, hallucinations, unusual behavior, or self-injury. These symptoms have occurred most often in children. It is not known whether oseltamivir was the exact cause of these symptoms. However, anyone using oseltamivir should be watched closely for signs of confusion or unusual behavior. Call a doctor at once if you or the child using oseltamivir has any of these symptoms.

Less serious side effects may include:

nausea, vomiting, diarrhea;
dizziness, headache;
nosebleed;
eye redness or discomfort;
sleep problems (insomnia); or
cough or other respiratory symptoms.
 
I'm just curious why the flu has become a 'thing' in recent years.

I grew up in the 1980s. You got the flu, you puked, had aches, hot and chills, and took cold medicine. But then you got over it at the most in a week and went on.

There were no mass epidemic of flu kill stories every year. Hell, TheraFlu as a OTC med product didn't show up on the shelves until the late 90s.

I'm no anti-vaccer (both my kids have their vaccinations, my parents made sure my sister and I were vaccinated) but I question this push to give me a shot every year.

On top of that, nine times out of ten the vaccine is for the wrong strain.

I think part of the problem is self-diagnosis. Many people get aches, chills, sniffles, etc. and to them that qualifies as "having the flu."

I remember years ago my boss used to get sick every couple of weeks for MONTHS, claiming he had "the flu." If this were true it would have to be a world record!
 
I think part of the problem is self-diagnosis. Many people get aches, chills, sniffles, etc. and to them that qualifies as "having the flu."

I remember years ago my boss used to get sick every couple of weeks for MONTHS, claiming he had "the flu." If this were true it would have to be a world record!
I can see that. My dad is a perfect example of a person who is totally unaware about signs of illness and what they mean so that's a legit answer I think.

Unfortunately for me, I've had allergies since birth so I am quite aware of what symptoms go with what illness because my allergies have often been the precursor for colds, flu, bronchitis and sinusitis. Particularly the last two play off of each other. If I end up with bronchitis I will get sinusitis at some point and vice-versa.

Last year though I got a new curve thrown at me. Thought I did have the flu, but it turned out to be a symptom of shingles. Lucky me! 6 months old when I had the Chicken Pox and no memory of it. But that virus stuck around to bite me in the ass last year.

In any case, it's amazing how out of touch people are with their bodies when it comes to stuff like this. Me, I'm Googling and Wikipediaing this stuff all the time.
 
Is he actually getting sick every 2 weeks? If so, whatever it is, he has a serious problem.

Yes, he was actually sick. This was probably close to 20 years ago when his kids were infants/toddlers. He would come in one week with a bad cold, another week coughing loudly, aches for the next week, etc. Something different every week. He kept saying "I've got the flu again" and blamed it (more-or-less) on his kids. I don't know, maybe his theory was that little kids pull-in all sorts of germs and pass them on to their parents!
 
Jesus Christ, people. Get the shot. While it is not able to prevent the flu, it has been tied to decreased mortality
The flu shot is a phara's dream come true. It's peddled by all the media and even web forums yet it's a waste of time, money, and can make you even sicker. Why would you have them inject THAT shot into your body? I mean, do you even know what's in the shot? If you did then you'd feel sick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyoungren
The flu shot is a phara's dream come true. It's peddled by all the media and even web forums yet it's a waste of time, money, and can make you even sicker. Why would you have them inject THAT shot into your body? I mean, do you even know what's in the shot? If you did then you'd feel sick.
Can't make you sicker. Our society would be better off if you wouldn't spread blatant lies. I'm sorry to be so militant, but you can't be this wrong. It's simply not okay. It's dangerous.

And the flu shot is NOT a pharma company's dream. It would be FAR more profitable for a pharma company to have everyone get the flu and then have to buy drugs.

Come on man. You don't get to make up poor suppositions and call them facts.
[doublepost=1518750592][/doublepost]
Yes, he was actually sick. This was probably close to 20 years ago when his kids were infants/toddlers. He would come in one week with a bad cold, another week coughing loudly, aches for the next week, etc. Something different every week. He kept saying "I've got the flu again" and blamed it (more-or-less) on his kids. I don't know, maybe his theory was that little kids pull-in all sorts of germs and pass them on to their parents!
There are a number of conditions where people are often continually sick, but it's definitely not flu, lol.
[doublepost=1518750877][/doublepost]
$116 for influenza meds? i see a problem right there.
This is essentially proof that the vaccine market is not a racket. It would be far more advantageous for big pharma if we all got the flu and had to pay them $116 a person for flu medication.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a number of conditions where people are often continually sick, but it's definitely not flu, lol.

The problem is that my boss would have responded "Yes" when asked if he has the flu, hence grossly overinflating the "Americans with the flu" number. He's definitely not alone in practicing self-diagnosis.
 
And the flu shot is NOT a pharma company's dream. It would be FAR more profitable for a pharma company to have everyone get the flu and then have to buy drugs.
IDK. Sounds like a dream to me.

They already make their money on palliatives by selling you OTC to treat the symptoms. Making more money on a vaccine or 'cure' that requires a new shot for a different virus every season sounds like big pharma to me.

Free advertising by the media that plays on the seriousness of the condition with numbers to back it up provided by one of the few government authoritys the public still trusts. Fear is a great motivator.

Guaranteed profit by working into the medical community and having some of those employers require the shot as a condition of continued employment.

Got us coming and going.
 
a flue shot that is 10% effective is just not worth it.

This years flu shot has 36% effectiveness according to the CDC recently. But keep in mind effectiveness is just rating its ability to prevent the infection. People who get flu shots also get a secondary protective effect of having less mortality if they are infected.

Yearly flu shots decrease mortality by over 50%.

Also, the medical community is unsure about tamiflu. On average, it only chops one day off the life of the flu and the side effect profile is awful.

From drug website:
What are the possible side effects of oseltamivir (Tamiflu)?
Stop using oseltamivir and get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat; a red and blistering or peeling skin rash.

Some people using oseltamivir have had rare side effects of sudden confusion, delirium, hallucinations, unusual behavior, or self-injury. These symptoms have occurred most often in children. It is not known whether oseltamivir was the exact cause of these symptoms. However, anyone using oseltamivir should be watched closely for signs of confusion or unusual behavior. Call a doctor at once if you or the child using oseltamivir has any of these symptoms.

Less serious side effects may include:

nausea, vomiting, diarrhea;
dizziness, headache;
nosebleed;
eye redness or discomfort;
sleep problems (insomnia); or
cough or other respiratory symptoms.

The general consensus is that it’s effects are modest and must be given with days of symptoms appearing due to the mechanism of action and otherwise overwhelming proliferation of the virus. Basically part of the problem when the drug was released the Lancet published a study that really made Tamiflu out to be a wonder drug but further studies put the effectiveness much lower - creating a bit of a contradiction. Tamiflu works best however in conjunction with the vaccination.

Tamiflu is actually pretty well tolerated. Nasuea/Vomiting are the most frequent side effect (about 10%). Headaches are more frequent in infection prophylaxis that treatment for whatever reason. Allergic reactions to Tamiflu are extremely rare, I never seen anyone have an allergic reaction to it or seen it listed in a patient’s profile. That said, every drug carried the risk of causing an allergic reaction, just some more than others.

I don’t think Tamiflu is a scam or a waste of money, but the population needs to consider its results are modest, it probably won’t significantly shorten your illness by anything significant amount, but it’s underapprecisted effect is that it reduced morality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinIllini
IDK. Sounds like a dream to me.

They already make their money on palliatives by selling you OTC to treat the symptoms. Making more money on a vaccine or 'cure' that requires a new shot for a different virus every season sounds like big pharma to me.

Free advertising by the media that plays on the seriousness of the condition with numbers to back it up provided by one of the few government authoritys the public still trusts. Fear is a great motivator.

Guaranteed profit by working into the medical community and having some of those employers require the shot as a condition of continued employment.

Got us coming and going.
This is a bottom of the barrel, false argument.

Vaccines are Profitable, So What?

By now, the numbers on the recent U.S. measles outbreak are well known. In 2014, America had more than 600 cases of measles—the highest number in 20 years. In the month of January 2015 alone, 84 people in 14 states reported having measles, with most cases linked to an incident at Disneyland. The reason for the resurgence? More and more people are opting to not vaccinate their kids.

While the main fixation of anti-vaccine groups is an old, discredited study linking vaccination to autism, another is a conspiracy theory circulated online that both doctors and pharmaceutical companies stand to profit financially from vaccination—which supposedly leads to perverse incentives in advocating for the public to vaccinate.

But that argument is historically unfounded. Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs."

In fact, vaccines were so unprofitable that some companies stopped making them altogether. In 1967, there were 26 vaccine manufactures. That number dropped to 17 by 1980. Ten years ago, the financial incentives to produce vaccines were so weak that there was growing concern that pharmaceutical companies were abandoning the vaccine business for selling more-profitable daily drug treatments. Compared with drugs that require daily doses, vaccines are only administered once a year or a lifetime. The pharmaceutical company Wyeth (which has since been acquired by Pfizer) reported that they stopped making the flu vaccine because the margins were so low.

“Historically vaccines were produced at a relatively low price and sold with a low profit margin. They were add-ons to other products—mostly drugs—that pharmaceutical manufacturers were producing," explains Neal Halsey, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and international health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "The people working in vaccines described themselves as the stepchild of others, and they had to fight hard for the resources to develop new vaccines.”

research has shown that doesn't necessarily make companies exit the market, because they buy at high volumes). Altogether, a combination of high production costs, low market prices, and heavy regulationmay have contributed to occasional vaccine shortages.

But then a couple things happened to turn the vaccine market around in recent years. Global demand, particularly in developing countries, shot up. Since 2000, the Gavi Alliance has provided vaccination for 500 million children in poor countries, preventing an estimated 7 million deaths. GlaxoSmithKline reportedthat 80 percent of the vaccine doses they manufactured in 2013 went to developing countries. Additionally, vaccines that could turn a profit in high-income countries—constituting 82 percent of global vaccine sales in terms of value, according to the World Health Organization—hit the market.

"I think the market opened up once Hepatitis B vaccine showed that you can really sustain very high prices for single dose. That was unheard of back in the 1980s," says David Bishai, director of the Interdepartmental Health Economics Program at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Two "blockbuster" vaccines also hit the market: pneumococcal conjugate for meningitis and other bacteria infections, and a vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV). The industry grew. One estimate puts the vaccine market now at $24 billion—huge, but a mere 2 to 3 percent of a trillion-dollar worldwide pharmaceutical industry.

While vaccine prices have always been higher in the U.S. and Europe due to tiered pricing, prices have been rising dramatically in recent years. The government's Vaccine for Children Program purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S. The current CDC pediatric-contract price for MMR is $19.91, while the private-sector pediatric price for MMR has risen to $59.91.

In the U.S., Merck is the only company licensed to offer the measles vaccine. In their recent 2014 earnings report, they reported that sales of ProdQuad (a vaccine for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella), MMR II (for measles, mumps, rubella), and Varivax (a chicken pox vaccine) together came in at $1.4 billion, a fraction of the company's $42.2 billion in global sales. Their top selling vaccine is Gardasil, an HPV vaccine, which brings in $1.7 billion in sales.

But profit margins are hard to know, as R&D (which can take up to 15 years), manufacturing, trials to test efficacy, and distribution costs for specific vaccines and drug products are not public. While a spokesperson for Merck told The Atlantic that vaccines remained one of its key areas of focus—it generated $5.3 billion in sales in 2014—she did not comment on the profit margins. Analysts peg the profit margin of giant pharmaceutical companies at anywhere ranging between 10 to over 40 percent. “Nobody knows exactly how much it costs for them to make it, because they don’t want to reveal that,” says Halsey. They fear that they would face pressure to lower prices in the U.S., Europe, and the developing world.

The New York Times reported last year that some American families had trouble finding doctors for vaccine administration because the vaccines were too expensive for doctors to stock. Doctors Without Borders recently called for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to lower vaccine prices for developing countries.

In response to calls for vaccine costs to come down, supporters of increasing vaccine supply such as Bill Gates have argued that not only is vaccine production very complicated, but research and development budgets would suffer. While the pharmaceutical industry is unlikely to budge on revealing their profits, Halsey suspects that having more manufacturers would help lower prices. Yet the vaccine market is highly concentrated on both the supply and demand side, with high fixed costs and exclusive licensing discouraging competition.

So while the vaccine industry is likely more profitable now than in the 1970s or 1980s, this is the result of global market forces, not a reason to skip a child's vaccinations: Pharmaceutical companies need incentives to keep producing vaccines, because regardless of profits the economic and social benefits of vaccination are huge—in lives and the billions of dollars saved. A study released last year estimated that fully immunizing babies resulted in $10 saved for every dollar spent, about $69 billion total. "Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective interventions we have," says Halsey.

In the U.S., a study looking at the benefits of vaccination between 1994 and 2013 estimated a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs. Looking at the last 50 years of the vaccine market, it's absurd to think profits could have ever been the sole motivation of vaccine production. In fact, 83 percent of Americans believe that the MMR vaccine is safe. Profits from vaccine production aren't a valid argument against vaccinations—the most important question is whether vaccines are safe and effective, and the answer is unambiguously yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.Goldberg
This is a bottom of the barrel, false argument.

Vaccines are Profitable, So What?
Really? I'm not arguing over doctors and pediatricians. I'm saying the company selling them the vaccinations (pharma) is making the money.

Aside from the fact that the topic here is the flu vaccine, not vaccinations in general, your link seems to be proving my point. So, I'm wondering what it is you're trying to say here.

If you include the flu vaccine as part of vaccinations, then money is being made. If you are excluding it, then this is not a defense of your argument.

Also, the flu vaccine is optional. Except in cases where employers have made it mandatory as a condition of continued employment. Since no one is forcing anyone to take it, the drug companies can charge what they want for it - because it's in demand. Especially by those motivated by fear based on everything they see or hear on the net or television.

Finally, I reiterate…I am NOT an anti-vaccer. I was vaccinated, my kids are vaccinated. But the flu vaccine was never a part of any of that. It was never required by any government entity.

When, or if, it every gets serious enough for local, state or federal government to require it as part the standard set of vaccinations I may reconsider my stance. But for now, it's optional and it means it does not rise to a level of importance for the government as say vaccinating against polio.

Until it's no longer optional, I don't foresee any change in my stance.
 
Children without strengthened immune systems which come from age, being bombarded by Bluetooth signals, wifi signals, cellphone signals, stress and anxiety from computer use. It's unlikely that all of these kids dint get a flu shot, but they all have the above mentioned factors in their experience. Game on.
 
I'm just curious why the flu has become a 'thing' in recent years.

I grew up in the 1980s. You got the flu, you puked, had aches, hot and chills, and took cold medicine. But then you got over it at the most in a week and went on.

There were no mass epidemic of flu kill stories every year. Hell, TheraFlu as a OTC med product didn't show up on the shelves until the late 90s.

I'm no anti-vaccer (both my kids have their vaccinations, my parents made sure my sister and I were vaccinated) but I question this push to give me a shot every year.

On top of that, nine times out of ten the vaccine is for the wrong strain.

The 24 hour news cycle wasn't widespread. Now all the news channels have way too much time to over hype every little thing. Since they don't have enough interesting news to fill a 24 hour cycle. I think social networking has made the tendency to over-hype much worse.

There was CNN. But how many people actually had cable through much of the 80's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyoungren
Finally, I reiterate…I am NOT an anti-vaccer. I was vaccinated, my kids are vaccinated. But the flu vaccine was never a part of any of that. It was never required by any government entity.
Vaccinations for actual diseases that are proven effective is one thing. Vague hopes that a flu shot for some random strain will help you with no more than a low probability is a completely different situation. Right now we're in the 1950s style "chemicals are good for you because we said it is" when it comes to flu shots. If you don't get a flu shot then you're viewed as a disruptor who needs to be brought to heel. But anybody who does a little bit of research will quickly realize that flu shots are a con and the risk to your immune system to injecting the shot (do you even know what's in that thing?) is many times worse than any minimal, alleged benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyoungren
Vaccinations for actual diseases that are proven effective is one thing. Vague hopes that a flu shot for some random strain will help you with no more than a low probability is a completely different situation. Right now we're in the 1950s style "chemicals are good for you because we said it is" when it comes to flu shots. If you don't get a flu shot then you're viewed as a disruptor who needs to be brought to heel. But anybody who does a little bit of research will quickly realize that flu shots are a con and the risk to your immune system to injecting the shot (do you even know what's in that thing?) is many times worse than any minimal, alleged benefit.
I don't get the flu vaccine because the success rate year to year has been bad, both in stopping a flu strain and in innoculating against the right one.

I refuse to take a risk of getting the flu, however small, that I am being innoculated against when it's not even the strain that is the problem that season. Only to get the flu again because that wasn't the strain they innoculated me against.

I'm well aware of the controversy out there but until I see some sort of success rate above 50/50 I will take my chances without the shot.

That's just my take on it. Lastly, I do object to it being pushed on me. I won't be bullied or subjected to fear tactics on something that is optional and a personal choice.
 
36% affective against a disease that is terrible and deadly is still high enough that eyoungren is, at best, ignorant and uninformed.
Instead of rebutting my previous opinions, you are dismissing me and my arguments by calling me ignorant and uninformed. A statement you make about me because I do not agree with you.

I have to assume you are not here in this thread for discussion, but rather affirmation. Since I won't give it to you, I am put in a category of irrelevance.

In any case, the flu shot is still optional and until the government finds a way to legally force people to take it I won't participate.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.