Flu shot: check.

[Gibsons]

There are certain diseases where immunization is better then exposure. But we are not talking about polio, Hep A, Hep B,,,, here, we are talking about the flu.

I agree we're talking about the flu.

Several studies say that exposure to the flu virus results in production of anti-bodies that last a lifetime.

lol. nope. You REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND IMMUNOLOGY. Maybe I'm splitting a few hairs here, but your ignorance is showing.

Unless there are underlying conditions, there is no reason for a healthy adult to get a flu vaccine.

Ignoring the fact that the flu can cause death to a perfectly healthy young adult - yes, their are reasons to get the vaccine. Here are two: 1: "not missing work." 2:"not spreading the disease."

If someone works face-to-face with the public, works with the elderly, or has small children at home, then they should get vaccinated.

agreed

Now then, what part of that do you disagree with?

pretty much everything except as noted.

The flu vaccine is only effective for a few months, "maybe" a year at the very best.

Don't know of any data on this specifically, but I suspect the immunity lasts upwards of 5 years.

 

[Fausto]

You keep saying "several studies" but you keep linking studies that actually undermine the position you have taken in this thread. :hmm:

 

[vi edit]

The flu vaccine is only effective for a few months, "maybe" a year at the very best. Don't know of any data on this specifically, but I suspect the immunity lasts upwards of 5 years.

Not entirely true. It can have reduced effectiveness in less than 6-8 months. My wife works the ED at a major hospital and they usually get a rush of flu patients in May as the vaccine starts to wear down and leaves people at risk.

It's always a challenge every year trying to vaccinate early enough to be ahead of the curve but not so early as to leave people vulnerable before flu season is over.

 

[Texashiker]

Referring to exposure to the flu resulting in anti-bodies that last a lifetime

lol. nope. You REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND IMMUNOLOGY. Maybe I'm splitting a few hairs here, but your ignorance is showing.

I will post this link once again, because it seems you overlooked it

People exposed to the spanish flu had anti-bodies 60+ years after exposure

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080817223642.htm

referring to flu vaccine effectiveness declining over time

Don't know of any data on this specifically, but I suspect the immunity lasts upwards of 5 years.

Guess I will post this link and quote again, because you missed it.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/fluvaccine.htm

a person’s immune protection from vaccination declines over time and annual vaccination is needed for optimal protection.

How much clearer do you need it spelled out?

Exposure to the flu virus = antibodies that last a lifetime.

Flu vaccine effectiveness fades within a year.

 

[Gibsons]

I will post this link once again, because it seems you overlooked it

People exposed to the spanish flu had anti-bodies 60+ years after exposure

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080817223642.htm



Guess I will post this link and quote again, because you missed it.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/fluvaccine.htm

Rofl. Just fyi - I've read most of the papers that the review you're linking to is reporting about.

Immunity to anything, or everything, declines over time. People who acquired natural chicken pox still get shingles, etc. Yes, the reaction to the real disease is almost always more effective than the vaccine. People who die from the disease don't. In the study you cited, how many people who died from the disease had effective antibodies 60 years later? Does the concept of 'selected data' mean anything to you?

And don't give me any crap about "superior immune systems win out." I really don't think you know what 'superior' might mean in this context.

How much clearer do you need it spelled out?

I understand this much better than you ever have or, I suspect, ever will. I've probably given more lectures on this subject than you have posted on it. Well, looking at your post count, maybe not. But I have given a few dozen lectures on influenza and vaccines.

 

[tedrodai]

Exposure to the flu virus = antibodies that last a lifetime.

Flu vaccine effectiveness fades within a year.

I agree that antibodies from flu vaccines can fade. But you're making a lot of assumptions here.

They tested for 1 specific flu strain in that sciencedaily article. They state several times the idea that those people would still have some protection from the 1918 strain of the virus. That does not mean that they have any sort of protection from current flu strains.

Also, the fact that the 1918 strain left survivors with antibodies for a lifetime does not mean that every flu infection is going to do that.

Also, that CDC page tells you straight up that everyone responds differently based on a variety of factors.

The point I'm trying to get across is there are NO guarantees. I'm not saying you're stupid for trying it that way, but please don't go around saying that people are going to get better protection over their lifetime that way when there aren't enough facts to support it.

BTW my wife (and her dad) are doctors, and they love to dish out medicine for each and every ailment. I, on the other hand, perfer to let my immune system do its job when it's perfectly able to. I know where you're coming from.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I will post this link once again, because it seems you overlooked it

People exposed to the spanish flu had anti-bodies 60+ years after exposure

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080817223642.htm

Sigh. This will be my last post in the thread, as it's going in circles, and my reaction is about finished (so I need to get my butt back in lab).

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0906453

From the text:

In 1976, approximately 20% of the U.S. population was immunized with the A/NJ/76 (H1N1) vaccine.15 We tested archived serum samples from 83 adults who were at least 25 years of age at the time that the sample was obtained and who had received one dose (400 chicken-cell agglutinating units) of a monovalent, split A/NJ/76 vaccine.16 Vaccination with the A/NJ/76 vaccine resulted in seroconversion to antibodies against A/NJ/76 virus in 67 subjects (81%) and a corresponding seroconversion to antibodies against 2009 H1N1 in 45 subjects (54%) (Table 5 in the Supplementary Appendix). Whereas 59 subjects (71%) achieved a postvaccination microneutralization antibody titer of 160 or more against the vaccine strain, 52 subjects (63%) achieved a postvaccination antibody titer of 160 or more against 2009 H1N.

 

[SunnyD]

I understand this much better than you ever have or, I suspect, ever will. I've probably given more lectures on this subject than you have posted on it. Well, looking at your post count, maybe not. But I have given a few dozen lectures on influenza and vaccines.

And there it is! The internet lurker ePeen "I'm an expert and you're not" statement! You win the thread!!!

 

[Texashiker]

I've probably given more lectures on this subject than you have posted on it. Well, looking at your post count, maybe not. But I have given a few dozen lectures on influenza and vaccines.

As a healthy adult white male with no underlying health conditions, I will not be taking the flu vaccine anytime soon.

Hopefully I will be able to build up some antibodies before I get into my 60s. That way I will have double protection in my older age - natural antibodies along with a flu shot.

Gibsons, since you pimp vaccines, I doubt you believe in natural resistance, its not something that taught in schools these days. These days it seems like its all about promoting vaccines and creating an artificial immune system.

When possible, I would rather take my chances with an immune system that has been fine-tuned over the past 100,000 years, then with a vaccine that "might" provide protection against this years flu strains.

Vaccines have their place, but the flu vaccine is not for me, not in this part of my life anyway.

 

[Gibsons]

And there it is! The internet lurker ePeen "I'm an expert and you're not" statement! You win the thread!!!

Thanks. If you have any facts or whatever, go ahead.

 

[tedrodai]

Oh I was gonna say that yeah, I'll be getting my flu shot! As if you couldn't guess. My wife is specifically a pediatric resident, so I am 100% sure the flu is going to catch a ride home with her on several occasions every year.

 

[sourceninja]

Even if they pick the wrong ones, having immunity to more strains is still good for you. I think it was texashiker's link that said older people were more immune to bird flu because they already have immunity to so many other types of flu. Spanish Flu was another one that mostly affected young people. Older people who had seen other flu strains come and go were mostly untouched by it.

But if they are more than often picking the wrong ones, then I'm getting a flu shot for the wrong reason.

Instead of getting it to prevent the flu I'll probably get, I would be getting the shot in the hopes that one day decades from now I might not get the flu?

Yea, I'll pass on that logic.

 

[Gibsons]

As a healthy adult white male with no underlying health conditions, I will not be taking the flu vaccine anytime soon.

As is your right.

Hopefully I will be able to build up some antibodies before I get into my 60s. That way I will have double protection in my older age - natural antibodies along with a flu shot.

Antibodies aren't really the whole story. Just the most reported about, mostly since it's the easiest to measure.

Gibsons, since you pimp vaccines, I doubt you believe in natural resistance, its not something that taught in schools these days. These days it seems like its all about promoting vaccines and creating an artificial immune system.

First, 'pimping vaccines.' Why wouldn't I? They're really cheap in the long and short term, and very effective. disclaimer - I am not employed by, nor do I own stock, in any company that makes vaccines.

I'm not sure how you think I doubt natural resistance to a disease. Simplifying a little - A vaccine is mimic to a disease. A mimic is unlikely to be as good as the real thing just the simple terms of providing immune memory. There are some hypothetical exceptions. Just for a starter, look into immune memory vs. gonorrhea.

For influenza in particular, the mimic is better than the real thing in some ways because the way influenza changes, that is you can get immunity before you're ever exposed to the real virus. Someone with a 'perfect' immune system (there's really no such thing) could get flu 10+ years in a row. The flu they got the first year is different from the second and the third etc. With vaccines, that hypothetical unlucky person would catch the flu twice or so - less with some herd immunity.

When possible, I would rather take my chances with an immune system that has been fine-tuned over the past 100,000 years, then with a vaccine that "might" provide protection against this years flu strains.

Then get the attenuated nasal vaccine, you'll get a very strong, long lasting immunity from that. I'd rather get the shot. In your terms, you'll make it stronger.

Finally, consider that the diseases have evolved for the same amount of time as the immune system. Influenza virus wouldn't still be around otherwise, and it still kills young, healthy people with apparently perfectly functional immune systems, every year.

 

[blackdogdeek]

can someone tell me what the last few pages of this discussion have said? unfortunately, i've managed to claw my eyes out.

 

[Texashiker]

can someone tell me what the last few pages of this discussion have said? unfortunately, i've managed to claw my eyes out.

Gibsons = your immune system is junk and you should only trust vaccines

crashtestdummy = has no clue what this thread is about

vi edit = dropped in to say "hi"

Fausto = tried to derail the thread with a topic on whooping cough

ichy = gave up and left

Texashiker = would rather catch the flu then take a flu shot

SunnyD = playing cheerleader

Capt Caveman = stuck his head in, barked a few times and left

 

[Gibsons]

Gibsons = your immune system is junk and you should only trust vaccines

Liar.

I never said or implied that. A vaccine is useless without an immune system to respond to it.

 

[Texashiker]

Liar.

I never said or implied that. A vaccine is useless without an immune system to respond to it.

Ok,


Gibsons = said your immune system is a chevy chevette, and a vaccine is a chevy 350 with a blower and nitrous.

You just inject the chevy 350 into the chevy chevette and your ready to go.

 

[disappoint]

What a loon.

 

[Fausto]

I didn't try to derail shit. I was pointing out the longevity and efficacy of some vaccines.

Selective reading, you has it.

 

[Texashiker]

I didn't try to derail shit. I was pointing out the longevity and efficacy of some vaccines.

Selective reading, you has it.

You started this thread about the flu shot, then tried the good ole "what about whooping cough, blah, blah, blah,,,,," in an attempt to derail the thread.

Most people never get a pertussis booster. People pretty much never get pertussis. In fact, to my knowledge, the most recent outbreak was amongst kids in CA whose idiot parents listened to a former nude model who suddenly became an expert on vaccines on the heels of a study shown to be critically flawed and discarded by all but former nude models with two brain cells to rub together.

...and honestly, even assuming for a moment that your assertions about vaccines are true (which they largely are not), how are we supposed to acheive an immune response? It's like playing kickball on the interstate to sort out the kids with the most advanced reflexes.

 

[Gibsons]

Ok,


Gibsons = said your immune system is a chevy chevette, and a vaccine is a chevy 350 with a blower and nitrous.

You just inject the chevy 350 into the chevy chevette and your ready to go.

No.

 

[Texashiker]

No.

I said Yes.

 

[Gibsons]

I said Yes.

Your analogy was egregiously flawed and thus a misrepresentation.

 

[Texashiker]

Your analogy was egregiously flawed and thus a misrepresentation.

Then present your own analogy

 

[Gibsons]

Then present your own analogy

Okay: Give the chevette a 10 second head start and it beats the corvette in a quarter mile, pretty much every time. And it's a whole lot cheaper. Doesn't mean it's really faster or better, but it wins this race.

But analogies can be terrible. The idea that some immune systems are corvettes while some are chevettes is mostly ridiculous. Yes, there are some immune compromised people, but that's the exception, that's more like yugos dragging an anchor up a mountain. For the rest of us, it's something of a rock paper scissors game. Rock might be great today, but influenza might throw a paper tomorrow. You seem to be thinking that influenza will keep throwing scissors against your almighty immune system rock. It won't. It wouldn't still be around if it weren't capable of doing something else.

Aside - way back in the day, a friend of mine had a semi hopped up chevette. ripped out the converter, maybe a few other things. Surprisingly fast. Managed to keep up with the rich kids 280Z on a long highway one night. Glad I lived through it.


edit - yeah you can probably dig up a corvette quarter that can beat a chevette by 10 seconds or more. Whatever.