So wait... all those flu vaccinations actually are bad for you?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
I'll probably die of a heart attack, maybe stroke. I'm guessing late 70s or 80s. Although a car accident or such is hard to rule out. My lifestyle is pretty healthy, good diet, exercise, all that, but the family history is pretty ominous.

Thanks for your concern.

check out epigenetics.

also, if you start being a nicer, happier person, you'll cut your risk of heart attack and stroke down a bit, i'm sure.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
check out epigenetics.

also, if you start being a nicer, happier person, you'll cut your risk of heart attack and stroke down a bit, i'm sure.

eits, the idea of you trying to tell me about epigenetics is truly comical and brings a nice happy smile to my face.

The idea of you trying to tell me about the risks of cardiovascular disease, when I've already heard lectures from Nobel laureates, is truly comical and brings a nice happy smile to my face.

Thank you eits, you've probably extended my life by an hour or two.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
eits, the idea of you trying to tell me about epigenetics is truly comical and brings a nice happy smile to my face.

The idea of you trying to tell me about the risks of cardiovascular disease, when I've already heard lectures from Nobel laureates, is truly comical and brings a nice happy smile to my face.

Thank you eits, you've probably extended my life by an hour or two.

:) :thumbsup:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,228
146
where'd you pull that statistic?

Joseph Bresee, an influenza epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "In 16 of the last 19 years, we have had a well-matched vaccine."

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/feb/18/keeping-ahead-of-flu-comes-down-to-guessing-game/

Dude, just fucking stop. Seriously, before you cause real harm to someone who believes you have any valid medical knowledge at all.

JUST FUCKING STOP.

As for senior mortality rates not following vaccination rates, it's because the elderly don't respond well to vaccines in that they don't get much of an immunity from them. ANY vaccine is less effective in people over 70. Especially those who can't fight off the flu in the first place. The same is true for people with AIDS. If your immune system can't fight off a virus, that means it probably won't be able to produce the anti-bodies in response to the vaccine needed to aquire immunity.

The ONLY way to protect the elderly is to reach HERD immunity (90+% vaccination rates). And dumbasses like YOU are why we don't reach herd immunity.

However, senior mortality is NOT the only reason to take the flu shots. Productivity and the health of children is another primary factor. And children/working adults respond quite well to the vaccine, thus protecting productivity and the health of children.
 
Last edited:

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
As for senior mortality rates not following vaccination rates, it's because the elderly don't respond well to vaccines in that they don't get much of an immunity from them.
Good to know at least one person understands the concept of selected data.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/feb/18/keeping-ahead-of-flu-comes-down-to-guessing-game/

Dude, just fucking stop. Seriously, before you cause real harm to someone who believes you have any valid medical knowledge at all.

JUST FUCKING STOP.

As for senior mortality rates not following vaccination rates, it's because the elderly don't respond well to vaccines in that they don't get much of an immunity from them. ANY vaccine is less effective in people over 70. Especially those who can't fight off the flu in the first place. The same is true for people with AIDS. If your immune system can't fight off a virus, that means it probably won't be able to produce the anti-bodies in response to the vaccine.

The ONLY way to protect the elderly is to reach HERD immunity (90+% vaccination rates). And dumbasses like YOU are why we don't reach herd immunity.

However, senior mortality is NOT the only reason to take the flu shots. Productivity and the health of children is another primary factor. And children/working adults respond quite well to the vaccine, thus protecting productivity and the health of children.

Agree with this post. The good news is, theres a high dose flu vaccine out for this flu season that might give senior immune systems the boost it needs.

I think in reading this thread, it just really scares me that eits might be handing out medical advice against flu shots to his patients based on poor knowledge of the data.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Agree with this post. The good news is, theres a high dose flu vaccine out for this flu season that might give senior immune systems the boost it needs.
Link for this? since I'm too lazy to google. Not doubting you, it seems like a good idea imo.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Thanks for the links.

So it's a quadruple dose of antigen, that's interesting. I can think of theoretically better cheaper ways to get immunity, but they would have drawbacks of compliance and speed.

Just for some fodder, this is a question epidemiologists have really wrestled with:

You have a limited amount of vaccine doses. The vaccine is more effective in the young than the elderly. The young are more mobile and thus more likely to spread the disease. The elderly are much more likely to die if infected. Which population do you try to target with the vaccine? Friend of mine does computer models of this stuff, it's really interesting.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/feb/18/keeping-ahead-of-flu-comes-down-to-guessing-game/

Dude, just fucking stop. Seriously, before you cause real harm to someone who believes you have any valid medical knowledge at all.

JUST FUCKING STOP.

As for senior mortality rates not following vaccination rates, it's because the elderly don't respond well to vaccines in that they don't get much of an immunity from them. ANY vaccine is less effective in people over 70. Especially those who can't fight off the flu in the first place. The same is true for people with AIDS. If your immune system can't fight off a virus, that means it probably won't be able to produce the anti-bodies in response to the vaccine needed to aquire immunity.

The ONLY way to protect the elderly is to reach HERD immunity (90+% vaccination rates). And dumbasses like YOU are why we don't reach herd immunity.

However, senior mortality is NOT the only reason to take the flu shots. Productivity and the health of children is another primary factor. And children/working adults respond quite well to the vaccine, thus protecting productivity and the health of children.

the flu shot is about 70% effective. hell, let's just say it's 100% effective, just for you. you're still not protected against the other strains of flu that are out there and get spread around. that's why so many people who get the flu shot still end up with the flu... because it's not one of the same strain of flu they were protected against. also, yes, the flu shot is less effective in the elderly, but it's also less effective in children, too.

again, i'd rather protect myself against all strains by taking vitamin d3 and washing my hands regularly than relying on the flu shot, especially if it's going to make me feel sick for a week.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
I think in reading this thread, it just really scares me that eits might be handing out medical advice against flu shots to his patients based on poor knowledge of the data.

et tu, brute?

as i've said countess times throughout various threads, i don't advise patients to avoid vaccines. i typically promote them. i just don't promote the flu shot or the chicken pox vaccine. still not sure if i support gardisil yet or not... there are two patients my friend (an md) has in his practice who have been diagnosed by their gp as having neurological problems as a result of getting the gardisil vaccination. one's in college and needs a special note for her professors... apparently, side effects are seriously under-reported to the cdc.

i have a couple pediatricians and gps to whom i refer my patients who haven't been vaccinated.

edit: christ, you can even look on my website for evidence that i support vaccinating. go to my "specials" tab and read the fine print with school physicals.
 
Last edited:

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
the flu shot is about 70% effective. hell, let's just say it's 100% effective, just for you. you're still not protected against the other strains of flu that are out there and get spread around. that's why so many people who get the flu shot still end up with the flu... because it's not one of the same strain of flu they were protected against. also, yes, the flu shot is less effective in the elderly, but it's also less effective in children, too.

again, i'd rather protect myself against all strains by taking vitamin d3 and washing my hands regularly than relying on the flu shot, especially if it's going to make me feel sick for a week.

So, before we even mention your new argument, you acknowledge that the flu vaccine is matched to the predominant strain in most years? In direct contradiction to your previous post where you said:
? how so? you seriously think that every year the flu shot is administered that the it is effective? it's not exactly common for it to be effective against the flu. not because it doesn't protect against the flu, but because it doesn't protect against the strains that are infecting people by the time people are getting inoculated for a different strain.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
So, before we even mention your new argument, you acknowledge that the flu vaccine is matched to the predominant strain in most years? In direct contradiction to your previous post where you said:

wait, what? i've always said that the flu shot protects against the strains that they're meant to protect against. i even said that earlier in this thread.

also, i think you're misunderstanding what i wrote. sometimes, various strains of flu mutate (especially flu type a). so, by the time they get the vaccine, there's already another mutated strain out there.

the point i was making was that even though you get a flu shot, you are still susceptible against the flu if it has mutated, which happens frequently. that's why throughout this thread and others, there are people who say that they got the flu shot and still ended up with the flu. the flu shot gives people a false sense of security and lets their guard down about proper hygiene and natural nutritional health to protect themselves from getting sick.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Thanks for the links.

So it's a quadruple dose of antigen, that's interesting. I can think of theoretically better cheaper ways to get immunity, but they would have drawbacks of compliance and speed.

Just for some fodder, this is a question epidemiologists have really wrestled with:

You have a limited amount of vaccine doses. The vaccine is more effective in the young than the elderly. The young are more mobile and thus more likely to spread the disease. The elderly are much more likely to die if infected. Which population do you try to target with the vaccine? Friend of mine does computer models of this stuff, it's really interesting.

Yeah its very very interesting. I saw some models based on 2009's H1N1 data and they noticed that community outbreaks were timed perfectly to whenever public schools opened. So now theres a lot of talk about whether flu shots should be mandatory in public schools so as to protect the elderly.

There's a lot of medical ethics involved since it wouldnt be the kids getting the shots that really benefit
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
et tu, brute?

as i've said countess times throughout various threads, i don't advise patients to avoid vaccines. i typically promote them. i just don't promote the flu shot or the chicken pox vaccine. still not sure if i support gardisil yet or not... there are two patients my friend (an md) has in his practice who have been diagnosed by their gp as having neurological problems as a result of getting the gardisil vaccination. one's in college and needs a special note for her professors... apparently, side effects are seriously under-reported to the cdc.

i have a couple pediatricians and gps to whom i refer my patients who haven't been vaccinated.

edit: christ, you can even look on my website for evidence that i support vaccinating. go to my "specials" tab and read the fine print with school physicals.

I think the data for the flu shot is pretty strong, same for gardasil. The chickenpox thing is kind of a nonissue since there has nevre been any data for mortality benefit and the only way it got fda approval was based on the argument that PARENTS have to take less days off work if their kids dont get the chicken box
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
wait, what? i've always said that the flu shot protects against the strains that they're meant to protect against. i even said that earlier in this thread.

also, i think you're misunderstanding what i wrote. sometimes, various strains of flu mutate (especially flu type a). so, by the time they get the vaccine, there's already another mutated strain out there.

the point i was making was that even though you get a flu shot, you are still susceptible against the flu if it has mutated, which happens frequently. that's why throughout this thread and others, there are people who say that they got the flu shot and still ended up with the flu. the flu shot gives people a false sense of security and lets their guard down about proper hygiene and natural nutritional health to protect themselves from getting sick.

That's an interesting argument but I dont think theres any data to suggest that to be true. Or if it IS true, theres no data to suggest that the increase in lack of hygene produces a net negative
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
You really don't understand the data. hint: a "strain" isn't clonal, e.g. not all H1N1 from last season were identical (that would be impossible), but the H1N1 vaccine was a match in that it demonstrated protection against infection from that strain.

edit - in response to eits, not mo0o, if it wasn't obvious
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,228
146
the flu shot is about 70% effective. hell, let's just say it's 100% effective, just for you. you're still not protected against the other strains of flu that are out there and get spread around. that's why so many people who get the flu shot still end up with the flu... because it's not one of the same strain of flu they were protected against. also, yes, the flu shot is less effective in the elderly, but it's also less effective in children, too.

again, i'd rather protect myself against all strains by taking vitamin d3 and washing my hands regularly than relying on the flu shot, especially if it's going to make me feel sick for a week.

Good gawd it is readily apparent why you have no fucking clue: You have a complete and utter lack of reading comprehension.

16 of the last 19 years the vaccine has been a good match for the predominant strains. This blows your bullshit "it isn't the right strain" argument out of the water.

Fucktards like you who convince your victims not to get the vaccine only serve to guarantee there will be no herd immunity no matter how successful the vaccine is. Your asinine advice guarantees it's failure, and thus supports your backasswards logic.

Every ounce of bullshit you've posted in this thread has been debunked, and you repeat yourself in the face of conflicting evidence.

Just as in the HFCS thread, you enter the debate with a complete and utter ignorance in the subject, then try to feel your way through the subject like a blind man in an orgy. Then you spend the entire debate trying to explain away all the dicks you grabbed.

Just stop already.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Side question is this.

Has there been any research into the exact mechanism that produces the proper antibodies to attack the antigens/viral agent?

IOW, I am curious if they have made any progress in mapping the exact process of producing these antibodies once an antigen has been introduced. Is it a genetic or molecular interaction? Do the white blood cells map the necessary RNA to produce the protiens needed, and if so, how (I don't think it is the WBC's that produce them, but I can't remember what does).

What I am getting at is, have we started studying a way to give our bodies the genetic blueprint on how to assemble an Ikea immunity rather than having to deal with the Mongol Horde after it has already set up camp in the basement? (dumping a practice dummy on the field w/no instructions and yelling "Go get 'im!")
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Side question is this.

Has there been any research into the exact mechanism that produces the proper antibodies to attack the antigens/viral agent?

IOW, I am curious if they have made any progress in mapping the exact process of producing these antibodies once an antigen has been introduced. Is it a genetic or molecular interaction? Do the white blood cells map the necessary RNA to produce the protiens needed, and if so, how (I don't think it is the WBC's that produce them, but I can't remember what does).

What I am getting at is, have we started studying a way to give our bodies the genetic blueprint on how to assemble an Ikea immunity rather than having to deal with the Mongol Horde after it has already set up camp in the basement? (dumping a practice dummy on the field w/no instructions and yelling "Go get 'im!")

The basic idea of how B cells generate specific antibody has been worked out since the 80s. Tonegawa won a Nobel for it, but lots of people have contributed.

It's an evolutionary like process - Bone marrow generates new B cells constantly. Exact number is something like billions per day. Most likely, no two B cells like this produce identical antibody, they are all at least slightly different. The vast majority of these are useless. When an antigen is introduced, those few that produce antibody that binds to the antigen are induced to grow and make more antibody. Several other important things going on here that I'll leave out. Over a few days time, there are lots of progeny of these few, making lots of antibody.

Eventually, as the antigen goes away, most of these B cells die. A few stick around as memory cells. They quit making antibody for the most part. If the same (or highly similar) antigen shows up again, they wake up very quickly and start growing and making lots of antibody again. In the case of a successful vaccination, they crank out the antibodies so quickly that the infection never progresses.

As for the idea of a genetic blueprint.. well, you can do that to some degree if you know what the mongol horde looks like. In general, that's impossible. Current vaccines aren't really that sophisticate, we rely on the immune system to figure it out. And the immune response to most vaccines is rarely the best possible response, but "good enough." For some diseases anyway. HIV is a prominent exception, HIV vaccines to date usually produce an immune response, but the response isn't good enough to prevent disease. There are lots of clever ideas around for better ways to vaccinate. We'll see what happens there.

The natural process in response to a antigen isn't directly RNA based, it's more at the DNA level initially, then a response to what's happening with proteins and some cellular interactions later on. That's a long story too.

Lots of interesting stuff about this, the number of possible antibodies that can be made by human B cells is at least 10^11, probably more. In contrast, the human genome is only about 3x10^9 base pairs. B cells will occasionally screw up this process (and some other steps later on) and this is a major cause of leukemias and lymphomas (my personal interest). Out of the zillions of B cells being made, some of them will inevitably be self reactive - this is one reason for autoimmune diseases.

I'll stop now.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
Good gawd it is readily apparent why you have no fucking clue: You have a complete and utter lack of reading comprehension.

16 of the last 19 years the vaccine has been a good match for the predominant strains. This blows your bullshit "it isn't the right strain" argument out of the water.

Fucktards like you who convince your victims not to get the vaccine only serve to guarantee there will be no herd immunity no matter how successful the vaccine is. Your asinine advice guarantees it's failure, and thus supports your backasswards logic.

Every ounce of bullshit you've posted in this thread has been debunked, and you repeat yourself in the face of conflicting evidence.

Just as in the HFCS thread, you enter the debate with a complete and utter ignorance in the subject, then try to feel your way through the subject like a blind man in an orgy. Then you spend the entire debate trying to explain away all the dicks you grabbed.

Just stop already.

lol it's fun seeing you get mad :)

i think i'm going to just go ahead and post again just to visualize your face turning red.

some dude in some news article you found said 16 of 19 years has been a good match for the vaccine. that's nice. the vaccine is, what, 60-85% or so effective? in elderly, children, and immunocompromised people, it's obviously lower.

i'm not arguing that it's ineffective. i'm arguing that i up to almost half of the healthy population gets a flu even when they get vaccinated. a lot of that has to do with having a less than optimal immune system (where it is affected by lack of sleep, increased emotional, physical, and chemical stress, improper diet, lack of exercise, etc). what i'm saying, for myself, is that i'd much rather wash my hands and take lots of vitamin d3 to increase cytokine activity and promote leukocyte proliferation. there's definitely no risk of getting neurological conditions, time off work from the effect of the vaccine on my body, etc if i just try and stay healthy through the autumnal and winter months. i'm not going to rely on a shot that may or may not protect me from a flu going around because, obviously, it's still possible to get it... and, on top of that, i could get sick from the shot itself. why would i want to risk dealing with two weeks off work rather than just one?

as for the graph with the elderly population i showed, what you don't seem to appreciate is that roughly the same number of elderly people die regardless of how many flu shots are administered to them. when the cdc says that elderly people need to get vaccinated and they do and it does nothing different for them than not getting vaccinated, then there's a problem with the system (especially when the drug companies pull billions in profit from it).

also, in regards to the hfcs threads, you make me laugh because you CLEARLY don't understand that studies on fructose's effect on the body correlates to hfcs's effect on the body (in particular, hfcs 55). you posting funded studies by the corn refiner's association and saying "see? hfcs and sucrose = same, you fucking moron!" isn't exactly proof. it's like pulling phillip-morris studies that prove smoking doesn't cause cancer.

again, i don't tell my patients not to get a vaccine. if anything, i'd only advise to get vaccinations. i catch a lot of shit from fellow chiropractors because of it, but their anti-vaccine stance is ridiculous, in my opinion. furthermore, i don't really appreciate being called a fucktard. please stop namecalling :) thank you.
 
Last edited:

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
That's an interesting argument but I dont think theres any data to suggest that to be true. Or if it IS true, theres no data to suggest that the increase in lack of hygene produces a net negative

there's indirect evidence in that you know that proper health and hygiene decreases likelihood of contracting disease. also, stress (chemical, emotional, and physical) decreases immune function, which also leads to contracting illness. so, based on those premises, an inference can be made. the lack of data on an argument doesn't mean it's invalid.

either way, i'm pretty sure there's plenty of data on hygiene being effective against keeping people healthy. i'm sure gibson can tell you all about it. research is certainly his area of expertise.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Gibs....


The only thing I was wondering is if there was a way to skip the trial by smaller fire (which seems to be the way of vaccination directly).

We used to have the worst with some, administering a "weakened" strain that sometimes gave a full response despite its weakness, but still


It would be interesting to see if we could short cut the system and design/hybrid working B cells into a hosts body. Perhaps have our own B-cell dummies that are deliberately introduced to all this stuff, then the portions that seem to change from one to another are grafted (genetically) to an accepted cell from a recipient....


I know, this is probably sci-fi at this point, but it would be great to start taking Genetic Engineering and remove it from the land of Evil Voodoo that so many ignorant individuals seem to think it comes from ("Species", et all...).
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
there's indirect evidence in that you know that proper health and hygiene decreases likelihood of contracting disease. also, stress (chemical, emotional, and physical) decreases immune function, which also leads to contracting illness. so, based on those premises, an inference can be made. the lack of data on an argument doesn't mean it's invalid.

The key word is "net".

He isn't talking about washing your hands after a meal. We all know that things like stress lower immunal response, but I think what most people are saying here is that you are taking limited subject bases and trying to extrapolate them across the entire population, and statistically that is a no-no (much like the , what 12?, 12 person "study" on Autism and MMR.....

either way, i'm pretty sure there's plenty of data on hygiene being effective against keeping people healthy. i'm sure gibson can tell you all about it. research is certainly his area of expertise.

You miffed that up, You are leaning toward saying "bad hygiene" from keeping people healthy, as "hygiene" by itself implies good hygiene. Anyway, you are mixing your subjects up.

Also, Gibson does seem to know a bit on the subject, and grudgingly admitting it like it is somehow a flaw is uncool.

If you want a fight, keep going, but if you want to know what is probably really happening, be willing to accept things that are proven wrong and go and do more research into it on your own.

If people were unwilling to do that, if they always followed the popular fears, we would still be buring witches at childrens birthday parties.... :crosseyed: