Nope. The last time I had the flu shot, I was in college and ended up, at home over the holidays, in the ER with a upper respiratory infection.
That was 15 years ago. I haven't had the shot since, I haven't gotten ill with flu/pulmonary issues since.
I used to get the flu shots by decree when I was in the Navy. Every stinking year they made me sick for 3 days or so. Aches, pains, chills, etc. Since 2009 no flu shots for me and thankfully no flu. I will not get one again, at least while I feel like I could survive it. I'll take the small chance of getting it over the 100% chance of getting sick from the shot anyday.
Toebra said:Curtis said:I've had the flu twice in the last 20 years. Once was about 20 years ago, then once was about 5 years ago when I got the flu shot.
I realize that the flu shot didn't give me the flu it just triggered some antibody reactions, but it was two weeks of feeling just like I had the flu.
From a practical standpoint, is there a difference between "getting the flu" and getting all the symptoms from the flu?
To a body's immune defense, yes. To my work schedule and how I feel, no.
Tom_Spangler said:IMO, anecdotal stories like the ones in this thread are of limited use when evaluating whether or not you should get one. I prefer to rely on the larger sample sizes cited by the CDC, AMA, and others. Established Medicine (tm) isn't always right, but it's right a whole lot more often than it's wrong these days.
I don't disagree, but the CDC and AMA both admit to it being a poor vaccine at best. The CDC right up front says something like "getting the flu shot is your best way to defend against the flu..." but then go on to say it only works on 4 out of 150 strains and is only X% effective.
Just because its the best way doesn't mean its a good way.
Toebra said:The autism vaccine thing is more from childhood vaccinations than the one for the flu, and is probably a load of crap. Guillain-Barré syndrome is what the flu vaccine can give you on rare occasions, or that is my understanding anyway.
I am a bit over 50, eat a healthy diet and am physically active. No medical problems or medications. I can count the number of times I have gotten sick since 1975 on one hand.
Got vaccinated for pretty much everything when I went in the Navy, bubonic plague, typhoid, pneumonia, flu, everything. Sick as a dog for a week.
5 years later, got food poisoning in college. Felt like I was going to die, afraid it would not happen fast enough. I can't recommend it as a weight loss technique, lost 20# in a week, sucked more than somewhat.
6 years after that, was compelled to get the flu shot going to grad school. Was too sick to get out of bed for 3 days. The following year they said I had to get the flu vaccine again. I declined. They told me I could not work in the clinic without the vaccination, and would not graduate if I did not work in the clinic. I told them I would sue them for the price of my education if they tried that, and they caved immediately.
10 and 12 years later, got food poisoning again on two different occasions, sick for a day each time.
So in the last 40 years have been sick 5 times. 3 times eating food someone else prepared, twice immediately after getting the flu shot.
With the lead time to produce the vaccine, they guess what the predominant variant of the virus will be next year, and make a vaccine for that. They guess wrong a fair amount, and I have gotten extremely sick every time I have gotten the flu vaccine. Consequently, I don't get the flu shot, ever.
So based on that thought you don’t need the protection a flu shot offers? OK but then please don’t be a carrier. In other words please don’t come in contact with the public. Because even if you don’t get sick you can carry it to others.
Curtis said:Tom_Spangler said:IMO, anecdotal stories like the ones in this thread are of limited use when evaluating whether or not you should get one. I prefer to rely on the larger sample sizes cited by the CDC, AMA, and others. Established Medicine (tm) isn't always right, but it's right a whole lot more often than it's wrong these days.
I don't disagree, but the CDC and AMA both admit to it being a poor vaccine at best. The CDC right up front says something like "getting the flu shot is your best way to defend against the flu..." but then go on to say it only works on 4 out of 150 strains and is only X% effective.
Just because its the best way doesn't mean its a good way.
I’m not sure what you are saying. Just because it’s not perfect people shouldn’t take precautions?
What if it makes you sick but saves your life? The flu does kill people. In fact the Spanish flu of 1918 killed more people than World War One did
In reply to frenchyd :
Like it or not, there is an economic cost to everything. Everyone's life has a certain number of dollar signs over it. Spending $500 on a racing helmet to save my life in the 1/100 chance I might have a hard accident on track makes sense, because my life is worth more than $50,000. But spending $100,000,000 to prevent 5 deaths does not, because no economist will tell you that a life is worth $20M. And we could better spend that $100M, and possibly make a lot more peoples' lives better.
The decision to get or not get a certain shot needs to be a logical one. If one's health is not the best, and they stand a greater- than- average chance of being killed by the flu, then a shot might make more sense. Or if they are constantly in contact with people who have weakened immune systems (i.e. nurses). My mom has to get the shot every year- she's an RN.
And also, the flu vaccine is not proven to be 100% safe. So it's not exactly like wearing vs not wearing your seatbelt. People get sick from getting the vaccine, miss work days, lost productivity, etc. It's not a cut and dry thing.
I'm not trying to change your mind, just open it a little. 
frenchyd said:So based on that thought you don’t need the protection a flu shot offers? OK but then please don’t be a carrier. In other words please don’t come in contact with the public. Because even if you don’t get sick you can carry it to others.
If you are vaccinated, why do you worry if other have not been? Carriers would mean nothing to you.
In reply to alfadriver :
Its really a numbers game. If only half of the population is vaccinated the other half can easily catch the flu. The more people with the flu the greater chance the flu mutates and can infect those already vaccinated.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse : I understand exactly what you are saying. It’s the reason school buses don’t have seatbelts.
School buses have an astonishing high safety record without seatbelts. If seatbelts were added the likelihood is more children would die than could be saved.
How? School buses have a habit of tipping over into water. In that situation children tend to panic and fail to release their seatbelts and would drown.
Doubt me? Watch Navy pilots ride the Dilbert dunker. Even though they are told what to do, what to expect, and how to do it. Some panic and need to be saved. In my flight class alone 3 failed to pass the Dilbert Dunker and that was in a warm swimming pool right after being told what to do
I’m glad you brought up helmets. I’ve never had any sort of accident where the helmet mattered. Yet every few years you have to buy a new one. Is that cost effective? Same with seat belts!
Yet Dale Earnhardt was killed in part because his new, inspected seat belt failed.
frenchyd said:In reply to alfadriver :
Its really a numbers game. If only half of the population is vaccinated the other half can easily catch the flu. The more people with the flu the greater chance the flu mutates and can infect those already vaccinated.
So the vaccination isn't effective? I thought being "immune" to the flu is the entire point of getting the flu shot. But you are are saying that people are not. So then what's the point, then? Numbers should not be an issue if you are immune to it.
They make a flu shot that they think is the flu of the year. Sometimes you get lucky and they nailed it, sometimes the flu changes and what you get isn't what you were shot for.
In reply to alfadriver :
When did the world get perfect? There are no absolutes in anything. We do the best we can and it’s better than nothing.
Do you really want to go back to the dark ages where all they have is leeches and bloodletting?
They cured polio here in America and many other serious and sometimes fatal diseases. Don’t dismiss smart hard working people’s efforts because it might not be perfect.
In reply to SkinnyG :
That’s about it but they get it right more often than not. Plus how do you know that’s the only flu? Maybe you got a mild flu but were protected from the bad one?
frenchyd said:Curtis said:Tom_Spangler said:IMO, anecdotal stories like the ones in this thread are of limited use when evaluating whether or not you should get one. I prefer to rely on the larger sample sizes cited by the CDC, AMA, and others. Established Medicine (tm) isn't always right, but it's right a whole lot more often than it's wrong these days.
I don't disagree, but the CDC and AMA both admit to it being a poor vaccine at best. The CDC right up front says something like "getting the flu shot is your best way to defend against the flu..." but then go on to say it only works on 4 out of 150 strains and is only X% effective.
Just because its the best way doesn't mean its a good way.
I’m not sure what you are saying. Just because it’s not perfect people shouldn’t take precautions?
What if it makes you sick but saves your life? The flu does kill people. In fact the Spanish flu of 1918 killed more people than World War One did
I'm saying that the effectiveness of the precaution is ridiculously low. Imagine if suddenly the principal at a school started handing out ziploc bags and telling kids that its the best way to prevent pregnancy. He/she is not allowed to give out condoms, birth control, or teach sex ed, so he/she think they're helping. If the Ziplocs are 10% effective, they might prevent a few pregnancies. Instead, it gives kids a bulletproof false sense of safety. Suddenly you have half of your female students pregnant and 40% of them have a VD.
The flu shot's effective rate is right around 50%. That's published by the vaccine manufacturers, the CDC, and the AMA. The shot costs them $10-15 to make (source: LA Times) but they get anywhere from $30-300 compensation for it.
The other part that ticks me off is that vaccines are not designed with the individual or the population as the end-game. They sell it to you like that... quality of life and all... but the truth is, a vaccine (medically speaking) should NOT be a vaccine unless the end game is elimination of the virus to a certain level. Polio, Measels, Mumps... all still exist, but you never hear about any cases anymore. Its because they made an effective vaccine. A poor vaccine just pushes a virus around its evolutionary development. A vaccine is supposed to take on the virus, not just be a nice way for a few people to not get a flu. It is doing nothing to benefit the population.
I'm normally pro-vaccine. I think its a bit selfish to not get vaccinated for the big ones, because if you become a carrier you're screwing the rest of us. In the case of the flu vaccine, I am not. It shouldn't even be classified as a vaccine in my opinion. It should never have been approved for market. It is so far below the realm of effective that all it does is make people feel invincible (oh I can't have the flu because I was vaccinated, so I'll go to work even though I have a cold... suddenly your entire office has H3N2 influenza)
As I said before, people at risk should probably get the flu shot so they personally don't die, but the flu shot is not only ineffective, it is hyped up to be something it isn't to prevent a disease that most people equate with a really bad cold. They get a cough and a fever and they assume its the flu so they get a shot to prevent something they mistook for the flu.
Get it, don't get it, I don't care. I just hate the fact that it's called a vaccine when its primary purpose is not truly for vaccination in the truest sense. Polio. That vaccine was so effective at vaccination (getting rid of the problem) that we no longer vaccinate for it. We effectively got rid of it.
I also have to call "apples and oranges" on the spanish flu reference. In 1918, many doctors were still trying to cure the flu with blood-letting and leeches. Its not that a greater number of people died because of the flu, its because it was 100 years ago and we didn't have the medicine we do today.
On the average, 36,000 people die from flu-related things each year. Sounds like a big number, but its actually tiny. More people die from Nephrosis. When was the last time you knew someone with Nephrosis? And, the CDC reports that almost no one died from "the flu," they died because they had already compromised liver, kidney, lymph, or immune systems. The flu virus itself doesn't kill you. Resultant organ and tissue failure in compromised individuals does. That is why I say get it if you know the flu might cause you to have peripheral complications.
The whole point of vaccines being a good thing is because it nips the disease in the bud and prevents it in the first place. It helps populations be reducing it at patient zero. The flu vaccine is so ineffective that its like using a catcher's mitt to try and stop 150,000 baseballs flying at you.
Even if you move past my complete distrust of the vaccine because of its pathetic numbers, once you add in the full-court press by the pharmacorps to line their pockets anyway, I just walk away.
frenchyd said:In reply to alfadriver :
When did the world get perfect? There are no absolutes in anything. We do the best we can and it’s better than nothing.
Do you really want to go back to the dark ages where all they have is leeches and bloodletting?
They cured polio here in America and many other serious and sometimes fatal diseases. Don’t dismiss smart hard working people’s efforts because it might not be perfect.
I never said perfect. I said effective.
You do realize that even though YOU are immunized, you, too, can carry the virus. The only difference is that you don't get sick (in theory).
You suggest that people who are not getting the shot should not go out in public because you might get sick, but you can get sick from someone who was immunized just as easily. You can't be afraid of those not immunized anymore than people who are for your personal health. It's the same risk.
And, like Curtis is pointing out, one has to calculate effectiveness vs risk and cost. I've gotten a tetanus shot AND I've gotten the whole series of rabies shots. So don't put words into my mouth.
It's also why I specifically asked if the virus that was gotten was tested to see if the flu shot would be effective against it or not.
alfadriver said:frenchyd said:So based on that thought you don’t need the protection a flu shot offers? OK but then please don’t be a carrier. In other words please don’t come in contact with the public. Because even if you don’t get sick you can carry it to others.
If you are vaccinated, why do you worry if other have not been? Carriers would mean nothing to you.
In the case of something like Measles, it matters a lot. I'm vaccinated. So if you aren't and get Measels, no big deal, right? Not true. The disease itself is being held at bay and can't make genetic variations if it isn't reproducing
A metaphor:
Let's say you have a species of hornets that causes deadly stings in 10% of those it stings. (a virus) Every time they reproduce, genetic mutations raise that number by 10% so the next generation of bees have stings that are lethal to 20% (like the virus altering itself into new strains). So you go around and catch all but a few Hornets of that species and put them in a box. (create a vaccine that prevents the virus from reproducing and making new strains). Now almost no one dies from those Hornet stings. The hornets are very unlikely to reproduce (virus without a host can't replicate and make new strains) so any hornet stings won't have any more than a 20% chance of killing you.
Now hand the box to a really curious person and don't tell them what's in the box (like an anti-vaxxer who doesn't know the real facts behind something before they chose to NOT get vaccinated). They open the box and we're back to square one. We have to catch all the hornets again, but not before they have made 5 new generations and now you are 60% likely to die if you're stung. The old vaccination has very little effectiveness.
Let's say you were vaccinated at birth for Measles. Now that X decades have passed, some anti-vax mom decides that her kid shouldn't have it and her kid gets the Measles. Its a new strain, the other millions of anti-vax kids get it too, and your immune response to it from your vaccination might mean jack squat. You might get a new strain of Measles that isn't even recognized by your immune system because someone opened a box of hornets.
The point of a vaccine is to slow or halt the progress of the virus. As soon as you give it a population of hosts, its a whole new ball game. Its not like there is one Measles disease, there are hundreds. We effectively made a vaccine that reduced the number of viable hosts in a way that overcame the disease's ability to succeed. The flu virus does not. It is like trying to catch sand in a sifter.
So get it or don't. In the case of a true vaccine like Measles, it has huge ramifications on the entire population. In the case of the flu vaccine, it has a 50% chance of maybe helping an individual by not missing days of work and feeling like crap. In the case of Measles, it works because nearly everyone was vaccinated with a highly effective medicine. In the case of the flu virus (even if we required every person to get the shot), it wouldn't be effective.
Vaccines like Polio and Measles were effective for two reasons: Everyone got them, and they were highly effective. The flu vaccine is ineffective because not very many people get them and its only half effective. Therefore it doesn't even fit the description of a vaccine. The pharma companies don't even call it a vaccine, they call it a shot. I'm all for vaccines. I just don't consider the flu shot to be a vaccine. I consider it to be a brilliant capitalist marketing scheme. Its the iPhone of medicine. A vaccine is for the good of the population. The flu shot is for the good of the individual.
What you're basically saying is, "I don't throw my trash in the street, so why should I care if you do?" You'll start caring when the rats and disease start affecting you.
In reply to Curtis :
Fair enough but I suspect ( without doing any research) that the rewards are greater than 50%
I know I’ve gotten a flu shot for the last 5 years and even though I’m exposed to hundreds of kids with the flu I haven’t gotten the flu.
Once I got the pneumonia shot I’ve stopped getting pneumonia
You and I share a distrust in big Pharma. Having said that every day I take pills that big Pharma developed and make my life better.
I suffer from acid reflux no matter my diet or excercise level. Normally I would have been on the table while they tried to fix my ulcer. Instead I’ve lived almost 40 years taking a pill every day. It’s nice that genetic Prilosec costs less than a third of Prilosec.
My brother is a doctor, pretty fancy one too. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Rhoads scholarship, Mayo Clinic etc. he and I can battle back and forth about big Pharma but one thing we agree on is spending $30 for a shot to avoid thousands of dollars worth of lost income.
In reply to Curtis :
I was meaning in the overall context of the flu shot, so.... But I get your point- the only shot I don't get is flu.
frenchyd said:In reply to alfadriver :
When did the world get perfect? There are no absolutes in anything. We do the best we can and it’s better than nothing.
Do you really want to go back to the dark ages where all they have is leeches and bloodletting?
They cured polio here in America and many other serious and sometimes fatal diseases. Don’t dismiss smart hard working people’s efforts because it might not be perfect.
Polio has not been "cured" anywhere, it is prevented by the vaccination and has become rare in North America. The flu vaccine is not an innocuous thing. They get it wrong, with alarming frequency. The reports here are anecdotal, it does not follow that they are entirely specious reports. These are not thoughts, they are experiences.
Best we can do is not always better than nothing. You are the only one talking about perfect. Nobody is being dismissive, aside from you.
Leeches still have a place in medicine, BTW. Ask your smart brother about their use in vascular surgery.
frenchyd said:In reply to Curtis :
Fair enough but I suspect ( without doing any research) that the rewards are greater than 50%
I know I’ve gotten a flu shot for the last 5 years and even though I’m exposed to hundreds of kids with the flu I haven’t gotten the flu.
Once I got the pneumonia shot I’ve stopped getting pneumonia
You and I share a distrust in big Pharma. Having said that every day I take pills that big Pharma developed and make my life better.
I suffer from acid reflux no matter my diet or excercise level. Normally I would have been on the table while they tried to fix my ulcer. Instead I’ve lived almost 40 years taking a pill every day. It’s nice that genetic Prilosec costs less than a third of Prilosec.
My brother is a doctor, pretty fancy one too. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Rhoads scholarship, Mayo Clinic etc. he and I can battle back and forth about big Pharma but one thing we agree on is spending $30 for a shot to avoid thousands of dollars worth of lost income.
The 50% rewards are actual published numbers from the CDC, AMA, and multiple medical journals. The best number I ever saw was 2012 when they rated the vaccine as 63% effective.
I also pretty much guarantee that 90% of those kids had a nasty cold and not the flu. The flu (actual infection from one of the 150 known strains of the influenza virus) is not easy to diagnose.
I have had the flu shot once and didn't get the flu (although it triggered some symptoms). I have had the flu once in my life that was actually diagnosed and tested as flu.
Its amazing to me how many times people get a bad cold and say its the flu. Not saying you are one of them, just that nearly everyone I know gets a shot which only has a 1 in 2 chance of preventing an illness they likely wouldn't have contracted anyway. They don't get the shot and have three colds that winter. One of them was really bad, so they say it was the flu. So the next year they get the shot and have the same three colds, but thank goodness none of them were the flu, so they keep getting the shot.
I hear you about the reflux. I've had a hiatal hernia since 1995 and have been on Prilosec up until last year. I quit taking it mostly due to some money troubles (insurance won't cover something available OTC) and switched back to Tums. I'm biding my time until they come up with a viable surgery to correct it and hoping I don't get esophageal cancer in the meantime, or that my liver wasn't fried during the 20 years I took Prilosec.
Ranitidine. Walmart it up, Curtis. If you can't afford almost free, stop smoking.
In reply to Curtis : the generic version of Prilosec is about $22 for three bottles of pills at Walgreen.
About what you spend on Tums and I can tell you Tums don’t work as well. My acid reflux eventually scarred my throat bad enough that food would get stuck and it took a procedure To be removed.
After about six such procedures that require a specialist I started taking Prilosec. My insurance covers it.
alfadriver said:In reply to wearymicrobe :
Since you've been to the hospital, were the doctors able to test the virus you had to check if this year's vaccination would be effective or not?
Got the news today. It would have been effective which explains the fact tht my wife is sull alive and has not stabbed me with something dull.
Did not want to start a vaccine discussion FYI. Just wanted to tell people it was coming hard this year.
Dr. Hess said:Ranitidine. Walmart it up, Curtis. If you can't afford almost free, stop smoking.
I would but it doesn't work for me.
I did stop smoking about a year ago. I also stopped caffeine, sodas, tomatoes, and all other foods that tend to aggravate it. The problem I have is that I have a defect in my body. A hernia. Can't fix a hernia with ranitidine or tums.
You'll need to log in to post.
