The flu shot is modestly effective at preventing or reducing the health consequences of getting the flu. Most people handle it with hardly any adverse effects. A small number of people will absolutely have significant adverse or life threatening effects each year, but the shot is much more effective than it is dangerous in the average person. If you are someone who has had a bad response to the flu shot, you should definitely not get another one. But it is a bad idea to make general recommendations about the flu shot based on the experience of a small handful of people.

All medical therapies hurt someone, somewhere down the line. If we based all our treatment choices on whether anyone ever had an adverse reaction to a therapy, nobody would ever be treated for anything.

How does a person determine in advance that they are an 'average person' and won't be subject to paralysis as a result of Guillen-Barre Syndrome?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I kind of hinted at the same in a previous post.

They created a Vaccine that seems like it does have serious bad side effects for some People.

People like Myself don’t want the Vaccine so they have to find some way to sell it so they are requiring who ever they can to take it.
They also try to create a mindset (fear) to make People believe that the have to have this Vaccine so they can sell it.

The Doctors want to know if the Vaccine works.
I think part of the reason a lot of Doctors are on board with this is that they need us to be the Guinea Pigs.

Each time the Virus changes the Vaccine has to change; so, the next Vaccine is as if it was a new Drug on the Market. Unlike with Drugs there is no time for clinical Trials.

This means when you receive the Vaccine you Yourself are the test Subject.

When you have a bad side effect the Doctors are going to say that it is not proven that the Vaccine caused your problem. And, it is indeed not proven because they simply do not know what is going to happen to every Person who receives the Vaccine.

Is the Employer that insists on the Flu Shots going to accept liability and care for what happens to the Employee if there is a side effect that damages the Employee?
I think most of use know that the Employer is going to denie that what ever happened is a result of the Flu Shot.
In a Law Suit it is up to the one suing to prove that the Flu Shot caused the problem. And, of course the individual does not having extensive Lab Facilities is not going to be able to do that.

They would only be able to gather evidenced that is not yet clear that the Flu Immunizations do appear to cause some illnesses or conditions.
And, the Employer escapes Liability.

The Vaccine Company gets the Employer to offer the Vaccine for free and still most of the People don't want it.
It would really be interesting to listen to what the Vaccine Company Sales Department comes up with to get Folks to take the Vaccine.

It might also be that the Medical Insurance Companies are pushing the Vaccine thinking it will cost them less to Vaccinate than to treat People that get complications from the Flu.

__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel

I have not read of any way to pre-determine if some one is going to be susceptible to getting Guillen-Barre Syndrome in their normal life or after being vaccinated for the Flu.

__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel

Yeah, it was a rhetorical question.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

So the Empolyer has the rule get the Flu Vaccine or you are fired.
You have 2 Heath Care Workers. One has the Egg Allergy and cannot take the Vaccine.
The other one refuses the Vaccine.
So what does the Employer do; fire the one who refuses the Vaccine and continue to let the Health Care Worker with the Allergy to the Vaccine work and expose Patients to a cance of catching the Flu from Him or Her?
Or does that mean the Employer should fire both Employees?

__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel

Small number of adverse reactions?

Flu shot doing poor job of protecting older people

"ATLANTA (AP) — It turns out this year's flu shot is doing a startlingly dismal job of protecting older people, the most vulnerable age group.

The vaccine is proving only 9 percent effective in those 65 and older against the harsh strain of the flu that is predominant this season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.

Health officials are baffled as to why this is so. But the findings help explain why so many older people have been hospitalized with the flu this year.

Despite the findings, the CDC stood by its recommendation that everyone over 6 months get flu shots, the elderly included, because some protection is better than none, and because those who are vaccinated and still get sick may suffer less severe symptoms.

"Year in and year out, the vaccine is the best protection we have," said CDC flu expert Dr. Joseph Bresee.

Overall, across the age groups studied, the vaccine's effectiveness was found to be a moderate 56 percent, which means those who got a shot have a 56 percent lower chance of winding up at the doctor with the flu. That is somewhat worse than what has been seen in other years.

For those 65 and older, the vaccine was only 27 percent effective against the three strains it is designed to protect against, the worst level in about a decade. It did a particularly poor job against the tough strain that is causing more than three-quarters of the illnesses this year.

It is well known that flu vaccine tends to protect younger people better than older ones. Elderly people have weaker immune systems that don't respond as well to flu shots, and they are more vulnerable to the illness and its complications, including pneumonia.

But health officials said they don't know why this year's vaccine did so poorly in that age group.

One theory, as yet unproven, is that older people's immune systems were accustomed to strains from the last two years and had more trouble switching gears to handle this year's different, harsh strain.

The preliminary data for senior citizens is less than definitive. It is based on fewer than 300 people scattered among five states.

But it will no doubt surprise many people that the effectiveness is that low, said Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota infectious-disease expert who has tried to draw attention to the need for a more effective flu vaccine.

Among infectious diseases, flu is considered one of the nation's leading killers. On average, about 24,000 Americans die each flu season, according to the CDC.

This flu season started in early December, a month earlier than usual, and peaked by the end of year. Hospitalization rates for people 65 and older have been some of the highest in a decade, at 146 per 100,000 people.

Flu viruses tend to mutate more quickly than others, so a new vaccine is formulated each year to target the strains expected to be the major threats. CDC officials have said that in formulating this year's vaccine, scientists accurately anticipated the strains that are circulating this season.

Because of the guesswork involved, scientists tend to set a lower bar for flu vaccine. While childhood vaccines against diseases like measles are expected to be 90 or 95 percent effective, a flu vaccine that's 60 to 70 percent effective in the U.S. is considered pretty good. By that standard, this year's vaccine is OK.

For senior citizens, a flu vaccine is considered pretty good if it's in the 30 to 40 percent range, said Dr. Arnold Monto, a University of Michigan flu expert.

A high-dose version of the flu shot was recently made available for those 65 and older, but the new study was too small to show whether that has made a difference.

The CDC estimates are based on about 2,700 people who got sick in December and January. The researchers traced back to see who had gotten shots and who hadn't. An earlier, smaller study put the vaccine's overall effectiveness at 62 percent, but other factors that might have influenced that figure weren't taken into account.

The CDC's Bresee said there is a danger in providing preliminary results because it may result in people doubting — or skipping — flu shots. But the figures were released to warn older people who got shots that they may still get sick and shouldn't ignore any serious flu-like symptoms, he said.ATLANTA (AP) — It turns out this year's flu shot is doing a startlingly dismal job of protecting older people, the most vulnerable age group.

The vaccine is proving only 9 percent effective in those 65 and older against the harsh strain of the flu that is predominant this season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.

Health officials are baffled as to why this is so. But the findings help explain why so many older people have been hospitalized with the flu this year.

Despite the findings, the CDC stood by its recommendation that everyone over 6 months get flu shots, the elderly included, because some protection is better than none, and because those who are vaccinated and still get sick may suffer less severe symptoms.

"Year in and year out, the vaccine is the best protection we have," said CDC flu expert Dr. Joseph Bresee.

Overall, across the age groups studied, the vaccine's effectiveness was found to be a moderate 56 percent, which means those who got a shot have a 56 percent lower chance of winding up at the doctor with the flu. That is somewhat worse than what has been seen in other years.

For those 65 and older, the vaccine was only 27 percent effective against the three strains it is designed to protect against, the worst level in about a decade. It did a particularly poor job against the tough strain that is causing more than three-quarters of the illnesses this year.

It is well known that flu vaccine tends to protect younger people better than older ones. Elderly people have weaker immune systems that don't respond as well to flu shots, and they are more vulnerable to the illness and its complications, including pneumonia.

But health officials said they don't know why this year's vaccine did so poorly in that age group.

One theory, as yet unproven, is that older people's immune systems were accustomed to strains from the last two years and had more trouble switching gears to handle this year's different, harsh strain.

The preliminary data for senior citizens is less than definitive. It is based on fewer than 300 people scattered among five states.

But it will no doubt surprise many people that the effectiveness is that low, said Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota infectious-disease expert who has tried to draw attention to the need for a more effective flu vaccine.

Among infectious diseases, flu is considered one of the nation's leading killers. On average, about 24,000 Americans die each flu season, according to the CDC.

This flu season started in early December, a month earlier than usual, and peaked by the end of year. Hospitalization rates for people 65 and older have been some of the highest in a decade, at 146 per 100,000 people.

Flu viruses tend to mutate more quickly than others, so a new vaccine is formulated each year to target the strains expected to be the major threats. CDC officials have said that in formulating this year's vaccine, scientists accurately anticipated the strains that are circulating this season.

Because of the guesswork involved, scientists tend to set a lower bar for flu vaccine. While childhood vaccines against diseases like measles are expected to be 90 or 95 percent effective, a flu vaccine that's 60 to 70 percent effective in the U.S. is considered pretty good. By that standard, this year's vaccine is OK.

For senior citizens, a flu vaccine is considered pretty good if it's in the 30 to 40 percent range, said Dr. Arnold Monto, a University of Michigan flu expert.

A high-dose version of the flu shot was recently made available for those 65 and older, but the new study was too small to show whether that has made a difference.

The CDC estimates are based on about 2,700 people who got sick in December and January. The researchers traced back to see who had gotten shots and who hadn't. An earlier, smaller study put the vaccine's overall effectiveness at 62 percent, but other factors that might have influenced that figure weren't taken into account.

The CDC's Bresee said there is a danger in providing preliminary results because it may result in people doubting — or skipping — flu shots. But the figures were released to warn older people who got shots that they may still get sick and shouldn't ignore any serious flu-like symptoms, he said."

__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel