Why Do People Get Flu Shots?
by Wilton D. Alston
by
Wilton D. Alston
DIGG THIS
"Scientific
medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances
in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious
diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunizations.
In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough,
etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available
– the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal,
and distribution of food and water."
~ Dr. Andrew Weil, Health
and Healing
A Canadian
comedy troop did a
very funny bit on flu shots a while ago. They listed the ingredients
in the typical flu shot, as they put them in a blender. During the
bit they also polled people "on the street" and asked
them some pretty basic questions about flu shots. Most people couldn’t
list the ingredients. The level of ignorance displayed made for
great comedy. Funny stuff!
Which brings
me to the question posed by this essay – why do people get
those shots?
The Upside
of Vaccinations – Dubious?
A good bit
of freely-available information paints a rather cautionary and contrary-to-mainstream-orthodoxy
picture of vaccinations. According to Vaccination
Debate, a private website based in Australia, there is little,
if any data-based support for the belief that vaccination is as
important as it is often portrayed to be. This is evident when one
examines the timing between the introduction of most vaccines and
the decrease in death rates for the diseases they supposedly fight.
While there are several examples of this phenomenon, I’ll only include
a couple below; note that year is plotted on the X-axis.
|
|
|
 |
I’m neither
an epidemiologist nor an immunologist, but this data – even though
taken from Australia – seems instructive on a number of levels.
Notice when the vaccine was deployed. Contrast that with the slope
of the curve. It seems pretty obvious that vaccination had little,
if any, effect on death rate. Then again, that’s exactly
what Dr. Weil says in the quote that heads this essay above. He’s
far from alone; but wait, there’s more.
Andrew Saul,
over at DoctorYourself.com
stated in a recent
newsletter:
"There
is plentiful evidence that vaccinations are less than beneficial.
The venerable British Anti-Vaccination League (and, incidentally,
George Bernard Shaw) was vociferously against them. Homeopathic
medical writers frequently include passages in their texts on
how to treat vaccinosis, or the side-effects of vaccinations
(Clarke, 1972). Certainly the U.S. Government cannot say without
qualification that shots are either safe or essential. After
all, this is what was said about the infamous Swine Flu vaccine
in a 1976 FDA Consumer Memo in my possession: ‘Some minor side
effects tenderness in the arm, low fever, tiredness will occur
in less than 4% of (vaccinated) adults. Serious reactions from
flu vaccines are very rare.’ So much for blanket claims of safety.
Many persons well remember the very numerous and very serious
side effects of Swine Flu vaccine that forced the federal immunization
program to a halt." [Boldface added.]
Dr. Joseph
Mercola, over at Mercola.com
asks in a not-so-recent
piece:
Do you want
any of the following vaccine constituents in YOUR bloodstream?
- Ethylene
glycol (antifreeze)
- Phenol,
also known as carbolic acid (this is used as a disinfectant, dye)
- Formaldehyde,
a known cancer-causing agent
- Aluminum,
which is associated with Alzheimer's disease and seizures and
also cancer producing in laboratory mice (it is used as an additive
to promote antibody response)
- Thimerosal
(a mercury disinfectant/preservative) can result in brain
injury and autoimmune disease
- Neomycin
and Streptomycin (used as antibiotics) have caused allergic
reaction in some people.
Vaccines
are also grown and strained through animal or human tissue like
monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo, embryonic guinea pig cells,
calf serum, and human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted
human fetuses as in the case of rubella, hepatitis A, and chickenpox
vaccines).
That thimerosal
has been banned in several countries while continuing to be
used, and in fact, promoted
by some doctors’ groups in the U.S. is also rather interesting.
From NewsTarget,
we have a piece that speaks to the "modest
benefit" one can expect from getting a flu shot:
"In
their review of 71 studies, Dr. Daniela Rivetti of the public
health department of Asti, Italy, and colleagues found that flu
shots prevented 45 percent of flu-like illnesses, hospital admissions
and flu-related deaths among nursing home and long-term care patients.
Flu vaccinations prevented only 25 percent of these outcomes in
older adults still living in the community."
NewsTarget
also recently reported on the results of a new British Medical Journal
analysis, which showed why, "Flu
Shots are Virtually Worthless." That article states:
"Dr.
Tom Jefferson, coordinator of the Cochrane Vaccines Field in Rome,
Italy, conducted an extensive review of previous studies on the
effectiveness of inactivated [dead virus] flu vaccines on hospital
admissions, death rates and time off work."
Dr. Jefferson
reports that while vaccine recommendations have actually increased
in recent years, the data shows that they are largely ineffective
in the populations for which they are most highly recommended. Not
surprisingly, others
have written about this report, as well.
Even the more
mainstream media reported that flu shots were "much ado about
nothing." Interestingly, the same Dr. Jefferson as quoted by
NewsTarget was quoted in an article originally linked (but not freely-available)
by Medline. I found the article on HealthCentral.com, entitled "Study
Questions Value of Flu Shots" via another source. That
article states:
"We've
got an exaggerated expectation of what vaccines can actually do,"
said study author Dr. Tom Jefferson. ... "I'm hoping American
and European taxpayers will be alerted and will start asking questions."
The article
goes on to say:
"Overall,
Jefferson concluded, influenza vaccines have little or no effect
on many influenza campaign objectives, such as hospital stay,
time off work, or death from influenza and its complications."
[Emphasis added.]
After all this
information, there can be little doubt that the usefulness of flu
shots is, at very least, questionable. That is the objective data
about the shot itself. Yet the establishment continues to push them.
Since I do not readily subscribe to the paradigm of random evil
in people, there must be some reason, other than ignorance,
that drives those with power and influence to support widespread
flu shots for the US population.
The Downside
of Vaccinations – Obvious?
The FDA
recommends vaccinations. Given my
impression of that organization, their recommendation alone
is almost tantamount to a suggestion to the contrary. The socialist
paradigm by which the FDA operates virtually guarantees that its
decisions won’t be in the best interest of "the customer."
As Manuel Lora and I said in that previous column:
"The
difference, however, between the market and the state is that
the latter lacks a negative feedback mechanism. In the market,
if a company makes a mistake, it can be severely punished by the
customers. With the government, no such thing happens. When the
FDA makes a mistake, it doesn't go away or downsize; it cannot
be boycotted or legally bypassed; one cannot seek alternate quality
control and certification systems. In fact, we are perpetually
tied to the FDA and any state agency through taxation. The state
has no incentive to be more effective by controlling cost or increasing
quality because it can always rely on a constant influx of funds."
We are virtually
assured that even demonstrably bad decisions will not be punished,
because externalization of risk is one inevitable outcome of a coercive
state.
The CDC
advises everyone to get
a shot, including both the young and the old. Yet I cannot find
much information that backs this need up with data. Medline showed
some positive data about flu shots and their effectiveness. An article
entitled, "Studies
Support Flu Vaccine’s Effectiveness" states:
"Using
surveillance data, the researchers predicted what the peak week
of influenza season would be. They also had parents answer questionnaires
about what symptoms, if any, they and their children were experiencing,
what medications they had purchased, and any doctor visits, missed
school or work days they had logged."
The article
goes on to say:
"The
team found a significant reduction in influenza-like illnesses
in both adults and children from households with a vaccinated
child compared to the non-vaccinated households. The researchers
also saw significantly fewer numbers of medical office visits,
lowered use of prescription and over-the-counter medications and
a reduction in missed school days by elementary and high-school
children in the vaccinated households."
Certainly this
is a positive recommendation, but a lukewarm one at best, given
the contrary data presented by The Lancet, et al. Not even
all mainstream news sources paint a rosy picture, as evidenced by
"Universal
Flu Shots Urged" published on-line a few years back in
by the National Women’s Health Resource Center. That article states:
"The
rationale for universal vaccination comes from the concept of
‘herd immunity,’ which posits that with more people vaccinated,
less overall virus circulates and people, especially frail people,
have less chance of contracting the illness."
The article
goes on to say:
"But
this argument comes on the heels of a study in The Lancet
that showed that even with people for whom the vaccine is most
recommended (the elderly), protection can be as low as 30 percent."
[Boldface added.]
So while one
can find some positive data from some of the mainstream,
there exists a not insignificant amount of data from both the mainstream
(e.g., The Lancet) and the not-so-mainstream (e.g., Dr. Mercola)
that question the usefulness and efficacy of flu shots. At best
it appears that one is opting to inject a foreign substance with
likely only 25–45% effectiveness while hoping that no side-effects
occur. (Anyone care to pay for the chance to play Russian roulette?)
Another researcher
in the article linked from HealthCentral.com says, "My message
is definitely go out there and get the flu vaccine if you're an
older individual."
But the CDC
also reports that only 36,000 people die from the infection each
year. Contrast that number with this little tidbit, found at Medical
News Today:
"An
average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable,
in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and
2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that
was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company."
It appears
pretty clear that anything one can do to stay out of the hospital
is a good first step. I still can’t find any reason to think vaccinations
are a critical component of a healthy lifestyle, unless we conclude
that something is better than nothing. That doesn’t sound like an
effective immunization strategy.
Using the numbers
above we see that over five times as many people will die
because they happen to be in the hospital and are unlucky enough
to experience a preventable error than will die from getting the
flu, if the vaccine itself doesn’t put them in the hospital. Seems
to me your chances are better on your own anyway, particularly given
the performance data.
According to
Mercola the myths
about vaccination have more efficacy than the vaccines themselves.
For example:
Myth:
Vaccines are safe.
Truth:
"Vaccination causes significant death and disability at an
astounding personal and financial cost to uninformed families."
Myth:
Vaccines are effective.
Truth:
"Evidence suggests that vaccination is an unreliable means
of preventing disease."
Myth:
Vaccines are responsible for the low incidence of disease in the
US.
Truth:
"It is unclear what impact, if any, that vaccines had on 19th
and 20th century infectious disease declines." (The graphs
above reflect this truth.)
Until these
types of myths are exposed for what they are – over-statements at
best, lies at worst – people will, I suspect, continue to line up
for flu shots and other vaccinations. Worse yet, many will opt for
voluntary vaccinations such as HPV, which is also unwise in my view.
The bulk of this behavior is due to heavy propagandization from
agents of the State. (Even as reports
of deaths from vaccine side-effects start to roll in, Merck
continues to lobby.) Why does this occur? It occurs for the same
old reasons. People continue to use the power of the State to enrich
themselves.
The Promotion
of Vaccinations – Profitable?
According to
Barbara
Fisher, who served for ten years on the US National Vaccine
Advisory Committee:
"We
have bad science and bad medicine translated into law to ensure
that vaccine manufacturers make big profits, that career bureaucrats
at the Public Health Service meet the mass vaccination goals promised
to politicians funding their budgets, and pediatricians have a
steady flow of patients…As the drug companies have often stated
in meetings I have attended, if a vaccine they produce is not
mandated to be used on a mass basis, they do not recoup their
R&D costs and do not make the profit they want. In the medical
literature official studies of vaccine risk are published purportedly
proving there is no cause and effect. What the reader does not
know is that often the studies have been designed and conducted
by physicians who sit on vaccine policy-making committees at the
Centers for Disease Control…some of whom receive money from vaccine
manufacturers for their universities and for testifying as expert
witnesses in vaccine-injury cases. And others are federal employees
with an eye on career advancement within HHS and a future job
with a vaccine manufacturer after retirement from public service.
Many of these same physicians sit on the peer review boards of
the major medical journals such as Pediatrics and JAMA, where
they refuse space for studies or letters from the few brave physicians
who dare to challenge their assertions that there is no cause
and effect."
From my own
experience in regulated medical device research and development,
I know that it is not uncommon for a manufacturer of diagnostic
tests to decide which tests to develop with an understanding (or
in fact, an expectation) that the State will mandate the
use of the new tests, and thereby furnish the manufacturer with
a steady stream of income. And let us be clear, this behavior is
not unethical, it is good business planning! (Now if one lobbies
on one end while developing items to sell as a result of that lobbying
on the other, well…) Still, this behavior is the inevitable
result of statist policies – regulation, mandates, etc. – distorting
the market.
For another
– if unrelated to vaccinations – example of the interplay that exists
between state control and misplaced incentives, one need only gaze
upon this tidbit: the
AMA is raking in about $70 million per year on licensing CPT codes.
CPT codes – current procedural terminology – are explained in a
Wiki entry which states:
"The
CPT code set accurately describes medical, surgical, and diagnostic
services and is designed to communicate uniform information about
medical services and procedures between physicians, coders, patients,
accreditation organizations, and payers for administrative, financial,
and analytical purposes."
The AMA holds
a copyright on the codes and licenses their use.
Basically,
the scam works like this. The CPT system is mandated by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and HIPAA,
and the data for it appears in the Federal Register. In order to
associate the Relative
Value Unit (RVU) – the common scale by which practically all
physician services are measured – with CPT codes, a fee must be
paid to the AMA. In other words, the State requires that
the CPT system be used, and the AMA scoops up the profits as a direct
result. (Nice work if you can get it.)
By controlling
access to the market, agents of the State simultaneously drive the
available offerings down and profits – for a select few – up. Now
certainly this all has little to do with flu shots specifically,
but misplaced statist incentives always lead to these types of outcomes.
This is but one example.
Further down
the text found at the CPT code citation above, under the heading,
"CDC Refuses to Deny Conflict of Interest on Vaccine Policy
Committee," we find that a doctor was giving "pro-vaccination"
lectures in exchange for money, money supplied by Merck, a vaccine
vendor. (What a surprise.) If Merck and the CDC can be asked directly
if such an arrangement is a conflict of interest, which they were,
and they refuse to answer that question, which they did, I suspect
we have all the answer we need.
Conclusion
We’ve uncovered
yet another place where data, logic, and common sense go directly
against the information spit out by the agents of the State.
(Really, it wasn’t that hard.) Of course this discovery is not surprising,
since basic logic virtually guarantees that the coercive powers
of the State will always be used to enrich some at the expense of
others. History is an unerring teacher in this regard. As Bastiat
so aptly put it, "The State is that great fictitious entity
by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Indeed.
I’m
not qualified to advise anyone about their health choices.
The reader is invited to decide for himself. It just strikes me
as a little strange and a little hazardous for anyone to place too
many of these decisions in the hands of the State or more accurately,
its agents, particularly for so little obvious benefit.
This is particularly
true when it appears that very little about your or my health and
wellness drives many, if not most, of their actions.
October
6, 2007
Wilt
Alston [send him
mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three
children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his
part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal
research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily
on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Wilton
D. Alston Archives
|