gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: Hereiam on January 08, 2018, 09:33:57 AM

Title: Aussie Flu
Post by: Hereiam on January 08, 2018, 09:33:57 AM
What is the craic with this flu is it just media scaremongering or is it a real treat to healthy people
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: WT4E on January 08, 2018, 09:53:03 AM
Very real - Pomeroy Plunketts GAA in mourning this morning as one of their senior footballers passed away early this morning - Reports it was Aussie Flu.

Very sad.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2018, 10:01:58 AM
Bad all over, had a doctor in with me last week and she said that they are coming down with it in both the clinics she works at in Belfast and its not the usual run of the mill flu.. Ive a very bad cold at the minute so I hope it doesnt get any worse as afriend of mine, his wife has been struck down for 8 days...
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: haranguerer on January 08, 2018, 10:18:10 AM
Very real - Pomeroy Plunketts GAA in mourning this morning as one of their senior footballers passed away early this morning - Reports it was Aussie Flu.

Very sad.

I doubt that, unless another condition exacerbated the situation greatly - its still flu, won't be fatal unless other factors involved
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: blewuporstuffed on January 08, 2018, 10:19:29 AM
Very real - Pomeroy Plunketts GAA in mourning this morning as one of their senior footballers passed away early this morning - Reports it was Aussie Flu.

Very sad.

I doubt that, unless another condition exacerbated the situation greatly

Apparently it was, led to some heart complications.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2018, 08:11:39 PM
Just read about this young mans death, on social media, very sad.. RIP
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 08, 2018, 08:12:49 PM
The so called "Aussie flu" is the flu that was here last year (A1 strain???). If you've got the flu jab you're covered. There's another strain here this year (B1 I think) that the flu jab only gives limited cover to and is a nasty dose too. Apparently it's 50/50 between the two which is supposedly unusual. It's not too late to get the flu jab. Next 4-6 weeks will see a lot of the virus....I'm getting the jab tomorrow. I usually have got it but so one reason or another haven't got it yet this winter.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2018, 08:27:41 PM
The so called "Aussie flu" is the flu that was here last year (A1 strain???). If you've got the flu jab you're covered. There's another strain here this year (B1 I think) that the flu jab only gives limited cover to and is a nasty dose too. Apparently it's 50/50 between the two which is supposedly unusual. It's not too late to get the flu jab. Next 4-6 weeks will see a lot of the virus....I'm getting the jab tomorrow. I usually have got it but so one reason or another haven't got it yet this winter.

Too young and fit to get the jab!
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Puckoon on January 08, 2018, 11:22:38 PM
The so called "Aussie flu" is the flu that was here last year (A1 strain???). If you've got the flu jab you're covered. There's another strain here this year (B1 I think) that the flu jab only gives limited cover to and is a nasty dose too. Apparently it's 50/50 between the two which is supposedly unusual. It's not too late to get the flu jab. Next 4-6 weeks will see a lot of the virus....I'm getting the jab tomorrow. I usually have got it but so one reason or another haven't got it yet this winter.

Too young and fit to get the jab!

Wrong.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 09, 2018, 06:23:03 AM
At the risk of being thrown in the dungeon as an antivaxer..... Ive a few questions

Is there any good reason for not getting a flu shot?
Is there any point to putting a load of chemicals, preservatives and other crap into my body that I probably wont need?
Do medical professionals play it save and use the law of averages for the population when dealing with individuals and thereby declare that pretty much everyone should get it.
Am I making my immune system weaker in the long term?
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 09, 2018, 08:11:19 AM
I'm not a scientist so I think you should maybe read some peer reviewed reliable information on this topic. My answers to your questions below in order. I'm open to correction but I'd be confident enough in my answers.

I don't see any reason not to get it.

I don't believe the description of the contents of the dose you give below are accurate from my understanding of vaccines. As for the "probably won't need" comment - it's not possible to quantify but I'd say it's more and more likely you will need your flu immunity boosted.

I would say definitely not in this case. To be fair, that's not how most of them think. They target those most at risk and encourage them to get vaccinated.

There's no way you're making your immune system weaker. You're making it stronger.



At the risk of being thrown in the dungeon as an antivaxer..... Ive a few questions

Is there any good reason for not getting a flu shot?
Is there any point to putting a load of chemicals, preservatives and other crap into my body that I probably wont need?
Do medical professionals play it save and use the law of averages for the population when dealing with individuals and thereby declare that pretty much everyone should get it.
Am I making my immune system weaker in the long term?
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Puckoon on January 09, 2018, 04:04:29 PM
At the risk of being thrown in the dungeon as an antivaxer..... Ive a few questions

Is there any good reason for not getting a flu shot?
Is there any point to putting a load of chemicals, preservatives and other crap into my body that I probably wont need?
Do medical professionals play it save and use the law of averages for the population when dealing with individuals and thereby declare that pretty much everyone should get it.
Am I making my immune system weaker in the long term?

None

Rather angled description of the vaccine. Think of a flu shot as insurance for your car/home. Hopefully you never need those either but you avail of their protection. The flu shot usually has the virus itself. That virus is deactivated by miniscule amounts of formaldehyde. Yes. Sounds scary and awful but itís in the parts per tens of millions. Usually thereís an adjuvant like aluminum, again the PPM range. Then thereís some gelatin. A common stabilizer which keeps the vaccine suitable for use between manufacture and administration. Itís usually porcine gelatin so many vaccines will come with a warning for those with pork allergies.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 09, 2018, 04:36:01 PM
At the risk of being thrown in the dungeon as an antivaxer..... Ive a few questions

Is there any good reason for not getting a flu shot?
Is there any point to putting a load of chemicals, preservatives and other crap into my body that I probably wont need?
Do medical professionals play it save and use the law of averages for the population when dealing with individuals and thereby declare that pretty much everyone should get it.
Am I making my immune system weaker in the long term?

None

Rather angled description of the vaccine. Think of a flu shot as insurance for your car/home. Hopefully you never need those either but you avail of their protection. The flu shot usually has the virus itself. That virus is deactivated by miniscule amounts of formaldehyde. Yes. Sounds scary and awful but itís in the parts per tens of millions. Usually thereís an adjuvant like aluminum, again the PPM range. Then thereís some gelatin. A common stabilizer which keeps the vaccine suitable for use between manufacture and administration. Itís usually porcine gelatin so many vaccines will come with a warning for those with pork allergies.

Wish I had pork allergies over xmas!

So can anyone avail of the flu jab? I thought the very young and the old only
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: playwiththewind1st on January 09, 2018, 04:52:21 PM
I was working for one of the Councils & they offered it free of charge to all staff through Boot's every winter. Presumably cheaper than having staff going off sick. If you went a full year without going off sick, you got an extra day's leave. Two or more sick free years & you got a max. of 2 additional days' leave.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: BennyCake on January 09, 2018, 05:03:37 PM
Over a winter there are numerous strains of flu. A flu in October will be different to one in March. How can the jab cover all strains? It can't.

I won't be getting a jab. I think they do far more harm than good.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 09, 2018, 05:06:00 PM
Over a winter there are numerous strains of flu. A flu in October will be different to one in March. How can the jab cover all strains? It can't.

I won't be getting a jab. I think they do far more harm than good.


You couldn't be more wrong. Ridiculous statement to come out with when you have zero evidence to support it.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: BennyCake on January 09, 2018, 05:09:46 PM
Over a winter there are numerous strains of flu. A flu in October will be different to one in March. How can the jab cover all strains? It can't.

I won't be getting a jab. I think they do far more harm than good.


You couldn't be more wrong. Ridiculous statement to come out with when you have zero evidence to support it.

Well, is anything in my first paragraph incorrect?

And where's your evidence supporting the jab being good for stopping the flu?
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: playwiththewind1st on January 09, 2018, 05:17:07 PM
As far as I know, it's not meant to prevent all strains of flu & it can't. They look at what was the most prevalent strain in the southern hemisphere's winter & they base it on that, in the hope of preventing a fair percentage of recipients getting the flu during the following northern hemisphere winter.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: lenny on January 09, 2018, 05:32:16 PM
Over a winter there are numerous strains of flu. A flu in October will be different to one in March. How can the jab cover all strains? It can't.

I won't be getting a jab. I think they do far more harm than good.


You couldn't be more wrong. Ridiculous statement to come out with when you have zero evidence to support it.

Well, is anything in my first paragraph incorrect?

And where's your evidence supporting the jab being good for stopping the flu?

What's your theory then? The doctors and pharmaceutical companies in a big conspiracy to sell flu vaccines? The flu jab is given because it works. Vaccines are the only defence we have against viruses and they work very well.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: rosnarun on January 09, 2018, 05:35:08 PM
Over a winter there are numerous strains of flu. A flu in October will be different to one in March. How can the jab cover all strains? It can't.

I won't be getting a jab. I think they do far more harm than good.


You couldn't be more wrong. Ridiculous statement to come out with when you have zero evidence to support it.

Well, is anything in my first paragraph incorrect?

And where's your evidence supporting the jab being good for stopping the flu?

not incorrect but incomplete.
every year they update the flu jab with all new known strains so next year the jab will protect against the aussie flu. the cant inoculate against something that hasn't been seen yet . and as for the lad worried about chemicals you need to revise your basic science. but as long as the rest of us get the jab you should be fine .
your welcome
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Puckoon on January 09, 2018, 05:40:57 PM
At the risk of being thrown in the dungeon as an antivaxer..... Ive a few questions

Is there any good reason for not getting a flu shot?
Is there any point to putting a load of chemicals, preservatives and other crap into my body that I probably wont need?
Do medical professionals play it save and use the law of averages for the population when dealing with individuals and thereby declare that pretty much everyone should get it.
Am I making my immune system weaker in the long term?

None

Rather angled description of the vaccine. Think of a flu shot as insurance for your car/home. Hopefully you never need those either but you avail of their protection. The flu shot usually has the virus itself. That virus is deactivated by miniscule amounts of formaldehyde. Yes. Sounds scary and awful but itís in the parts per tens of millions. Usually thereís an adjuvant like aluminum, again the PPM range. Then thereís some gelatin. A common stabilizer which keeps the vaccine suitable for use between manufacture and administration. Itís usually porcine gelatin so many vaccines will come with a warning for those with pork allergies.

Wish I had pork allergies over xmas!

So can anyone avail of the flu jab? I thought the very young and the old only

Canít speak for at home but yes in the US anyone can, and should get vaccinated. I get it every year (in honesty I havenít this year yet as Iíve just not been organized enough). Many employers bring a team onsite for their employees or you can get it in any pharmacy or doctors office.

If you think about it, the less people with the flu - the better off the very young and the very old are.

Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Main Street on January 09, 2018, 07:06:34 PM
The effects of a  flu vaccine are only observed on flu vaxxed people and afaics those claims for positive effects are extremely dubious and exhibit some of the worst of bad science and dogma.

When researchers observe what happens to vaccinated folk,  they offer a claimed efficacy value of the vaccine,  it was 10% in Australia recently, last year in the USA a 30% or 40% efficacy was claimed, Those are worthless figures. Why even use the term efficacy when inefficiency is the more germane term? That smacks of deception. And even with those 10% or 30% or 40%  who  do not develop  recognised flu symptoms,  how can anyone claim with a remote degree of certainty that the flu shot made any positive difference to them not developing the flu symptoms?

So why not compare results of  flu vaxxed to non-flu vaxxed? That's not done because the argument offered is that it would be unethical, that it would put people at unnecessary risk. Firstly that argument assumes the flu vaccine has more positive than negative  effects, long before that fact could be even determined in real life experience and secondly the supporting argument for that "ethical" position is the children's seat test, as in, would you put children at risk just to  prove in real tests that a children's seat & belt is more safe in a car than not.
What a stupid argument that is, firstly we can observe statistics, observe real comparisons that have already happened in accidents and also we can do (almost) real tests with dummies.
The flu vaccine is not compared to no vaccine use in real life  because the flu vaccine is assumed to be be superior,  therefore there's no need to do the only real comparison test  that could support that assumed claimed superiority.  Flu vaccine catch 22.
And when the flu vaxx has less efficacy than claimed, the virus is blamed for mutating, the crafty devious bugger, not the bad science of attempted  artificial immunity, which in any event the body doesn't learn from and memorise.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 09, 2018, 07:51:52 PM
Puck you obviously know what youíre on about here and admittedly I know sweet FA about the vaccine and in a way I suppose thats my biggest worry. But I also dont believe that medical science knows that much about its side effects either.
To put this in context I avoid processed foods like the plague for my family as I inherently think their affects are far too complex to be known with current science especially on the digestive, immune and endocrine systems. The complexity is caused by linking the substances in processed foods, to how our body processes them to some other symptom. Factor in an almost infinite set of variables and you could safely safe it will never be understood unless roughly speaking through epidemiology but this never deals with individual cause and affects. Anyway Net result is since we dont know I avoid processed foods.
So my concerns are similar with the flu vaccine. IMO PPM or not of chemicals is of no consequence as it goes straight into your blood stream without being diluted or broken down by the bacteria or enzymes in your gut. Not to mention that it changes every year so there is no real understanding of how it affects the body
MY concerns with medical professionalsí attitude to it are typified by the attitude to pregnant women. The advice for them is to get it and get it quick, which is fair enough they are higher risk to flu. Excpet... when you consider the advice on practically all other types of medicine is to avoid it because they are not sure of the effects on an unborn child. Some of these are drugs that are decades old and they donít know the effect but sure here take this cocktail of chemicals that we cooked up last month!

Also I should clarify that i meant by making your immune system weaker.... is that bygetting the flu and beating it naturally will leave your immune system stronger for longer than with a flu shot. Which only equates into an annual dependency on the flu shot

As far as herd immunity goes tho, doesnt that need to be at higher than 90% to be effective

All of the above is my opinion so sorry i it comes across as "matter of fact" and I'm open to correction at any point.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: BennyCake on January 09, 2018, 08:08:38 PM
The effects of a  flu vaccine are only observed on flu vaxxed people and afaics those claims for positive effects are extremely dubious and exhibit some of the worst of bad science and dogma.

When researchers observe what happens to vaccinated folk,  they offer a claimed efficacy value of the vaccine,  it was 10% in Australia recently, last year in the USA a 30% or 40% efficacy was claimed, Those are worthless figures. Why even use the term efficacy when inefficiency is the more germane term? That smacks of deception. And even with those 10% or 30% or 40%  who  do not develop  recognised flu symptoms,  how can anyone claim with a remote degree of certainty that the flu shot made any positive difference to them not developing the flu symptoms?

So why not compare results of  flu vaxxed to non-flu vaxxed? That's not done because the argument offered is that it would be unethical, that it would put people at unnecessary risk. Firstly that argument assumes the flu vaccine has more positive than negative  effects, long before that fact could be even determined in real life experience and secondly the supporting argument for that "ethical" position is the children's seat test, as in, would you put children at risk just to  prove in real tests that a children's seat & belt is more safe in a car than not.
What a stupid argument that is, firstly we can observe statistics, observe real comparisons that have already happened in accidents and also we can do (almost) real tests with dummies.
The flu vaccine is not compared to no vaccine use in real life  because the flu vaccine is assumed to be be superior,  therefore there's no need to do the only real comparison test  that could support that assumed claimed superiority.  Flu vaccine catch 22.
And when the flu vaxx has less efficacy than claimed, the virus is blamed for mutating, the crafty devious bugger, not the bad science of attempted  artificial immunity, which in any event the body doesn't learn from and memorise.

I need to lie down after that.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: BennyCake on January 09, 2018, 08:12:10 PM
Puck you obviously know what youíre on about here and admittedly I know sweet FA about the vaccine and in a way I suppose thats my biggest worry. But I also dont believe that medical science knows that much about its side effects either.
To put this in context I avoid processed foods like the plague for my family as I inherently think their affects are far too complex to be known with current science especially on the digestive, immune and endocrine systems. The complexity is caused by linking the substances in processed foods, to how our body processes them to some other symptom. Factor in an almost infinite set of variables and you could safely safe it will never be understood unless roughly speaking through epidemiology but this never deals with individual cause and affects. Anyway Net result is since we dont know I avoid processed foods.
So my concerns are similar with the flu vaccine. IMO PPM or not of chemicals is of no consequence as it goes straight into your blood stream without being diluted or broken down by the bacteria or enzymes in your gut. Not to mention that it changes every year so there is no real understanding of how it affects the body
MY concerns with medical professionalsí attitude to it are typified by the attitude to pregnant women. The advice for them is to get it and get it quick, which is fair enough they are higher risk to flu. Excpet... when you consider the advice on practically all other types of medicine is to avoid it because they are not sure of the effects on an unborn child. Some of these are drugs that are decades old and they donít know the effect but sure here take this cocktail of chemicals that we cooked up last month!

Also I should clarify that i meant by making your immune system weaker.... is that bygetting the flu and beating it naturally will leave your immune system stronger for longer than with a flu shot. Which only equates into an annual dependency on the flu shot

As far as herd immunity goes tho, doesnt that need to be at higher than 90% to be effective

All of the above is my opinion so sorry i it comes across as "matter of fact" and I'm open to correction at any point.

Yup, I'd especially agree with that.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: trileacman on January 09, 2018, 10:11:46 PM

So my concerns are similar with the flu vaccine. IMO PPM or not of chemicals is of no consequence as it goes straight into your blood stream without being diluted or broken down by the bacteria or enzymes in your gut. Not to mention that it changes every year so there is no real understanding of how it affects the body.


Quite a lot of things pass through your gut without being broken down by bacteria or enzymes. If the vaccine was administered via ingestion it would alay very few of your concerns.


Also I should clarify that i meant by making your immune system weaker.... is that by getting the flu and beating it naturally will leave your immune system stronger for longer than with a flu shot. Which only equates into an annual dependency on the flu shot.


Not strictly true. As previously stated the influenza virus mutates often and immune challenge to one influenza strain provides very little persistent immunity. This also counters your annual dependency argument, you're dependent on annual vaccination because the influenza strain is mutating not because you never had a natural challenge.


As far as herd immunity goes tho, doeskin that need to be at higher than 90% to be effective


It varies from pathogen to pathogen depending upon their mode of transmission, latency, existence outside the host and other factors. It is usually fairly high but it is not a consistent number across various infectious agents.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: armaghniac on January 09, 2018, 10:24:41 PM
The effects of a  flu vaccine are only observed on flu vaxxed people and afaics those claims for positive effects are extremely dubious and exhibit some of the worst of bad science and dogma.

There is bad science and dogma, but it is not coming from those advocating the vaccine.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: trileacman on January 09, 2018, 10:56:02 PM
I see a lot of the typical sneering at anti-vaxxers argument on this thread that unfortunately passes for intelligent debate nowadays. It is correct and a necessity that medical opinions are challenged openly and that proper proof is presented for the use of vaccines.

There's a horrible condescending tone used to deride the valid concerns of people that alienates those people who need reassurance even further. http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/ (http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/) is one such example of the type of belligerent attitude symptomatic of a certain section of society. Anyone can take that tone and pass it off as an educated opinion, I could say everyone who reads the guardian is a self absorbed w**ker who couldn't tell ya the difference between shite and clay. Vulgarity and scorn doesn't add any weight to your opinion, it lessens it.

There are multiple examples of vaccines that have not been safe. There was a cattle vaccine released 15 years ago or so that was proven to be a cause of a disease called bovine neonatal pancytopenia. The vaccine led to abberations in the immune system of the mother that caused fatal clotting disorders in the calf. A human vaccine for children that was withdrawn in 1998 was Rotashield which was shown to lead to a increase (quite slight) in the rate of intestinal torsion in infants. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16088803 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16088803)

Now having said all that don't mistake me for someone who is against the vaccination programmes that are in place in this country or most developed nations. Most likely the benefits of vaccinations outweigh the drawbacks even those we do know about yet. However a balance needs to be struck between acceptance and caution around vaccines and the entrenchment of opinions blocks meaningful compromise on the safety of vaccines.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: ONeill on January 09, 2018, 11:05:24 PM
I get the flu jab every year and there's fcuk all wrong with me I think.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: BennyCake on January 09, 2018, 11:13:41 PM
I get the flu jab every year and there's fcuk all wrong with me I think.

Of course there's something wrong with you. You're from Tyrone!  ;D
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Hereiam on January 09, 2018, 11:30:09 PM
Now we have French flu on the way. We are all doomed i tell ye.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: BennyCake on January 10, 2018, 12:01:07 AM
Now we have French flu on the way. We are all doomed i tell ye.

Sacre bleu!
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 10, 2018, 08:50:47 AM
The effects of a  flu vaccine are only observed on flu vaxxed people and afaics those claims for positive effects are extremely dubious and exhibit some of the worst of bad science and dogma.

There is bad science and dogma, but it is not coming from those advocating the vaccine.


Nail on the head.

All science is questioned and if it doesn't stand up it's found out. There's no conspiracy here. Anti-vaccer is similar to climate change denial - ignore the mountains of good, proven, peer reviewed science and tell about what happened to Mary down the road.....
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 10, 2018, 08:53:08 AM
Over a winter there are numerous strains of flu. A flu in October will be different to one in March. How can the jab cover all strains? It can't.

I won't be getting a jab. I think they do far more harm than good.


You couldn't be more wrong. Ridiculous statement to come out with when you have zero evidence to support it.

Well, is anything in my first paragraph incorrect?

And where's your evidence supporting the jab being good for stopping the flu?

not incorrect but incomplete.
every year they update the flu jab with all new known strains so next year the jab will protect against the aussie flu. the cant inoculate against something that hasn't been seen yet . and as for the lad worried about chemicals you need to revise your basic science. but as long as the rest of us get the jab you should be fine .
your welcome


Absolutely correct bar the item in black. The flu referred to as the Aussie flu was here last year and this years flu vaccine will cover you against it. There is another strain that's new this year that is as bad but not covered by the flu jab.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 10, 2018, 08:21:34 PM
The effects of a  flu vaccine are only observed on flu vaxxed people and afaics those claims for positive effects are extremely dubious and exhibit some of the worst of bad science and dogma.

There is bad science and dogma, but it is not coming from those advocating the vaccine.


Nail on the head.

All science is questioned and if it doesn't stand up it's found out. There's no conspiracy here. Anti-vaccer is similar to climate change denial - ignore the mountains of good, proven, peer reviewed science and tell about what happened to Mary down the road.....

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

One way to deal with concerns or tough questions is to label those asking them as loonies. All my weans are update with vaccinations with the exception of the seasonal flu jab so if that makes me a climate change denier Ill ride with that f**k it sure throw me in with the flat earthers too if it makes you feel better ::)

Guilt by association may be enough to scare some people away from asking them but the questions will remain.
Its a decent tactic tho as the majority will follow the herd (pardon the pun) but the concerns will persist from the dissenters.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 10, 2018, 08:35:02 PM

So my concerns are similar with the flu vaccine. IMO PPM or not of chemicals is of no consequence as it goes straight into your blood stream without being diluted or broken down by the bacteria or enzymes in your gut. Not to mention that it changes every year so there is no real understanding of how it affects the body.


Quite a lot of things pass through your gut without being broken down by bacteria or enzymes. If the vaccine was administered via ingestion it would alay very few of your concerns.
Precisely alot of crap in processed food is shat out wereas with a jab  it goes to every organ in your body before the liver gets to work on it. A good example of the difference would be what would happen if I injected a halfun of bushmills v drinking it?


Also I should clarify that i meant by making your immune system weaker.... is that by getting the flu and beating it naturally will leave your immune system stronger for longer than with a flu shot. Which only equates into an annual dependency on the flu shot.


Not strictly true. As previously stated the influenza virus mutates often and immune challenge to one influenza strain provides very little persistent immunity. This also counters your annual dependency argument, you're dependent on annual vaccination because the influenza strain is mutating not because you never had a natural challenge.
Don't think your right there, a jab will only give immunity only for a short period even for the same strain where as you have lifelong immunity from the same strain and increased immunity from similar strains. In fact it could be argued that the jab is causing increased rates of mutation so making the seasonal flu deadlier.


As far as herd immunity goes tho, doeskin that need to be at higher than 90% to be effective


It varies from pathogen to pathogen depending upon their mode of transmission, latency, existence outside the host and other factors. It is usually fairly high but it is not a consistent number across various infectious agents.

Therefore it would be a non starter for the flu considering the hit and miss ratio of getting the correct strain
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 10, 2018, 09:59:28 PM
Omaghjoe - I wasn't having a go at you at all. I suggest you read up on how vaccines work. I know from reading your posts that you don't understand how they work. Try this page for example https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/work/prevention/index.html (https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/work/prevention/index.html)

Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Tyroneforsam on January 10, 2018, 10:07:24 PM
There's a man from pomeroy that died from complications resulting from Aussie flu leaving behind a wife and two young babies not even two years old yet the lot of your are Slabbering on here.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 10, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
There's a man from pomeroy that died from complications resulting from Aussie flu leaving behind a wife and two young babies not even two years old yet the lot of your are Slabbering on here.

Was mentioned already on this thread..
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: trileacman on January 10, 2018, 11:38:06 PM

So my concerns are similar with the flu vaccine. IMO PPM or not of chemicals is of no consequence as it goes straight into your blood stream without being diluted or broken down by the bacteria or enzymes in your gut. Not to mention that it changes every year so there is no real understanding of how it affects the body.


Quite a lot of things pass through your gut without being broken down by bacteria or enzymes. If the vaccine was administered via ingestion it would alay very few of your concerns.
Precisely alot of crap in processed food is shat out wereas with a jab  it goes to every organ in your body before the liver gets to work on it. A good example of the difference would be what would happen if I injected a halfun of bushmills v drinking it?


Also I should clarify that i meant by making your immune system weaker.... is that by getting the flu and beating it naturally will leave your immune system stronger for longer than with a flu shot. Which only equates into an annual dependency on the flu shot.


Not strictly true. As previously stated the influenza virus mutates often and immune challenge to one influenza strain provides very little persistent immunity. This also counters your annual dependency argument, you're dependent on annual vaccination because the influenza strain is mutating not because you never had a natural challenge.
Don't think your right there, a jab will only give immunity only for a short period even for the same strain where as you have lifelong immunity from the same strain and increased immunity from similar strains. In fact it could be argued that the jab is causing increased rates of mutation so making the seasonal flu deadlier.


As far as herd immunity goes tho, doeskin that need to be at higher than 90% to be effective


It varies from pathogen to pathogen depending upon their mode of transmission, latency, existence outside the host and other factors. It is usually fairly high but it is not a consistent number across various infectious agents.

Therefore it would be a non starter for the flu considering the hit and miss ratio of getting the correct strain

1. Thereís no huge difference in terms of organs visited when you ingest a whisky than with injection of one. Ethanol is absorbed into the blood from the gut and travels to all your organs just the same as if you had injected it directly to your blood stream. The only true difference would be the bioavailability. I donít think youíre getting this.

2. How can a vaccine cause increased rates of mutation in a virus?
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 11, 2018, 05:39:07 AM

So my concerns are similar with the flu vaccine. IMO PPM or not of chemicals is of no consequence as it goes straight into your blood stream without being diluted or broken down by the bacteria or enzymes in your gut. Not to mention that it changes every year so there is no real understanding of how it affects the body.


Quite a lot of things pass through your gut without being broken down by bacteria or enzymes. If the vaccine was administered via ingestion it would alay very few of your concerns.
Precisely alot of crap in processed food is shat out wereas with a jab  it goes to every organ in your body before the liver gets to work on it. A good example of the difference would be what would happen if I injected a halfun of bushmills v drinking it?


Also I should clarify that i meant by making your immune system weaker.... is that by getting the flu and beating it naturally will leave your immune system stronger for longer than with a flu shot. Which only equates into an annual dependency on the flu shot.


Not strictly true. As previously stated the influenza virus mutates often and immune challenge to one influenza strain provides very little persistent immunity. This also counters your annual dependency argument, you're dependent on annual vaccination because the influenza strain is mutating not because you never had a natural challenge.
Don't think your right there, a jab will only give immunity only for a short period even for the same strain where as you have lifelong immunity from the same strain and increased immunity from similar strains. In fact it could be argued that the jab is causing increased rates of mutation so making the seasonal flu deadlier.


As far as herd immunity goes tho, doeskin that need to be at higher than 90% to be effective


It varies from pathogen to pathogen depending upon their mode of transmission, latency, existence outside the host and other factors. It is usually fairly high but it is not a consistent number across various infectious agents.

Therefore it would be a non starter for the flu considering the hit and miss ratio of getting the correct strain

1. Thereís no huge difference in terms of organs visited when you ingest a whisky than with injection of one. Ethanol is absorbed into the blood from the gut and travels to all your organs just the same as if you had injected it directly to your blood stream. The only true difference would be the bioavailability. I donít think youíre getting this.

2. How can a vaccine cause increased rates of mutation in a virus?

1. Maybe alchohol was a bad example but my point remains that anything injected directly into the bloodstream has more of an effect than something digested.

2. I was only was aware of a brief news article on this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/here-s-one-reason-flu-vaccines-are-so-lousy-they-n818046
NBC are fake news tho so here's the study from experts who know nothing.
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/47/12578.short
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 11, 2018, 05:42:29 AM
Omaghjoe - I wasn't having a go at you at all. I suggest you read up on how vaccines work. I know from reading your posts that you don't understand how they work. Try this page for example https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/work/prevention/index.html (https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/work/prevention/index.html)

Fair enough I'll take your word for it although what I said still stands for anyone who is voicing genuine concerns and suddenly they become Jim Corr

AS I said b4 I know practically nothing about vaccines but there is nothing on that link I didnt know, its very basic stuff. What post in particular would lead you to believe that I didnt understand the info on that page? Or better still tell me what in particular that I am wrong about? I have an open mind on this and willing to learn.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: johnneycool on January 11, 2018, 08:49:43 AM
At the risk of being thrown in the dungeon as an antivaxer..... Ive a few questions

Is there any good reason for not getting a flu shot?
Is there any point to putting a load of chemicals, preservatives and other crap into my body that I probably wont need?
Do medical professionals play it save and use the law of averages for the population when dealing with individuals and thereby declare that pretty much everyone should get it.
Am I making my immune system weaker in the long term?

None

Rather angled description of the vaccine. Think of a flu shot as insurance for your car/home. Hopefully you never need those either but you avail of their protection. The flu shot usually has the virus itself. That virus is deactivated by miniscule amounts of formaldehyde. Yes. Sounds scary and awful but itís in the parts per tens of millions. Usually thereís an adjuvant like aluminum, again the PPM range. Then thereís some gelatin. A common stabilizer which keeps the vaccine suitable for use between manufacture and administration. Itís usually porcine gelatin so many vaccines will come with a warning for those with pork allergies.

Wish I had pork allergies over xmas!

So can anyone avail of the flu jab? I thought the very young and the old only

Drove past a chemists in Newtownards offering the flu vaccine for £10.

I presume all chemists who are equipped with the right personnel and facilities must be able to do it.

I'm offered it every year by my GP due to the asthma, haven't taken it this year though.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 11, 2018, 09:00:24 AM
Examples:

Quote
a jab will only give immunity only for a short period even for the same strain


That page explains how a vaccine creates antibodies which permanently reside in the body. Similar to how they are created by actually getting the illness, without getting the illness of course.

Quote
Therefore it would be a non starter for the flu considering the hit and miss ratio of getting the correct strain

There's no hit and miss ratio. It's very clear what strains are covered by the flu vaccine. I've mentioned it a few times on this thread. A vaccine cannot be developed for a mutation that might happen......it will always be playing a catch up game unless the virus stops mutating.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 11, 2018, 09:03:49 AM
At the risk of being thrown in the dungeon as an antivaxer..... Ive a few questions

Is there any good reason for not getting a flu shot?
Is there any point to putting a load of chemicals, preservatives and other crap into my body that I probably wont need?
Do medical professionals play it save and use the law of averages for the population when dealing with individuals and thereby declare that pretty much everyone should get it.
Am I making my immune system weaker in the long term?

None

Rather angled description of the vaccine. Think of a flu shot as insurance for your car/home. Hopefully you never need those either but you avail of their protection. The flu shot usually has the virus itself. That virus is deactivated by miniscule amounts of formaldehyde. Yes. Sounds scary and awful but itís in the parts per tens of millions. Usually thereís an adjuvant like aluminum, again the PPM range. Then thereís some gelatin. A common stabilizer which keeps the vaccine suitable for use between manufacture and administration. Itís usually porcine gelatin so many vaccines will come with a warning for those with pork allergies.

Wish I had pork allergies over xmas!

So can anyone avail of the flu jab? I thought the very young and the old only

Drove past a chemists in Newtownards offering the flu vaccine for £10.

I presume all chemists who are equipped with the right personnel and facilities must be able to do it.

I'm offered it every year by my GP due to the asthma, haven't taken it this year though.


Yes, absolutely. It's quite a simple process. I'm getting mine in my local chemist on Saturday. I'd usually have got it by now through work but I've changed job this year and the new employer didn't offer it. I hope I'm not too late.....will know in the next couple of weeks. Just can't afford the week of misery with the project I'm working on.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: rosnarun on January 11, 2018, 12:56:25 PM
like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Hardy on January 11, 2018, 02:19:58 PM
like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: magpie seanie on January 11, 2018, 02:45:36 PM
like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.


And it's also very difficult to explain this without coming across as superior and condescending. With the best will in the world I think I have failed above.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: armaghniac on January 11, 2018, 03:06:41 PM
like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

In England, people voted for Brexit to get back at the "experts".
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: Puckoon on January 11, 2018, 05:46:03 PM
Joe,

If you read the PNAS article and then read the NBC (not fake news) article, you can see how they've butchered the material and you don't need to go beyond the second sentence to find this...

Quote
Flu viruses mutate every year and it turns out the methods used to make flu vaccines cause them to mutate even more, the researchers found.

First half, correct. Second half, misleading. Yes the Flu virus mutates every year. Yes, the methods used to make flu vaccines leave the flu vaccine itself open to mutation. That vaccine is open to mutation based on how it is grown in the egg system. The flu vaccine does not cause the flu virus that we are susceptible to, to mutate. The avian egg growth system may cause the flu virus in the vaccine, to mutate. Huge difference, but it can lead to issues in efficacy. There is considerable research efforts to finding another vaccine systems that reduce the % probability of antigenic mismatches between vaccine virus and circulating virius - but the egg system is stable, and fully equipped to do the job. The virus just has the ability to outsmart it sometimes. The same virus has the ability to outsmart us, and continually find ways to mutate and adapt.

Big Pharma is involved in the manufacture process of flu vaccine and this is another reason that the enlightened public can trend so heavily against it. Big Pharma is bad... etc, but that's another topic. GSK, Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis are the 3 main players (smaller companies don't get involved in the manufacture and sale of the flu vaccine of the year - primarily due to the scale of manufacture needed in the short time span window).

Public Health Agencies and funded research labs (think universities, CDC etc) examine the strains from each hemisphere which has a different flu season and are able to work on predictive models based on strains that are found in the opposing hemisphere in their respective flu season. From this the PHAs provide seed strains to the main pharmaceutical companies who either have in house regulated manufacturing capabilities (a rare and no mean feat feature of a pharmaceutical company), or a strong relationship with a Contract Manufacturing System who is on alert to produce the quantities needed to match the demand. Each vaccine is usually comprised of 3-4 strains, 4 being the most recent successful flu development. There are models actively being researched to find a universal vaccine which is efficacious independent of strain. Timelines projected for this around 8-10 years.

Drug development is an insanely complex logistical challenge. Supply chain, release and stability data and the drug passport considerations that are required to accompany any product designed for human use - on top of the proof of concept and R&D work that precedes any human designed manufacture is mind blowing in its enormity.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 11, 2018, 08:58:33 PM
Examples:

Quote
a jab will only give immunity only for a short period even for the same strain


That page explains how a vaccine creates antibodies which permanently reside in the body. Similar to how they are created by actually getting the illness, without getting the illness of course.

Quote
Therefore it would be a non starter for the flu considering the hit and miss ratio of getting the correct strain

There's no hit and miss ratio. It's very clear what strains are covered by the flu vaccine. I've mentioned it a few times on this thread. A vaccine cannot be developed for a mutation that might happen......it will always be playing a catch up game unless the virus stops mutating.

Short period was in reference relative to acquiring immunity through natural infection ... you will have much longer and more robust protection from being infected naturally

That is the hit and miss ratio! The dominant strains in a season v the strains in the jab
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 11, 2018, 09:00:36 PM
like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

In England, people voted for Brexit to get back at the "experts".

What is also frightening is the willingness of people to follow blindly and refuse to question when they dont fully understand

Medicine is a practice not a science what it administers to you by someone who practises medicine does not always work as intended, in a way if its science then you are the experiment.

To lump all dissenters together as loonies whose opinion should be disregarded may make you feel better but it does not make you right.

An appeal to majority or authority does not mean your right either.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 11, 2018, 09:03:56 PM
Joe,

If you read the PNAS article and then read the NBC (not fake news) article, you can see how they've butchered the material and you don't need to go beyond the second sentence to find this...

Quote
Flu viruses mutate every year and it turns out the methods used to make flu vaccines cause them to mutate even more, the researchers found.

First half, correct. Second half, misleading. Yes the Flu virus mutates every year. Yes, the methods used to make flu vaccines leave the flu vaccine itself open to mutation. That vaccine is open to mutation based on how it is grown in the egg system. The flu vaccine does not cause the flu virus that we are susceptible to, to mutate. The avian egg growth system may cause the flu virus in the vaccine, to mutate. Huge difference, but it can lead to issues in efficacy. There is considerable research efforts to finding another vaccine systems that reduce the % probability of antigenic mismatches between vaccine virus and circulating virius - but the egg system is stable, and fully equipped to do the job. The virus just has the ability to outsmart it sometimes. The same virus has the ability to outsmart us, and continually find ways to mutate and adapt.

Big Pharma is involved in the manufacture process of flu vaccine and this is another reason that the enlightened public can trend so heavily against it. Big Pharma is bad... etc, but that's another topic. GSK, Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis are the 3 main players (smaller companies don't get involved in the manufacture and sale of the flu vaccine of the year - primarily due to the scale of manufacture needed in the short time span window).

Public Health Agencies and funded research labs (think universities, CDC etc) examine the strains from each hemisphere which has a different flu season and are able to work on predictive models based on strains that are found in the opposing hemisphere in their respective flu season. From this the PHAs provide seed strains to the main pharmaceutical companies who either have in house regulated manufacturing capabilities (a rare and no mean feat feature of a pharmaceutical company), or a strong relationship with a Contract Manufacturing System who is on alert to produce the quantities needed to match the demand. Each vaccine is usually comprised of 3-4 strains, 4 being the most recent successful flu development. There are models actively being researched to find a universal vaccine which is efficacious independent of strain. Timelines projected for this around 8-10 years.

Drug development is an insanely complex logistical challenge. Supply chain, release and stability data and the drug passport considerations that are required to accompany any product designed for human use - on top of the proof of concept and R&D work that precedes any human designed manufacture is mind blowing in its enormity.

I actually did reread after because I was thinking how do the virus mutate if they don't reproduce (which isnt strictly true either I found out) and seen that it was the process of making the vaccine that causes the mutations in the vaccine.
A good example of how the flu, or any DNA or is susceptible to mutation depending on the environment. But I suppose its defo less susceptible to mutation that a bacterial disease, which is what I originally thought.

That will be interesting to see how the generic flu vaccine turns out.

TBH Puck I think that a lot of people have concerns about the effect of the vaccine on their bodies... why do infants not get them when their born but its ok in utero? But the prospect of big business making money is a concern for the motivation also.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: armaghniac on January 11, 2018, 10:20:26 PM
TBH Puck I think that alot of people are concerns about the effect of the vaccine on their bodies... why do infants not get them when their born but its ok in utero. But the prospect of big business making money is a concern for the motivation also.

Infants in utero get the antibodies from their mother.
People are concerned with big business, but many of these seem less worried about big business in regard to the Iphone they use to post nonsense.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 12, 2018, 04:24:53 AM
TBH Puck I think that alot of people are concerns about the effect of the vaccine on their bodies... why do infants not get them when their born but its ok in utero. But the prospect of big business making money is a concern for the motivation also.

Infants in utero get the antibodies from their mother.
People are concerned with big business, but many of these seem less worried about big business in regard to the Iphone they use to post nonsense.
...yes they get that along with all the other crap that they don't want newborns to get?
You don't think that corporations who's unabashed goal to increase their bottom line would affect their willingness to ply the population with something that might have adverse side affects? Their track record would suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: armaghniac on January 12, 2018, 12:21:28 PM
...yes they get that along with all the other crap that they don't want newborns to get?
You don't think that corporations who's unabashed goal to increase their bottom line would affect their willingness to ply the population with something that might have adverse side affects? Their track record would suggest otherwise.

Are we talking about the entirety of the pharma industry here, or the flu vaccine?

I was listening to a doctor on the radio there, the best plan was to be born in the mid 60s, as the new flu came along on 1968 and if you were first exposed to it when a child you have some longterm immunity.
Title: Re: Aussie Flu
Post by: omaghjoe on January 13, 2018, 12:11:28 AM
...yes they get that along with all the other crap that they don't want newborns to get?
You don't think that corporations who's unabashed goal to increase their bottom line would affect their willingness to ply the population with something that might have adverse side affects? Their track record would suggest otherwise.

Are we talking about the entirety of the pharma industry here, or the flu vaccine?

I was listening to a doctor on the radio there, the best plan was to be born in the mid 60s, as the new flu came along on 1968 and if you were first exposed to it when a child you have some longterm immunity.

We are talking about the primary motivations behind providing these products to the public by a profit making entity and their track record.

It is an off shoot of my primary concern tho which is with injecting a chemical cocktail that was cooked up last week into my body that no one knows the side effects off and whether I as a healthy young low risk individual would most likely be better off risking acquiring the flu naturally.