So I'll take your advice!

and haven't gotten flu in some 40 years. Not saying others shouldn't get the shot.

Some people have the flu and show few if any symptoms, are asymptomatic but carry the virus. This creates the possibility that they will infect others but suffer no actual flu symptoms themselves while they go around making others sick. The purpose of the shot is not just for your protection but it also helps create herd immunity.

Get the jab!

no actual proof of symptomless spreaders of flu.

What is true is that you can be contagious for about 24 hours before actually having flu symptoms. But I'm constantly accused here (because I don't get the shots and I don't get the flu) of being a symptomless spreader of it. And no, I'm not.

Scant evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. More important is the phrase “play an important role” could mean asymptomatic individuals are rare.

It does say more studies are needed.

That said claims need evidence and it says the evidence is scant.

Not saying you misread it or even convince you to get vaccinated. Pots and kettles.

Just pointing out the excerpt leaves a lot of wiggle room. It’d be true even if evidence does emerge someday.

" . . . scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals play an important role in influenza transmission."

Which is what I'm saying. There is some wiggle room, but I've often been accused of spreading flu because when I say I haven't gotten it in 40 or more years, poster assume that I'm one of those mythical asymptomatic spreaders.

So it's up to those who claim that to find evidence to support it.

I think if asymptomatic flu spreaders were out there, they have become obvious to the most casual observer.

proving that asymptomatic flu spreaders are a reality.

Is there some proof that people who got the flu shot could NOT be symptomless carriers? If there is such a thing. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your flu shot means you have some robust immunity to the flu that floats by. This doesn’t mean that the flu somehow doesn’t enter your body, it just means that your immune system fights it off. So how is that different from me, who doesn’t get the flu shot, but generally doesn’t get the flu? Apparently I have a pretty decent immunity without the shot. So I’m a symptomless carrier but flu shot guy isn’t? How would that work?

I was rooming with friends post-graduate school before I found a job (curse you Newt Gingrich). I was working a temp job in a small office with 4 adults and no close contact. The husband where I was staying was a school teacher. There were 3 episodes where the kids in the house and myself were sick, but the husband/father did not. The mother assumed I was getting everyone sick, but I was not exposed to anyone with symptoms, and I was only around adults. He was around a bunch of snot-nosed germ factories.
I still strongly believe that he was an asymptomatic carrier.
Not proof, but sometimes, like climate change "proof" is too high a standard and we need to abide by available evidence.
Ordinarily I'm not a fan of the vaccine and question the efficacy of the flu vaccine, but the OP made me reconsider this.

Something being determined by research.

You can spread the flu and be asymptomatic. That's a fact. You're cited research supports that notion, too.

Why you would not want to get a shot to potentially protect yourself from getting and possibly spreading an illness is something that I don't understand.

Clearly, we have different perspectives on public health.

I do, however, admire your confidence in your response. I also wish you continued luck in avoiding the flu.

The real flu spreaders are those who courageously go to work no matter how sick they are. Let's find a way to make those people change their behavior.

Scant evidence could just as easily be the result of a lack of supportive research in the form of studies and/or results. Evidence based medicine is best revealed by repeated study and replication of results, through rigorous methodology.*

Why say "real" flu spreaders? Anyone can spread the virus, knowingly or unknowingly.

Being asymptomatic isn't character flaw. It's a biological condition.

Seeing value in being a participant in promoting and creating public health begins with education. Unfortunately, that education may end up being the result of personal experience. It’s unfortunate that in order to appreciate the benefit of medical treatments, one may have to suffer from first hand knowledge, at their own peril. This includes risking adverse outcomes in the community at large.

Diseases don't exist in a vacuum. The simple fact that each of us participates as a member of society should be incentive enough to be concerned about the health of others.

I know that I may seem naive in this belief, but I also believe that I am "my brother's keeper" which I also admit is a fading societal construct.





*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531969/

are blamed and demonized, but I'll ask again: What about those who go into the workplace knowing full well they have the flu? Those people are absolutely responsible for spreading flu, but I see no mention of them here.

Another question. If I really am an asymptomatic carrier should I never leave my house? Or only stay confined during flu season?

Keep in mind that the nasal flu vaccine is made from a weakened but live virus, so why aren't those people considered potential spreaders of flu?

In order for herd immunity to work you have to reach 95% participation. This is an absolute impossibility, considering the high percentage of exempt population due to medical reasons. So if herd immunity can never be achieved what's the point? Get your shot and don't worry about me. I also haven't had the flu in 40 years and never get it. However I have so many family and friends that seem to get it nearly every single year, bad cases, and they religiously get the shot. My brother is so fearful he got two shots already this year.

Herd immunity for the flu vaccine starts to become relevant at about 37%, although this number can vary year to year depending on how effective the particular flu vaccine is.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/7/911/299077

To more broadly answer your question “what’s the point?”, even if one ignores the effects of herd immunity, there’s still no question the flu vaccine not only lowers your chances of getting the flu, but also lowers the chances of those around you becoming infected by you.

assumes 100% effectiveness of the vaccine.

When you use the formula farther down in the article (Vc=(1? 1/R0)/E) and plug in the effectiveness of the vaccine in recent years, the actual % needed for herd immunity in the most effective year is 111%. Last year (with a 29% effectiveness) it was around 230%.

The formula I gave you includes effectiveness as a function. It also has the variable R0, which varies widely.

So sure, if you want to take the highest R0 and lowest effectiveness you can find, I’m sure you can come up with ridiculously high numbers which are most assuredly outliers and only relevant in terms of an outbreak to begin with.

Meanwhile you completely ignored the answer to your question which is herd immunity by itself is very far from whether or not there’s a point to immunization. There’s many other reasons why it’s important, not the least of which is lowering the chances of dying and infecting and killing someone around you.

for herd immunity. That absolute best case scenario ws 111% (in the year of maximum effectiveness since 2003 - of 60%.) Last year - when the vaccine was only 29% effective, roughly 230% of the population would have needed to be vaccinated.

I have never argued that there is no point to immunization. I have argued that since it is impossible to create herd immunity for the influenza virus, it is dishonest to attempt to use the need to create herd immunity to protect the general population of vulnerable individuals to shame people into bein vaccinated.

That doesn't mean there aren't personal reasons to be vaccinated, or public health reasons to be vaccinated when you are likely to come into contact with vulnerable populations. But the hurd immunity argument is dishonest until we are able to develop a way to make a more reliably effective vaccine.

The median R0 for seasonal influenza is 1.28 which at 60% effectiveness gives an HIT of 36%. For 30% VE you get 73%. Nowhere near the numbers you are coming up with.

I don't intend to get the shot. I can see the need for them for vulnerable populations, though.

Many vulnerable people can't get vaccinated and must rely on herd immunity....unless a big part of the herd isn't immune. Get your flue shot.

eom

There's the problem. For herd immunity to work you have to reach 95% participation. This is an absolute impossibility, considering the high percentage of exempt population due to medical reasons. So if herd immunity can never be achieved what's the point? Get your shot and don't worry about me. I also haven't had the flu in 40 years and never get it. However I have so many family and friends that seem to get it nearly every single year, bad cases, and they religiously get the shot. My brother is so fearful he got two shots already this year.

Agree thou ...It certainly is an individual’s choice

never had the flu. I'm not going to start now.

But, of course, everyone is different.. what is good for one person is not necessarily good for someone else.

Except for being forced to do so in the Air Force with that awful swine flu shot, which made half the base sick.

Never since, and never been sick since. Mom died at 90, no flu shot ever.

That's interesting because when the medics came through and darted me and my gang of eager young space cadets I don't recall any of us getting sick, let alone half of 'Lacklove' Plane Patch.

If that had happened I certainly would have remembered because I was running the Basic Training Records Section. That's o/a 2000 records in, o/a 1900 out, every week. If any significant number of recruits had gotten sick, especially with a highly infectious disease, they wouldn't have shipped and I would have had to stack their 4's out in the hallways. Further, none of my subordins were sick. I would recall that because I had just enough of them to keep the paper pump from clogging up.

Asked the spousal unit if 'Randy' Plane Patch fell apart during the swine flu dart board game. He said what little he remembered was zoomers bitching about sore arms.

Some people don't feel their best after a flu shot; that can be said for just about any immunization. That half the airmen at any base couldn't fulfill their duties, that would been the talk in every club and barracks in the Fly Force -- telephone, telegraph, teletroop.

And yes, we were sick, but most of us still worked.

I had pneumonia while in the AF once too; I worked through that as well.

you sound like the guy who smoked heavily for 80 of his 95 years and lived to....95. The far outlier, not the mean. Infection is an incredibly complex dance of where we live, how we live, how we work, kids or no kids, genetics, when and how often we wash our hands, when and how often you rub your nose or eyes, and on and on and on. When we moved to a new region of the country, I spent the first 4 months fighting off a series of little bugs. Seems the local microbial fauna was a bit novel to my immune system. The irritating thing was I rarely get sick. Maybe once every 5 years or so. So getting sick enough to miss work 3 times in one winter was annoying.

a very robust immune system, possibly because I got sick a LOT when I was little. We also had dogs and cats, which seems to help build immune systems.

I was born in 1948. And although my early childhood was before the Salk vaccine, I honestly don't recall any hysteria over polio, nor do I recall public pools being closed. But I very well recall the vaccine trials, because we attended a Catholic school, one of the ones involved in the trials. My older sister was part of the trial, only she was in a group that got the placebo. Plus I very well remember the mass immunizations once the vaccine was shown to be effective.

I got flu several times before I was 30. Once was in 1957 which would have been the Asian flu. A type A flu, the nastiest and most deadly of the four. The others are imaginatively named B, C, and D. B types make people sick but don't often kill them. C types are very trivial, and D types only infect cattle.

Here's something for people to ponder. About two weeks ago I attended a two part lecture about disease, immunity, and vaccines. The second lecture concentrated on flu. Two things really stand out to me. One was a chart that showed the truly terrible mortality rate of the 1918 flu epidemic. It's a huge spike. Not a single later flu epidemic has a mortality spike. Even though in those epidemics a lot of people came down with flu.

The other was that it appears that getting a flu shot every single year may not really be the most effective strategy (except probably for the immuno-compromised) as there were indications that a flu shot the year after a previous one didn't confer as much immunity as expected.

So while I'm not about to tell others not to get a flu shot, please stop accusing me of being an asymptomatic carrier unless you can show that this is as well documented as typhoid Mary.

I've never had one and I've never had the flu either.

Not saying others shouldn't avoid smoking.

About 2/3 of all smokers eventually die from smoking.

I long ago (as in about 50 years ago) noticed that smokers simply tended to get sick more often than non smokers. They also tended (in my casual observation) to do worse with colds and other minor diseases.

So when you come down with some severe complications connected to smoking, just don't ask for sympathy.

Back in the 1940s cigarettes were commonly called "coffin nails". The Surgeon General's report on smoking came out in 1964. Anyone who took up smoking after then has no excuse. Justify it all you want. I'm happy to stand over your death bed and say, "You deserve this." I know, harsh, but it's not as though we all learned a week ago last Thursday that smoking is truly bad for you.

Several years ago I did out patient registration at my local hospital, meaning I did the paperwork for people who were showing up for various kinds of tests: bloodwork, x-rays, MRIs, and so on. Over and over I had patients who honestly had no idea why they had health problems, but who smoked. Who'd smoked for years, decades. And they NEVER made the connection between smoking and their poor health.

Among the reasons I, at age 71, and essentially the healthiest person I know, is that I never smoked. I know that good genetics helps. But I'm constantly amazed at the postings I see on FB from people my age and younger who have problem after problem. Okay, so not all of them are smokers, but still. There is a connection.

Unsurprisingly

When we were kids, we'd get the puky flu at least once or twice every year. When I was in college, nearly everyone where I worked who got the flu shot got sick. No one who skipped the shot got sick. Being poor, I didn't want to waste money on what didn't seem to be very effective, so I never did get a shot after that.

So what you got was something else entirely.

One problem is that people often call any illness during flu season "flu" no matter what it is. "Stomach flu" is not influenza.

And of course most people don't actually get whatever lab test is required to conclusively demonstrate flu.

Also, the annual deaths from flu (according to a quick Google search) range from 3,000 to 49,000. That's a HUGE range. Makes you wonder.

I've also read that deaths from seasonal flu are pretty steady, year to year (apparently allowing for a several hundred percent range) regardless of flu shots.

And the ONLY pandemic in the past 100 years that resulted in a noticeable blip in deaths was the 1918 epidemic, and that was a very large blip. Recent pandemics? Meh. No noticeable upswing in deaths, although apparently a noticeable upswing in cases.

Again, I'm not going to discourage anyone else from getting the flu shot, but I honestly think that the claim that EVERY SINGLE PERSON NEEDS TO GET A FLU SHOT OR WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!! is hardly honest.

Like you, I believe that people in some situations should get a flu shot. I just have never had a reason to do so.

I was supposed to join my then-GF in El Paso to celebrate the turn of the millennium. I was a poor law school student in Houston, so she bought me tickets.

But about a week prior, I got the worst flu ever. I was 29 turning 30 in January.

All I did for the next week was lay in bed, roll over to type out 3-4 pages of my 40 page paper due in January, and watch TV when I was conscious. I barely moved for food or anything else.

I watched the New Years ring in on CNN I think.

Literally New Years Day, I got the most massive chills ever as my fever finally broke.

I didn't almost die, but I definitely was the sickest I have been in my entire life.
I was also pretty fit...prior enlisted, ROTC Soldier, still under 200 lol but that flu knocked me on my rear.

Must have been something about that version of the flu that year.

I got a nasty-ass case of the flu that year in Houston - I purposely "tented" myself to drive my temp up and break the fever.

Since then, flu shot every year.

Angel823

The only time I got a flu shot (in my sixties) I got the flu and was down for 3 weeks. I had the Hong Kong flu in my 20's and hadn't had the flu again until that shot. One person's medicine can be another's poison, I guess.

Glad you recovered!

Either you got infected within two weeks of immunization, in which case, it is possible there were not enough influenza antibodies present to fight the infection, or what you contracted wasn't the flu.

The flu vaccine isn't poison. And it is unethical to insinuate that it is.

for saying that.

Good grief, the amount of misinformation about immunization being glibly passed around is astounding. Yes, immunization, one of the great triumphs of medicine and, of science, and so many folks clueless about it all.

in a world where a number of deadly or debilitating illnesses have been eradicated by vaccines, so the importance of those treatments is often lost on them.

Sorry, didn’t happen.

It saves countless lives across the world every year.

It isn't 100% not possible to get the flu from the flu vax.

Good reminder for people to get their shot.

I think Swine flu was like that.

Worst flu of my life (I think I’ve had influenza 3 times in my life) was in my mid-30’s and in the best shape of my life. Partner also took me to the emergency room, delirious with fever and also missed 3 weeks of work. Not sure I would survive that flu almost 30 years later.

It killed young, healthy people the mos, especially teens and people in their 20s.

Wow! I understand what you went through, it sucks.

The year I didn't get a flu shot, I got it and was down from fall break until almost Thanksgiving. Spent 4 days in the hospital. It sucked!!! That little shot is worth it! Get your shot!

Great reminder!

... it's almost always from dehydration, not the flu. Once in a while, it's because I'm hungover.
I guess I'm lucky because I've never gotten a bad case of flu, but it would be foolish to say it could never happen.

In 1920 the flu epidemic killed more people worldwide than all the casualties of World War I.

It killed thousands in Phila (the worst city hit). Most deaths occurred in a 3 week period. More deaths from it than 24 years of AIDS victims. It killed people in their 30s, who were usually healthy, more than it did kids and seniors.

Caused from being sick.

Yes, the 1918 pandemic was terrible -- there are a couple good books and docs about it.

was that so many people got sick, especially in relatively isolated places, that often there simply wasn't a single well person left to do something as basic as get a drink of water to the sick people. And so even more people died, from lack of truly basic nursing, than might otherwise have died.

And, yeah, lots of good books out there. I've read a lot of them.

One of the worst epidemics in human history thanks to modern transportation.

If you have autoimmunity issues, the flu shot may not be recommended. Also, might want to research what is actually in the shot, ie mercury, etc. Often times the vaccine is not effective due to their “guess” as to what flu will hit the US. IMO, there are more negatives than positives.

No mercury in vaccines, the huge majority people can get the shot (and should), your fake news scare-mongering is wrong.

Sometimes they are wrong about what strain will hit, but most times they are right.

And, quit trying to misinform people about science.

thx

in the vaccine, in the quantities they used to add to some vaccines the amount was harmless, even for kids (something akin to the doseage expected from eating a tuna sandwich).

received from multiple vaccines during the first 6 months of life was found to exceed recommended guidelines.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimerosal-vaccines-questions-and-answers

As part of the FDAMA review, FDA evaluated the amount of mercury an infant might receive in the form of ethylmercury from vaccines under the U.S. recommended childhood immunization schedule and compared these levels with existing guidelines for exposure to methylmercury, as there are no existing guidelines for ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal. At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the World Health Organization (WHO). However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury. As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including FDA, National Institutes of Health [NIH], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Joint Statement, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible. The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines.

Mercury is still present in some vaccines -- though mercury was removed from the standard child vaccines, and its use has been markedly reduced.

And that poster saying SOME people may have auto-immune problems that preclude vaccine use is NOT contradicted by your statement that the huge majority of people can get the shot. Both of you are correct.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimerosal-vaccines-questions-and-answers

FDA is continuing its efforts toward reducing or removing thimerosal from all existing vaccines. Much progress has been made to date. FDA has been actively working with manufacturers, particularly those that manufacture childhood vaccines, to reach the goal of eliminating thimerosal from vaccines, and has been collaborating with other PHS agencies to further evaluate the potential health effects of thimerosal. Since 2001, all vaccines recommended for children 6 years of age and younger have contained either no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccines, which are marketed in both the preservative-free and thimerosal-preservative-containing formulations. Thimerosal-preservative free influenza vaccine licensed for use in children six to 59 months of age is available in limited supply. Nevertheless, FDA is in discussions with manufacturers of influenza vaccine regarding their capacity to increase the supply of vaccine without thimerosal as a preservative. Additionally, new pediatric vaccines that have received licensure do not contain thimerosal.

There was never a problem with thimerosal. All the hysteria did was make vaccines more expensive and less available to poorer populations. Meanwhile the body count attributed to the anti-vax loons just keeps on rising, while nobody is better off due to the reduction of thimerosal.

receiving higher cumulative doses than the government's scientists had determined were safe. Either scientifically-established safety limits mean something or they don't.

So the government called for the removal of thimerosal from these vaccines.

The government suspected that and urged vaccine manufacturers to cut back. A subsequent review determined that was not the case. There was never a problem with thimersol.

exceeded the EPA limits for some babies, depending on the "vaccine formulation" and the infant's weight.

And they recognized that babies and children could also be exposed to additional mercury from non-vaccine sources that they couldn't control -- but the important thing was to reduce exposure as much as possible. And so, as a precautionary measure, they moved to remove thimerosal from US licensed vaccines.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/thimerosal-and-vaccines

At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the World Health Organization. However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury.

I will quote you directly:

the vaccine's formulation, certain babies received an excessive amount. They could calculate the amount received relative to the babies weight and know what various formulations contained. And an excessive exposure is calculated using a baby's weight and the dose received. That is why they say some babies could have. CERTAIN babies did.

There was no excessive amount because there were no toxicology standards for ethylmercury at the time. The FDA was using the standard for methylmercury which bio-accumulates while ethylmercury does not. Thiomersal uses the later, not the former. The entire idea of a cumulative dose isn’t valid to begin with. Ethylmercury flushes out in the urine within hours.

The link I provided shows that once the FDA evaluated and figured out what the standard was for ethylmercury they found the toxicology wasn’t even in the ballpark of what is a concern.

There was never a problem with Thiomersal, period. Thems the facts regardless of whether or not you choose to ignore it.

and all the research they had AT THE TIME, the babies were receiving an excessive amount.

So they made the responsible and prudent decision.

I’ve already explained there was no standard for ethylmercury at the time and thus impossible for any limits to be exceeded. Your own source clearly states, “...there was no evidence thimersol in vaccines was dangerous”. If you want to keep pretending otherwise I suppose you’re going to keep doing so regardless of the facts. Not that much different than RFK, Jr.

rather than not using any standard at all -- which is the option you seem to think would have been better.

But it wouldn't have been. The researchers and physicians at the FDC were more prudent and wise than you would have been.

I’m not making any judgement calls, just stating facts that up until now you have ignored. Nor did I make any claim as to what the FDA should or shouldn’t have done. Petty strawman rhetoric noted.

My claim was and still is that there was never a problem with thimersol, because thems the facts. Period.

At least you now admit there was no standard which you fallaciously claimed was being violated. So there’s that. Cheers!

And the FDA decided that that standard should apply, given their lack of any safety information on the ethyl form -- and that is why they correctly ordered the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines.

Also, subsequent research showed that the ethyl form isn't as innocuous as you think, particularly when children are exposed to both forms in the same period of time (as some children are, who are exposed to mercury in emissions in the air.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922646/

Various forms of mercury possess different rates of absorption, metabolism and excretion, and consequently, toxicity. Methylmercury (MeHg) is a highly neurotoxic organic mercurial. Human exposure is mostly due to ingestion of contaminated fish. Ethylmercury (EtHg), another organic mercury compound, has received significant toxicological attention due to its presence in thimerosal-containing vaccines. This study was designed to compare the toxicities induced by MeHg and EtHg, as well as by their complexes with cysteine (MeHg-S-Cys and EtHg-S-Cys) in the C6 rat glioma cell line. MeHg and EtHg caused significant (p < 0.0001) decreases in cellular viability when cells were treated during 30 min with each mercurial following by a washing period of 24 h (EC50 values of 4.83 and 5.05 ?M, respectively). Significant cytotoxicity (p < 0.0001) was also observed when cells were treated under the same conditions with MeHg-S-Cys and EtHg-S-Cys, but the respective EC50 values were significantly increased (11.2 and 9.37 ?M). L-Methionine, a substrate for the L-type neutral amino acid carrier transport (LAT) system, significantly protected against the toxicities induced by both complexes (MeHg-S-Cys and EtHg-S-Cys). However, no protective effects of L-methionine were observed against MeHg and EtHg toxicities. Corroborating these findings, L-methionine significantly decreased mercurial uptake when cells were exposed to MeHg-S-Cys (p = 0.028) and EtHg-S-Cys (p = 0.023), but not to MeHg and EtHg. These results indicate that the uptake of MeHg-S-Cys and EtHg-S-Cys into C6 cells is mediated, at least in part, through the LAT system, but MeHg and EtHg enter C6 cells by mechanisms other than LAT system.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23401210

Abstract
Ethylmercury (etHg) is derived from the metabolism of thimerosal (o-carboxyphenyl-thio-ethyl-sodium salt), which is the most widely used form of organic mercury. Because of its application as a vaccine preservative, almost every human and animal (domestic and farmed) that has been immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines has been exposed to etHg. Although methylmercury (meHg) is considered a hazardous substance that is to be avoided even at small levels when consumed in foods such as seafood and rice (in Asia), the World Health Organization considers small doses of thimerosal safe regardless of multiple/repetitive exposures to vaccines that are predominantly taken during pregnancy or infancy. We have reviewed in vitro and in vivo studies that compare the toxicological parameters among etHg and other forms of mercury (predominantly meHg) to assess their relative toxicities and potential to cause cumulative insults. In vitro studies comparing etHg with meHg demonstrate equivalent measured outcomes for cardiovascular, neural and immune cells. However, under in vivo conditions, evidence indicates a distinct toxicokinetic profile between meHg and etHg, favoring a shorter blood half-life, attendant compartment distribution and the elimination of etHg compared with meHg. EtHg's toxicity profile is different from that of meHg, leading to different exposure and toxicity risks. Therefore, in real-life scenarios, a simultaneous exposure to both etHg and meHg might result in enhanced neurotoxic effects in developing mammals. However, our knowledge on this subject is still incomplete, and studies are required to address the predictability of the additive or synergic toxicological effects of etHg and meHg (or other neurotoxicants).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Your historical revisionism is rapidly approaching RFK, Jr levels.

should be removed from vaccines, and thimerosal was the only source of mercury in vaccines."

Given the subsequent research showing possible synergistic effect between exposure to the two forms of mercury (which I referenced in the previous post), this was a wise decision.

https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20&%20biologics/published/Understanding-Thimerosal--Mercury--and-Vaccine-Safety.pdf

Why was thimerosal removed from vaccines given
to children?

In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was required by
law to assess the amount of mercury in all the products the agency
oversees, not just vaccines. The U.S. Public Health Service decided
that as much mercury as possible should be removed from vaccines,
and thimerosal was the only source of mercury in vaccines. Even
though there was no evidence that thimerosal in vaccines was
dangerous, the decision to remove it was a made as a precautionary
measure to decrease overall exposure to mercury among young infants.
This decision was possible because childhood vaccines could be
reformulated to leave out thimerosal without threatening their safety,
effectiveness, and purity.

I was wondering why you didn’t just reference what you linked to earlier, since it has far more details, then I figured out why you are now conveniently ignoring your own source....

Here is the full statement:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4826a3.htm

Nevertheless, because any potential risk is of concern, the Public Health Service (PHS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible. Similar conclusions were reached this year in a meeting attended by European regulatory agencies, European vaccine manufacturers, and FDA, which examined the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines produced or sold in European countries.

PHS and AAP are working collaboratively to assure that the replacement of thimerosal-containing vaccines takes place as expeditiously as possible while at the same time ensuring that our high vaccination coverage levels and their associated low disease levels throughout our entire childhood population are maintained.

The key actions being taken are

A formal request to manufacturers for a clear commitment and a plan to eliminate or reduce as expeditiously as possible the mercury content of their vaccines.
A review of pertinent data in a public workshop.
Expedited FDA review of manufacturers' supplements to their product license applications to eliminate or reduce the mercury content of a vaccine.
Provide information to clinicians and public health professionals to enable them to communicate effectively with parents and consumer groups.
Monitoring immunization practices, future immunization coverage, and vaccine-preventable disease levels.
Studies to better understand the risks and benefits of this safety assessment.

Not gonna play that game. Goodbye.

You should work on your close reading skills, apparently.

Influenza vaccines distributed in multi-dose vials DO contain mercury. This year, that is 15% of the supply.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaxsupply.htm

While you may not care about whether you receive a vaccine with thimerosal, some people do. Giving false information, and ridiculing people who have their facts right is not pro science.

Thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines, but every year I have checked that is not true for the influenza vaccine. The thimerosal is a preservative, so it is only added to the vaccine when it is expected that it will need to be stored between patients.

If you really want to encourage people who are concerned about mercury to be vaccinated, it would be more effective to let them know that SOME versions of the vaccine do not contain mercury, but that they can get vaccinated without receiving mercury by asking for a dose that was packaged for individual use.

Thank you for helping to get the facts out there. So much fear

Specifically what it can cause? Because study after study had proven it safe.

Curious as to what ailment you think it is related to?

I said the poster was ridiculing someone who was reporting factual information: There is themerosal in the flu vaccines (this year 15% of the supply contains thimerosal).

Whether it is dangerous is an entirely different question than whether the vaccine contains it. It can be perfectly safe, but that doesn't make the fact that it is present in the influenza vaccine vanish,

Chicken is perfectly safe for most people - it is life-threatening for my daughter. The fact that it is safe for most people does not give anyone for whom it is safe the right to ridicule my daughter's need for accurate information about the content of something she is putting in her body - and lying to her puts her life at risk - even though it would be a harmless for most people.

I truly don't get why DU is so afraid of factual information sneaking its way into the conversaiton when it comes to vaccines.

letting people know that would be a good way to encourage use among some people who want to reduce their overall exposure to any form of mercury -- for example, pregnant women.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23401210

Abstract
Ethylmercury (etHg) is derived from the metabolism of thimerosal (o-carboxyphenyl-thio-ethyl-sodium salt), which is the most widely used form of organic mercury. Because of its application as a vaccine preservative, almost every human and animal (domestic and farmed) that has been immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines has been exposed to etHg. Although methylmercury (meHg) is considered a hazardous substance that is to be avoided even at small levels when consumed in foods such as seafood and rice (in Asia), the World Health Organization considers small doses of thimerosal safe regardless of multiple/repetitive exposures to vaccines that are predominantly taken during pregnancy or infancy. We have reviewed in vitro and in vivo studies that compare the toxicological parameters among etHg and other forms of mercury (predominantly meHg) to assess their relative toxicities and potential to cause cumulative insults. In vitro studies comparing etHg with meHg demonstrate equivalent measured outcomes for cardiovascular, neural and immune cells. However, under in vivo conditions, evidence indicates a distinct toxicokinetic profile between meHg and etHg, favoring a shorter blood half-life, attendant compartment distribution and the elimination of etHg compared with meHg. EtHg's toxicity profile is different from that of meHg, leading to different exposure and toxicity risks. Therefore, in real-life scenarios, a simultaneous exposure to both etHg and meHg might result in enhanced neurotoxic effects in developing mammals. However, our knowledge on this subject is still incomplete, and studies are required to address the predictability of the additive or synergic toxicological effects of etHg and meHg (or other neurotoxicants).

From CDC:

After you have the current info, it's on you. You are an adult, your call

All I wanted him to do is tell me what was in the shot before shooting it into my veins. He could not answer.

Open the box, read the insert & you get your answer about the ingredients.

You've made your decision about your health care and you are an adult, the consequences are on you

Helping Habitat is productive hobby.

Adults are talking.

15% of this year's vaccine supply DOES contain mercury. Whether you believe that is a legitimate concern or not, it is not bullshit to accurately state that the flu vaccine you receive may contain mercury.

The levels contained within immunizations are considered entirely safe.

So why is that bullshit?

The flu shot is probably your best option.

Like the 1918 pandemic. I know the flu that year took down a lot of people, so I am curious if that was such a strain. I may investigate!

I'm 61 and I get the flu every couple of years but I usually get a mild case and am back on my feet in a day or two.

You immune system is probably very strong. Can't say definitively if mine is or isn't except that I've noticed since adding supplements and switching to organics in my diet that my immune system kicks in immediately, where I break out into a sweat at the first signs of illness. This is unlike how my body typically reacted. I'm not immune to sickness, but if I had to quantify it, I'd say my body is about 25% better prepared. Flu and colds are that much more mild, like you say.

My diet over my life has been far more hit and miss, though my diet now is very good and balanced. I have gone six plus years now without catching even a common cold.

Had the flu twice when I caught it from my grandkids. Mild cases.

Actually I haven't tracked it back that far to tell you how many of those years I had the flu.

But I have never had an influenza vaccination, and have had the flu twice since 2003.

At some point, my personal calculation will change, and I'll start getting the vaccination, but it's not there yet.

Are you sure?

Not mono. And, I had mono and few times, and it was absolutely not the same anyway, but it was the flu.

She's never killed me when I've had the flu. I would not have complained because there have been times I've had the flu I wanted to die.

I get my flu shots. It's possible I'd get them if they were placebos.

My son - got flu the first time he got the flu shot at age 20. He'd never been so sick as he was that time.

Keep your immune system healthy. The flu can get anyone. A strong immune system is your best defense.

If you do get sick, stay home so you don't spread illness. Even vaccinated people can spread disease to people with compromised immune systems Stay home when you're sick.

Say that I don't get a vaccine and watch people lose their shi*t. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

I think I heard talk about a herd something or other.