Arguments against getting the flu shot -- is this just more anti-vaccination nonsense?

I just got my flu shot yesterday – like I do every year – and today a Facebook friend of mine posts this link: 11 Reasons Why Flu Shots Are More Dangerous Than the Flu Itself.

I have never heard of this website before (and the fact that they spell pharmacy with an “f” makes me :dubious:), but I’ve always considered this friend of mine to be rather intelligent, so it’s unlike him to just post total crap. First time for everything though.

In brief, the arguments range from the idea that something toxic gets included in the shot, leading to bad stuff to the assertion that the effectiveness of the flu shot hasn’t been proven.

I’m not looking for a point-by-point refutation – just wondering if this is complete quackery or if there are any legitimate arguments here.

Horse Puckey, says Col. Sherman Potter.

Well you only need to go as far as the first sentence under #1

This is BS - while some side effects are higher in vaccine vs placebo - it is small except for things like pain in injection site (hurts worse than saline I guess).

For example - with nasal vaccine:

About 16% of children that got the vaccine had a fever vs 11% of the placebo. This is not “getting sick” and it means that only 1 out of 6 children have symptoms of being sick. So the idea that almost immediately 5 out of 100 people who get sick over the placebo - is not something a normally person would notice. The average person with 2 kids would never notice this even if they vaccinated their kid every year.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/vaccine_safety.htm

Anything thing that is obvious enough for one person to notice - is extremely easy to see in a study - stuff like this is beyond silly.

ETA: sorry that should have read “5 out of 100” - I originally wrote 3

Here’s a red flag for critical analysis. If an article doesn’t cite its sources inline (either by providing direct clickable links, or footnote references like wikipedia has), be wary. You’ll often find alt-med articles that pull this kind of crap; they make a whole mess of claims in the article proper, and then at the bottom they have a short list of sources. Mercola and NaturalNews do this a lot. This makes it far harder to actually check their claims, and also means that to source any particular claim, you often have to dig through a list of sources to figure out which one is actually backing the claim. If you’re a science writer, there is no excuse to source your claims like this. Inline citations do not take that much time, and they make it far easier for your reader to check your claims. The ONLY reasons why someone would not provide inline citations are chronic laziness and a vested interest in not having their sources checked.

As for the listed reasons, just a short fly-over: reason 2 is an anti-vaccination staple which is as depressingly common as it is bullshit. Only some flu shots contain thimerosal, and if you’re stupid, you can take the extra time and find one of the ones that doesn’t. But more importantly, the concentration of mercury therein is minuscule, and study after study has shown how safe thimerosal is in vaccines. Reason 3 cites Hugh Fudenberg, a total fucking wingnut, but does not actually cite any papers by him. Reason 4 is your typical FUD fake conflicts of interest. Reason 5 is not only unsourced bullshit but runs directly contrary to actual research on the subject. And then I read the comments, and decided I was done, because someone else already did this:

The entire article is complete bullshit.

OP: you should ask a mod if you can get the thread title changed to reflect the fact that yes, yes it is.

Budget Player Cadet: Outstanding. Thank you for posting that!

Agreed! Thanks very much! Looks like there’s no debate here - I probably should have posted in GQ. Or, even better, just read the comments section of the original article.

I stand by my very succinct post #2. :slight_smile:

Without clicking links or reading the majority of what’s already been posted, I’ve seen “farmacy” used as a meme among the naturopath folks. Sometimes to make a legitimate point that good nutrition can be a preventive measure against many modern health issues, and most of the time to go off the rails into homeopathic woo.

First thing to me that screams bullshit is that exact type of deliberate misspelling.

Considering how many people get vaccinated, even if you accept their claims at face value so few people have side effects, far less serious ones, that the drive to the vaccination clinic would be far more dangerous than the shot.

If you let risks that small affect your life, you’d never get out of bed.

Thanks to BPC for posting that list of refutations.

Here’s a little more about Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, a “leading immunogeneticst” or “the world’s leading immunogeneticist” (if you believe Bill Maher, who accepted as gospel Fudenburg’s claims about flu vaccine causing Alzheimer’s).

*"For those of you who haven’t heard of him before, Hugh Fudenberg was a collaborator and co-inventor with Andrew Wakefield, the scientist who published an absolutely horribly designed study in the Lancet in 1998 linking the MMR vaccine to autism, nearly all of whose authors later publicly retracted their authorship. Regular readers of SBM know that this study, now thoroughly repudiated, sparked a major scare in Britain and elsewhere regarding MMR, echoes of which persist even today. Since then, evidence has since come to light that not only shows that Wakefield accepted money from lawyers planning a class action suit against vaccine manufacturers; had an undisclosed conflict of interest in that he had a patent application for a single shot measles vaccine, which would be more valuable if the MMR were thought to be unsafe; and ultimately was accused of scientific fraud based on strong evidence published by investigative journalist Brian Deer.

Dr. Fudenberg also happens to have been involved in some very dubious “treatments” for autism that led to some problems with his medical license. In November 1995, the South Carolina Medical Board concluded that Fudenberg was “guilty of engaging in dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct,” and he was fined $10,000 and ordered to surrender his license to prescribe controlled substances (narcotic drugs). His medical license was also placed on suspension. In March 1996, he was permitted to resume practice under terms of probation that did not permit him to prescribe any drugs. His medical license expired in January 2004; and in March 2004, he applied to have it reinstated. However, after a hearing in which the Board considered a neuropsychatric report issued in 2003, Fudenberg agreed to remain in a “retired” status and withdrew his application for reactivation of his license."*

Fudenberg is sadly typical of the “experts” antivaxers cite in support of their claims.

I knew even before reading the thread the answer to the title was “yes”.

Funny, that.

Honestly, if a story like this can’t make the mainstream news (No, HuffPo, you don’t count), a story that would be so important… It’s probably bullshit.