November 11, 2015
By Missy Devon
Public Health officials are about to look inept once again. This time, it’s over a recent observation regarding the quantity of flu shots that children receive. Basically, less is better.
Dr. Edward Belongia is among the scientists who have seen the picture coming into focus. He and some colleagues at Wisconsin’s Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation reported recently that children who had been vaccinated annually over a number of years were more likely to contract the flu than kids who were only vaccinated in the season in which they were studied.
“The vaccine was significantly more effective … if they had not been vaccinated in the previous five years,” Belongia, an epidemiologist, recounted in a recent interview with STAT. (source)
The interesting factor here is that these observations were based on all children receiving flu shots in some sort of quantity. The less they received it, the more protected they seemed to be. The conclusion they want to push remains is that “it is better to be vaccinated than not vaccinated.” But where’s the logic in that? If less is more, my question is, what is none?
This creates a huge hurdle for Public Health officials who have continuously shoved flu shots down our throats. Scientist are now perplexed, but what is there to be perplexed about? This would indicate that flu shots themselves contribute to getting the flu. This isn’t a complicated line of logic we are being asked to solve.
Like most issues related to mysterious and mercurial flu viruses, this one is a complex puzzle. But several researchers say the effect appears to be real — and needs to be explored further.
A number of countries are trying to get ever-larger portions of their populations immunized annually against influenza, a fact that makes it all the more important to figure out what is going on, flu experts say.
Do you see the great hypocrisy here? Once again, flu shots don’t work (in this case they potentially harm). Get more flu shots. How long can we run this way?