>mice injected with the H5N1 flu virus developed infections in cells in a brain region

That's all I really need to know. This is a situation where one has to err on the side of safety. Once one goes retarded, it may already be too late to start doing the right thing.

The study did not address vaccinations. However, the flu vaccine is not alive; there is no infection.

That is not true (taken from a site on Alzheimer's). I also looked up the papers on Pubmed:

Myth 6: Flu shots increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease

Reality: A theory linking flu shots to a greatly increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease has been proposed by a U.S. doctor whose license was suspended by the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners. Several mainstream studies link flu shots and other vaccinations to a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease and overall better health.

• A Nov. 27, 2001, Canadian Medical Journal report suggests older adults who were vaccinated against diphtheria or tetanus, polio, and influenza seemed to have a lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease than those not receiving these vaccinations.
• A report in the Nov. 3, 2004, JAMA found that annual flu shots for older adults were associated with a reduced risk of death from all causes.

This just in also: People who take care of themselves found to be healthier.

This is a propaganda seed article. What they are trying to get at is that the flu vaccine can lower alzheimer's. There is no evidence of this. This is PR marketing.

This is a propaganda seed article. What they are trying to get at is that the flu vaccine can lower alzheimer's...This is PR marketing.

Robert, where is your evidence that this study was propaganda for vaccines? Where is your evidence that they only did this study to support the flu vaccine? Where is your evidence that this is PR marketing?

You need to show some evidence for statements like that. It's only fair, since you demand the same from pro-vaccine folk.

A report in the Nov. 3, 2004, JAMA found that annual flu shots for older adults were associated with a reduced risk of death from all causes.

Wow!Flu shot reduced death from ALL causes???? All causes? How scientific do you suppose that is?

That vaccine must be like magic. It can prevent deaths from heart attack, stroke, cancer, car accidents, etc., AMazing. It must saving peoples lives like crazy except.....

In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased.

Wow, Robert, you must have really read the papers. I am not going to waste anymore of my time arguing with someone who puts up statistics with no sources, yet attacks peer-reviewed research without having actually read it.

I am not going to waste anymore of my time arguing with someone who puts up statistics with no sources,

uh, there's a link if you put your cursor over the sentence.

Robert, still waiting for evidence to support this statement of yours:

This is a propaganda seed article. What they are trying to get at is that the flu vaccine can lower alzheimer's.

Do you have evidence for that or are you just posting hyperbolic statements without backing?

Hey Robert, how's it going on finding evidence that this study is just propaganda to increase flu shots? Find any yet? I wouldn't want you to be one of those people who makes an outrageous claim and then can't back it up. That seems to really frustrate you on here.

I would like to suggest that you switch to a deodorant instead of an antiperspirant. Something without Aluminum Chlorhydrate. That way you would just be sweaty but not stinky or friendless. Also, consider taking fish oil. That might be improve your chances. Do not smoke. Do not drink heavily either. Smoking and drinking can increase your risk factor. Get lots of sleep. Do not work night shift.

Aluminum is a risk factor.

Taking zinc, vitamin D3, and NAC in the right amounts boost immunity.

I haven't had the flu or a fever in five years.

What is NAC?

JohnWW1: I believe NAC stands for N-acetyl-cysteine, in the comment of AB 1981 above.

Yes, 600 mg in younger persons and 600 mg x2 in older persons, is probably the standard NAC dose.

So you will not get the flu. People with the flu miss work and are a lethal risk to the elderly and immune suppressed. This study demonstrates that not getting the flu or other viral diseases that can be prevented by vaccination decreases your risk of getting Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

What a krock of krap. Flu shots are NOT effective in most cases, and people usually get sick AFTER getting it. PASS.

Myself and my family never get flu shots and we never get the flu. Just follow healthy lifestyle and that's about it.

This study demonstrates that not getting the flu or other viral diseases that can be prevented by vaccination decreases your risk of getting Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

There's no scientific evidence of that. But that's exactly what this Public relations article want you to think.

I would think that we would first have to determine what may cause PD and Alzheimer's. Viral infections as causative is purely speculative. But I guess it doesn't hurt to claim vaccinations benefits in preventing neurodegenerative diseases.

Flu shots...get your flu shots here!

Flu shots are hardly a big money maker for the drug companies. If anything, reducing the number of cases of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will reduce big drug company profits in the years ahead.

Don't be naive, Dale. Pharma not making money on vaccines is an old myth. It may have used to be true but not anymore.

Novartis says swine flu vaccine boosts profit
Sanofi’s Profit Rises on Vaccine Sales

There is no evidence that flu shots reduce alzheimer's. There is evidence that aluminum is associated with Alzheimers. The flu shot contains aluminum.

1) Those two links are talking about spikes in profit due to the swine flu vaccine, not regular vaccines. That was definitely a special case, due to the widespread panic that surrounded the issue.

2) Pharma makes far more on pills you take everyday. Aricept, one of the popular Alzheimer's drugs, makes billions of dollars a year in sales (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-13/eisai-s-full-year-aricept-sales-fell-10-to-290-billion-yen.html 290 billion Yen is about $3.5 billion).

Meanwhile, GlaxoSmithKline reported about $1.1 billion in sales for the swine flu vaccine during the crisis (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/gsk/7645872/GlaxoSmithKline-profits-climb-on-healthy-sales-of-swine-flu-vaccine.html 698 million British pounds is about $1.1 billion).

So one of the biggest vaccine sales is still only a third of a successful pill you take everyday. Then when you take into account most vaccines don't make nearly that much money, you have to arrive at the conclusion that pills make far more money for pharma than vaccines. Looks like you're the one subscribing to a myth that pharma makes big bucks on vaccines.

Robert, I've posted similar data for you before to show how you're wrong and you never comment. Why is that?

Then when you take into account most vaccines don't make nearly that much money, you have to arrive at the conclusion that pills make far more money for pharma than vaccines. Looks like you're the one subscribing to a myth that pharma makes big bucks on vaccines.

No liablility on vaccine. There is liability on pills.

OK then why did you try to refute Dale's comment with sales numbers if the sales numbers don't matter in the face of the liability differences? Also do you have numbers that show that costs from other drugs' liability suits cut their profits to put them on par or below the figures for vaccines? Or are you just making that up to skirt commenting on the data that I showed you?

Robert,

There is no evidence that routine aluminum intake is associated with Alzheimer's. The amount in a vaccine is tiny.

Drug companies make the most money on blockbuster medicines that lots of people need to take month after month. A vaccine that is given only once a year and that a high percentage of people skip is hardly going to be a big money maker.

Drug companies make the most money on blockbuster medicines that lots of people need to take month after month.

What happens when those blockbuster pipelines start slowing down?

Drugs you give to sick people. Vaccines are given to Everyone. You add that up and it's potentially a lot of money.

What did Merck do when it's "blockbuster" vioxx was hit with lawsuits after it was found that the pharma company downplayed the risks and hid safety data? It came back withe Gardasil.

Drugs you give to sick people. Vaccines are given to Everyone. You add that up and it's potentially a lot of money.

But I already showed you data that shows drugs make more money than vaccines. You refuse to acknowledge the fact the drug companies make far more on drugs than vaccines. I can point to an Alzheimer's drug that brings in more money than one of the most profitable vaccines. And then if you look at the regular childhood vaccines, the disparity is even larger. When are you going to stop burying your head in the sand and look at the data?

What did Merck do when it's "blockbuster" vioxx was hit with lawsuits after it was found that the pharma company downplayed the risks and hid safety data? It came back withe Gardasil.

Do you have any evidence to show that Merck made Gardisil to make up for money lost by Vioxx? Well let me help you out there, Robert. People have been developing an HPV vaccine since the 80s. But if you have actual evidence from Merck that supports your claim, I'd love to be proven wrong. Of course, you would never just post a statement that had no backing with evidence. You harp on others all the time about that.

From reading the article, it would seem that just taking a simple anti-inflammatory when you have a flu virus might be the best course. Wait, maybe I misunderstood you. You're referring to the flu vaccine, right? Not aspirin/ibuprofin? Anyway, if you're talking about flu vaccines, I don't think the article posted an opinion on getting them, one way or the other.

A shot in my arm to prime my immune system is much preferable to being sick for three or four days.

It's not that simple for everyone, Dale.

Finland vows care for narcolepsy kids who had swine flu shot

Robert: Can you answer a simple question. It's like a SAT question:

Which of these values are greater?

(A) The number of people who get the flu every year.

(B) The number of people who have life-altering/life-threatening vaccine side effects

Robert,

There were 52 cases of narcolepsy found in kids in Finland in 2009 and 2010. 90% of them had gotten the Pandemrix flu vaccine. They found that there was a 9 times increased risk of narcolepsy with the vaccine. Of the 52 cases, 47 were in those who were given the vaccine, whereas only 5 would have been expected. This means that the excessive number of cases of narcolepsy possibly caused by the vaccine was 42. Since about 1/2 of Findland's one million children got the flu vaccine, the case rate of narcolepsy from the flu vaccine was less than 1 in 10,000. There was serious concerns in those years of a swine flu pandemic. The CDC estimated that even a moderate pandemic could have resulted in up to 35% of the US population becoming infected and several hundred thousand dying as a result.

Public Health is darned if you do and darned if you don't. I worked for 30+ years in public health. In 2002, West Nile Virus came to Ohio. Columbus had 3 people hospitalized from WNV, Franklin County outside of Columbus had 6, and no deaths in either jurisdiction. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) had 219 hospitalizations and 9 deaths. I was the supervisor in charge of the Columbus Public Health effort to control West Nile Virus. We went after Culex mosquitoes with a vengeance. We preemptively larvicided all known sanitary/storm combined sewers. I picked up quite a few dead bluejays and crows for testing for WNV myself. WNV killed more than 90% of the crows in Ohio in 2001 and 2002.

Diseases are real and can occur in epidemics. Vaccines are a way to stimulate a person's immune system. The vector for the flu is not mosquitoes, it is other people. If they get the flu or other preventable disease, they put you and your loved ones at risk.

Oh yeah, after saving the butts of the citizens of Columbus from WNV and a couple of years after WNV was no longer a danger, the anti-pesticide nuts came out in force. At least now I no longer have to listen with the nonsense of those folks as I am happy, healthy, and retired.

Findland's one million children got the flu vaccine, the case rate of narcolepsy from the flu vaccine was less than 1 in 10,000.

How do you think a clinical trial efficacy study posed as a safety profile would pick this up? How many children would need to be in the study to assure the public of what the actual safety is? 1000? More than 10,000? 100,000? How many were actually in the study before this vaccine was deemed safe?

There was serious concerns in those years of a swine flu pandemic. The CDC estimated that even a moderate pandemic could have resulted in up to 35% of the US population becoming infected and several hundred thousand dying as a result.

The CDC was wrong. And they speculate a lot. "What if" can justify a lot. A lot of harm.

Robert: Can you answer a simple question. It's like a SAT question:

Which of these values are greater?

(A) The number of people who get the flu every year.

(B) The number of people who have life-altering/life-threatening vaccine side effects

I don't answer bad, incomplete, and misleading questions.

Here is a question that I KNOW you can't answer. The CDC routinely used to tout that 36,000 people died from influenza every year. How many potential lives could the seasonal flu vaccine save per year?

I don't answer bad, incomplete, and misleading questions.

Actually, Robert, you don't answer most questions asked of you. Just another of your attempts to avoid taking a stand that others can attack.

So why is that a bad question? Please explain to me how that is a bad question? I'll answer your questions once you start answering mine.

Actually, Robert, you don't answer most questions asked of you.

Exactly.

Just another of your attempts to avoid taking a stand that others can attack.

Now tell me why I would want to do that? If your motive is to attack then why would I stand still for you?If you wanted to learn then change your motives and ask questions in earnest.

My stance is my stance. I'm very consistent with it. If you know how to use consistently applied logic then you can figure it out yourself. Until then you can use logical fallacies such as straw man arguments and false dichotomies to pigeon hole me.

So why is that a bad question? Please explain to me how that is a bad question?

You want to use the vague and rhetorical phrase "the benefits outweigh the risks" by saying "ha 2 >1". I don't fall for your rhetoric.

I'll answer your questions once you start answering mine.

You CAN"T answer mine because you don't have the evidence needed to do so. So much for evidence based medicine.

You CAN"T answer mine because you don't have the evidence needed to do so. So much for evidence based medicine.

Yet you constantly spout about conspiracy theories, such as this study is just PR for pharma, without providing a shred of evidence. See you admonish others on here for their rhetoric and then commit the same sins.

Now tell me why I would want to do that? If your motive is to attack then why would I stand still for you?If you wanted to learn then change your motives and ask questions in earnest.

Because the point of these forums is to have a debate about an issue, to discuss issues. In a healthy discussions both sides give and take to make their points. I ask you questions to understand your position and point out its flaws, and then you do the same. But you want it to be a one-way street: You ask questions, demand answers, point out flaws in others. The minute someone pops you a question or points out a flaw, you go quiet. Not really a good discussion there.

Sure if you just want to go on here and shoot down pro-vaccine people, that's fine, it's a free country. But just know that some people will find your demand for answers of others and refusal to provide answers of your own as hypocritical. And I will call you on it whenever I can. So enjoy.

Want to show people you aren't a hypocrite? Start by answering this question:

You said:

You want to use the vague and rhetorical phrase "the benefits outweigh the risks" by saying "ha 2 >1". I don't fall for your rhetoric.

What is wrong with the idea of benefits outweighing risks? People make such calculations every day in their lives? Why can't we apply that to public health decisions?

What is wrong with the idea of benefits outweighing risks? People make such calculations every day in their lives? Why can't we apply that to public health decisions?

Public health is not concerned with individual health and optimal health. They are concerned with the least common denominator and how that affects the overall statistics of the group. The strategy of "public health" is to attack the lowest of the low in hopes of bringing up the entire group statistics. They are not concerned with bringing up the middle or upper groups. Public health has a group think strategy not an optimal individual health strategy.

You should know this.

http://www.sunherald.com/2012/02/17/3759150/research-and-markets-the-global.html

Research and Markets: The Global Vaccine Market to Grow At A CAGR Of 9.8 Percent over the Period 2010-2014

Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2012/02/17/3759150/research-and-markets-the-global.html#storylink=cpy

http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchandmarkets.com%2Fresearch%2Fe4ad9c%2Fglobal_vaccine_mar&esheet=50172046&lan=en-US&anchor=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchandmarkets.com%2Fresearch%2Fe4ad9c%2Fglobal_vaccine_ma

$2000 per child if they turn down every vaccine

Robert, how else would the government decide which policy to pursue other than weighing risks and benefits? Seriously, that's how people make decisions all the time? And doing so does consider individual health, by asking what balances risks with benefits for society, you optimize the health of individuals. Will such a policy benefit everyone no? But no policy on earth will do that. If you want a policy like that, you're using utopian thinking. Nothing will benefit everyone, some policies will hurt some people.

Also I can't believe you're deriding the use of statistics to assess the success of a policy. How else is the government supposed to analyze a policy? You can't go person by person to monitor a policy. Seriously, what is the better alternative?

Finally, I could only read 2 of the 3 links you posted. But what is your point? The vaccine market is growing? So what? My new kitten is growing too, that doesn't mean he'll ever outgrow me. Vaccines will never make more money for pharma than pills because pills you take regularly for long periods of time. Vaccines you take once. Also the first two links show that the biggest growth area for vaccines is developing countries, not the U.S. So I don't see your point. You still haven't refuted the data I showed early that shows pills are bigger moneymakers than vaccines.

Robert, how else would the government decide which policy to pursue other than weighing risks and benefits?

When the government decides what's best for the government rest assured that they are not deciding wha'ts best in the interest of trip toe's of trip toe's family. They , the policy makers, are deciding for a large group of people. When I decide what's best It's for me and my family.

To effect the whole group, instead of bringing up the top, public health has historically been concerned with the bottom. That's been their strategy. "Let's bring up the bottom just a little".

One can see this in the exercise recs. "if we can get the laziest of the laziest to do something instead of nothing then we can effect overall health of the group." The recommendation is to give a goal that is not too discouraging for that group.. 30 minutes excercise. But what about the people who are already exercising more? Should they reduce their amount because public health said so?

Public health has a health goal. I have a health goal. Never shall the tween meet. They are agents of the state. I'm not their victim.

Public health has a health goal. I have a health goal. Never shall the tween meet. They are agents of the state. I'm not their victim.

OK Good for you. But when you set a health goal, do you often weigh risks and benefits? Like: I could run for 45 minutes everyday, but it's high impact and could lead to joint damage, so maybe I'll try swimming instead, even though it's more costly.

Or do you just make wild guesses about the right course of action for you and your family?

Beth,

I have to agree. Births leads to disease and death. Marriage leads to divorce. However, exercise, sunshine (vitamin D), and decent food are all associated with longevity. It also helps to have good genes. I know I selected the best parents that I could! ;-)

> no one has any idea what is causing it.

Speak for yourself. There is a pretty good idea of the contributing factors. Diabetes is a strong risk factor, for one.