What the 2013 Flu Epidemic Reveals about the Flu Shot
What the 2013 Flu Epidemic Reveals about the Flu Shot
© 2013 Dr. Dale Peterson & drdalepeterson.com One of the questions I’m asked most frequently is “What is your opinion of the flu shot?” It may be phrased in other ways such as “Do you recommend the flu shot?” or “Should I get a flu shot?” but the questioner is generally interested in knowing whether the flu shot is worthwhile and if it carries any risks. For nearly two decades I’ve explained that while flu shots rarely cause serious adverse effects, they offer little protection from the ravages of influenza. Despite a successful campaign to immunize individuals over the age of 65 the death rate from influenza in the elderly has not changed. While the target population has expanded to include nearly everyone there has been very little change in the frequency or severity of influenza epidemics. For years the failure of influenza vaccination programs to prevent annual influenza outbreaks has been explained by the challenge of correctly predicting which strains of the virus should be included in the vaccine. The flu virus is a moving target and, more often than not, the annual flu vaccine doesn’t contain the strain that is prevalent in any particular year. I find it tragically comical that public health officials continue to urge people to get a flu shot even when it has been established that the form of the virus responsible for the current epidemic was not anticipated and therefore is not covered by the available vaccine. The flu epidemic of 2013 is somewhat unique in that the vaccine manufacturers correctly guessed that the H3N1 flu variety would be the primary strain this year and included it in the current vaccine. The widespread flu outbreak has forced some vaccine advocates to honestly assess the shortcomings of the influenza vaccination program. Dr. Gary Poland, head of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic, recently admitted that the flu vaccine is imperfect. Nevertheless, he likened flu shots to seat belts suggesting that people are more likely to survive the flu if they’ve had a shot even though the vaccination failed to prevent the disease. Dr. Edward Ehlinger, the Minnesota State Health Commissioner stated, “I think we’re all in agreement that we need a much better vaccine.” He went on to admit that the flu vaccine has never been “one of the star performers.” Michael Osterholm, a former epidemiologist for the State of Minnesota even called the flu vaccine “overpromoted and overhyped.” He based this on the results of his research that has shown that the flu shot has only worked on a little over half of adults receiving it and offers little or no benefit to the elderly. The explanation for the lack of the flu shots efficacy in the elderly is a weakening of the immune system with age. This begs the following question. Do the approximately 60 % of adults who don’t get the flu after receiving a flu shot remain well because they got the shot or simply because their immune systems were strong enough to ward off the virus? The very fact that the vaccine “took”, if that indeed is the case, indicates that they had an immune response that was capable of recognizing the virus and forming antibodies against it. The current influenza epidemic and the admission from vaccine experts that the current method of reducing the effects of influenza is inadequate confirm what I have been telling people when they ask about the flu shot: Take it if you must, but don’t rely upon it for protection. Living a lifestyle that supports a healthy immune system is far more important in avoiding the flu and other illnesses than getting an annual flu shot. Drink ample amounts of pure water. Eat whole foods. Limit refined foods and alcoholic beverages, both of which significantly weaken the immune system. Get adequate rest as indicated by the ability to awake without the need for an alarm. Wash hands before eating and use a sanitizing hand gel after exposure to potentially contaminated surfaces. It is also important to have supports available to being immediately if aching, fever, cough, or other flu symptoms appear. Products containing antivirin, substances that coat viruses and prevent them from replicating in the body, have been shown to limit influenza to 36 to 48 hours in duration. (In contrast, Tamiflu is purported to decrease the duration of influenza by one day, meaning that one can expect to be ill for 6 – 9 days if taking the drug as opposed to 7 – 10 days without it.) Two reliable brands are Original Sambucol and Immunity Take Care. Vitamins A & C are critically important to the body’s ability to fight viruses. 25,000 IU of beta carotene twice daily and vitamin C 500 – 1000 mg 3 – 4 times daily are required. Immune system stimulants such as Echinacea and astragalus. Our family keeps several bottles of Original Sambucol and Immunazyme, a combination of vitamin A, vitamin C, and immune supporting herbs, on hand for use in the event of a viral illness. We rarely need to use them, but it is comforting to know they are on hand should we ever need them. This year’s flu epidemic has been complicated by the appearance of the Sydney strain of norovirus, which was not included in the flu shot. (There are no currently available vaccines for noroviruses.) Norovirus infection is characterized by vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. The greatest risk is that of dehydration. For years I have recommended a home recipe that is highly effective in rehydrating individuals who have been hit by the stomach flu. It consists of:
It is possible to dramatically decrease your chances of catching influenza by supporting your immune system and it’s possible to weather the storm of influenza or norovirus by quickly adding the supports mentioned and effectively dealing with the risk of dehydration. For more information see my article Vomiting and Diarrhea: Weathering the Storm. Dale Peterson, M.D. |