
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
FDA to require the flu vaccine prove its effectiveness at reducing the flu
Posted on 9/24/26 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 9/24/26 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 9/24/26 at 12:48 pm to Ailsa
Never had a flu vaccine in my life.
Do not get the people that do.
Do not get the people that do.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 12:50 pm to Ailsa
THIS is what I voted for and why I was thrilled with the RFK, Jr. pick by Trump.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:07 pm to DarthRebel
I started getting the flu vaccine two or three years ago. It made sense to me.
Years of experience establishes its safety and effectiveness.
Years of experience establishes its safety and effectiveness.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:11 pm to BU Bear In BR
quote:
even though I voted for Trump
THREE TIMES!!
amirite
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:12 pm to BU Bear In BR
Yeah, a real distinction gets lost in OP’s headline. studies get done every year looking at whether vaccinated people actually get less lab-confirmed flu.
FDA sometimes allows for licensing flu vaccines using the antibody response as a surrogate for protection rather than requiring every vaccine to first run a trial showing fewer actual flu cases. So “should FDA require clinical outcomes instead of relying on that surrogate” is fair, but that’s pretty different from “until now nobody required evidence that flu vaccines actually reduce flu”.
FDA sometimes allows for licensing flu vaccines using the antibody response as a surrogate for protection rather than requiring every vaccine to first run a trial showing fewer actual flu cases. So “should FDA require clinical outcomes instead of relying on that surrogate” is fair, but that’s pretty different from “until now nobody required evidence that flu vaccines actually reduce flu”.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:17 pm to BU Bear In BR
quote:
Except we already do research on its effectiveness... you can literally go find it on pubmed right now. LINK
shite like this is a waste of time. I know I'm gonna get called a dumb commie liberal (even though I voted for Trump)
Your link does not work for me.
What is it showing?
The new regulations want to studies to show effectiveness in outcomes as opposed to effectiveness in producing desired antibodies.
The latter is the preferred method of the industry because it allows for quick turnaround and the idea is that production of antibodies is sufficient to assume outcomes are good.
RFKs HHS thinks actual outcomes like those required for other pharmaceuticals is required. This would of course cost a lot more - having to run clinical trials proving effectiveness is much more expensive than running tests for antibodies.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:17 pm to DarthRebel
quote:Noted that you didn't say, "I've never had the flu."
Never had a flu vaccine in my life.
Do not get the people that do.
You do you, but two years ago I said "frick it" and didn't get a flue shot. Of course, I got it and it kicked my arse for two weeks. Last year, got the shot early and went through winter with barely a sniffle while everyone around me that didn't (my wife, my daughter, my son) all got it. I live in the same house with my wife and my son got it while he was home on winter break from college. I had the shot and was never infected by them. Anecdotal, sure, but my experience is different, I suppose, than yours, since you didn't lie, er, state what your outcomes have been.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:19 pm to Ailsa
I stopped getting the flu shots years ago because it always put me in the sick bed for almost a week with flu-like symptoms.
Along with that, the shots are generally pharma's best guess as to which strain will be predominant in the upcoming season and sometimes they get it completely wrong (thus people are getting the shots for essentially no reason).
For me, this all adds up to a choice between a 100% chance of getting sick with flu-like symptoms or a somewhat lesser chance (and if I choose wrong then I just go get the appropriate shot).
Along with that, the shots are generally pharma's best guess as to which strain will be predominant in the upcoming season and sometimes they get it completely wrong (thus people are getting the shots for essentially no reason).
For me, this all adds up to a choice between a 100% chance of getting sick with flu-like symptoms or a somewhat lesser chance (and if I choose wrong then I just go get the appropriate shot).
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:20 pm to Ailsa
Eh, its one im the least concerned about.
However, I do know last year my doctor told me not to because "They got it wrong last year and we are seeing ppl that got it actually have a higher risk of catching the strain this year."
So I didnt.
Ill ask again this year and see what he says.
Luckily I've been seeing the same doctor for 20+ years and trust him. He's not a vax happy loon thankfully.
However, I do know last year my doctor told me not to because "They got it wrong last year and we are seeing ppl that got it actually have a higher risk of catching the strain this year."
So I didnt.
Ill ask again this year and see what he says.
Luckily I've been seeing the same doctor for 20+ years and trust him. He's not a vax happy loon thankfully.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:20 pm to VOR
quote:
I started getting the flu vaccine two or three years ago. It made sense to me.
Years of experience establishes its safety and effectiveness.
Were you getting the flu every year or every other year?
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:40 pm to Ailsa
Ok, so this makes me wonder how much gov money goes into the research for these vaccines.
As we all know, Pharma loves their research grants.
I don't see anything wrong in making sure you're getting what you pay for.
As we all know, Pharma loves their research grants.
I don't see anything wrong in making sure you're getting what you pay for.
This post was edited on 9/24/26 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:45 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
Ok, so this makes me wonder how much gov money goes into the research for these vaccines.
As we all know, Pharma loves their research grants.
I don't see anything wrong in making sure you're getting what you pay for.
They should have proved effectiveness from the beginning but none of the childhood vax were ever tested on humans...RFKjr finally got them to admit that. Every single drug should be proved before it's allowed on the market but they haven't been as they should.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:48 pm to Ailsa
I think I read where flu deaths in seniors has risen since the advent of the flu shot
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:52 pm to JimEverett
The abstract for the review of flu vaccine effectiveness for '25-26 season:
quote:
In the United States, annual influenza vaccination has been recommended for all persons aged =6 months, including during the 2025–26 season. Interim influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates were calculated for patients with acute respiratory illness–associated outpatient visits and hospitalizations from three U.S. respiratory virus VE networks during the 2025–26 influenza season, using a test-negative case-control design. Among children and adolescents aged <18 years, VE was 38%–41% against influenza outpatient visits and 41% against influenza-associated hospitalization. Among adults aged =18 years, VE was 22%–34% against influenza outpatient visits and 30% against influenza-associated hospitalization. Among children and adolescents, VE against influenza A ranged from 37% (against outpatient visits) to 42% (against hospitalization) across settings; among adults, VE against influenza A ranged from 30% (against hospitalization) to 34% (against outpatient visits) across settings. Among children and adolescents, VE against influenza A(H3N2)–associated outpatient visits was 35% and against influenza A(H3N2)–associated hospitalization was 38%. VE against influenza B outpatient visits ranged from 45%–71% among children and adolescents and was 63% among adults. Other estimates of VE were not statistically significant or were not reportable. Although interim influenza VE is lower during the 2025–26 influenza season than it was during recent influenza seasons, these findings demonstrate that influenza vaccination still provides protection against influenza. CDC recommends influenza vaccination; U.S. influenza vaccines remain available for persons aged =6 months.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 1:56 pm to Ailsa
quote:
FDA to require the flu vaccine prove its effectiveness at reducing the flu
I don't recall the FDA requiring the smallpox vaccine prove its effectiveness at reducing smallpox. Probably because vaccines don't reduce diseases, they prevent them altogether.
I think you meant to say flu shot, you know, like the covid shot.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 2:01 pm to Ailsa
I contracted the flu when I was 20, it fricking sucked. Iv'e taken the flu shot for 40 years now. No problems.
To each his own.
To each his own.
Posted on 9/24/26 at 2:02 pm to TigerDoc
yeah, this is an example of the observational studies that FDA has relied upon in the past and that the current HHS is trying o get away from. HHS wants is pre-market approval processes, the types of processes that non-vaccine pharmaceuticals must go through. They want large scale, randomized, clinical trials that directly track clinical outcomes, not the observational, test-negative stuff currently in place.

Popular
Back to top


10














