Question

why is the flu shot unnecessary?

Answer 1

Flu shots can't cause the flu, but this is perhaps the most persistent of the myths about the flu vaccine. All influenza vaccines contain a dead virus in order to build up immunity to the illness. While your child may develop flu like symptoms such as a mild fever, or a runny nose, this is normal and is not a manifestation of the flu. In fact, these symptoms are a good sign, because they are indications that the immune system is responding and the body is processing the material found in the vaccine.

It is important to remember that flu vaccines prevent influenza, not illnesses caused by other germs, and there are multiple respiratory viruses that exist in schools and daycares. Thus, even though a child may begin to exhibit symptoms of the flu after having been given the vaccine, this does not mean the vaccine was in some way ineffective.

Though there are some reasons due to which one can think flue shots an unnecessary thing

(Low Success Rate)The argument Carroll presents is that, even in flu seasons like this past one when the vaccine is not well-matched to the predominant circulating strain of the influenza virus since the vaccine is so extraordinarily safe, it still confers a great benefit to society. To support his argument, Carroll(2010) cites two studies from the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration, a global independent organization specializing in a meta-analysis that does not accept any industry funding. (A meta-analysis is a kind of study in which researchers search the literature for relevant studies and review the body of evidence available by combining the results of studies that meet the inclusion criteria.) And yet their review turned up “no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications”.

For many decades, researchers believed the flu vaccine offered solid protection if it was a good match to the circulating strains; studies from the 1940s through the 1960s routinely showed an efficacy of 70% to 90%. But those studies relied on a misleading methodology. Without a simple way to detect the virus in the blood, researchers measured antibody levels, looking for a spike that occurs after infection. Then in the 1990s, sensitive polymerase chain reaction tests enabled researchers to actually measure viral levels, and they told a different story. It turned out that some people who did not have the big antibody spike after exposure—and were therefore counted as a vaccine success—actually did show a jump in viral levels, signaling infection. Earlier assessments had exaggerated vaccine efficacy. What's more, efficacy was sometimes low even when the vaccine and circulating strains appeared well matched. Something else was afoot. Reports from the World Health Organization (WHO,2019) suggest this year’s shot might not be the most effective. Two of the strains that just struck the Southern HemisphereTrusted Source, and then predictably may move north, aren’t included in the new vaccine.

(Security) Additionally in a study, it was revealed that subjects who had received the influenza vaccine in both the current and the previous season were found to shed over six times more aerosolized virus than those who did not get a flu shot during either season. (National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 18-Jan-2018).

It is noteworthy that their review included numerous studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which independent studies have unsurprisingly shown to be biased in favor of their own products.