I've a scientific mind, I back science and logic over emotion and anecdotal experience, and by that logic I SHOULD be behind getting the flu shot as it seems that the majority of Doctors being given a voice in Ontario are saying almost the same thing, the flu shot is safe and we should all get it. I'm still not going to do that but I feel that if I am to be listened to about science, logic and climate change (and evolution etc) then I need to justify why I am not listening to these experts.
The first thing I want to say about this is that vaccines are generally good, I and my children are all vaccinated for MMR, polio, tetanus and whatever other standard vaccines are used. But these vaccines can and do occasionally cause very severe reactions, somebody in my extended family was affected and has had by most accounts a terrible life of pain and suffering because of it (though as is often the case in such circumstances, she is a beautiful and happy person the rare times I see her). I've often felt that death would have been a kinder reaction then the one she had to suffer but knowledge of her painful experience did not deter me from giving vaccines to my children because the major diseases they protect us from are just as horrible as this reaction but are far more likely to happen from the disease then from the vaccine.
It's a numbers game much like the lottery ... there is no absolute safe decision to be made, only a gamble one way or the other. It sucks and it is not in any way fair that some people have to suffer when we use vaccines so that the majority of us can enjoy a life free of these deadly diseases but then it sucks and is not fair for those people who get sick and die from the diseases without any vaccine. And the numbers speak volumes, the reactions like those described above are few and far between (circa 1:100,000) but left unvaccinated then each of us play odds of 1:100 and often much worse. Now one of the problems we suffer as a race is, unfortunately for many, innumeration...that is many of us can't really understand numbers, volumes, and relative meanings as well as we should. That's why lotteries are so successful because people generally can't appreciate what 1:28million truly means (it means you won't win!) and that's why a lot of people refuse to get vaccinated because they can't really appreciate the 1,000 times difference.
The Flu Shot is Different
These vaccines for MMR etc have evolved and importantly have been subject to a large number of detailed and peer-reviewed clinical trials; there is documented evidence of their efficacy and their safety. They represent the best of science and medicine and a thing we should all be very proud of. But while it would be nice to believe that all vaccines being provided to us come with the same rigorous safety procedures and processes, that is simply not the case at all. The yearly flu vaccines are never tested in clinical trials, ever. The scientific method that worked so well for Polio et. al is deliberately ignored for the influenza vaccines being produced yearly. That alone is enough for me to be skeptical. But there are other reasons as well.
Big Pharma don't really like vaccines as a business because they aren't that profitable. Like most businesses, Big Pharma want recurring revenue much more than one-time revenue. Software vendors sell "licenses" but the business thrives on the maintenance and support revenue paid yearly on those licenses; automobiles and other consumer goods have "planned obsolescence" so you have to buy again; electronic devices (we are told) need to be re-purchased often because the older model is so "1990s"; and the list goes on these days to include things that never had recurring revenues like books and music that are often now only rented and not owned with the hope, I suppose, of having/wanting to rent again in the future.
That is what the flu vaccine is, a recurring revenue stream for Big Pharma. The flu shot is new each year, we are told it is specifically tuned to the flu viruses prevalent that year and for some reason that is not explained, it doesn't offer any protection for the second year. Why? If it is like other vaccines then what it does is teach your immune system about a virus it hasn't seen before and then your immune system should keep that knowledge as it does quite well; and that is exactly how the vaccine does work, so why do we need a new one each year? "Because there are new strains each year", ya right.
One of the biggest problems with this model of vaccines is that the vaccines themselves never mature and the process to make them don't mature. Compared to the MMR vaccine the process for making a flu vaccine is outdated, almost barbaric. It uses mercury and other nasty chemicals (in small quantities but still present). And it always lacks clinical safety trials because having such trials would delay the vaccine beyond it's supposed useful period. That may well be true but it is also quite convenient.
Finally, the payoff just isn't there. Mumps, Rubella, Measles, Polio ... these are serious diseases but while millions do die from "complications due to the flu" every year, millions are going to die from something, we do not live forever. In general it is my belief that getting the flu a few times in your life is a good thing, it teaches your immune system to deal with things and though it may be the case that a vaccine can teach your immune system as well as a real virus can, I'm not convinced of that "truth" and I'm unwilling to fund and take the risk for Big Pharma's yearly experiment (particularly when it is obvious their true goal is the recurring revenue, not my health).
Your mileage may vary.