Chad: This is Dr. Chad Edwards and you’re listening to podcast number six of Against The Grain.
[background music playing]
Male: Welcome to Against The Grain podcast with Dr. Chad Edwards, where he challenges the status quo when it comes to medicine. We get into hot topics in the medical field with real stories from real patients to help you on your way to a healthy lifestyle. Get ready because we’re about to go Against The Grain.
Brian: This is Brian Wilkes here with Doctor, real doctor, Chad Edwards. How you doing?
Chad: Brian, I am doing amazing. I am ready to get rolling today. This is some good stuff.
Brian: I’m glad you feel good because I feel not so good. It’s flu season and I’m —
Chad: Are you scared?
Brian: Yes, I’m terrified. When you have kids, I have two kids and you have two kids so you can relate to this, right?
Chad: Technically four.
Brian: Four kids? That’s right, yes. Yes. Congratulations.
Chad: Thank you.
Brian: Newly married.
Chad: That’s right.
Brian: Big family now.
Chad: Family the man.
Brian: Awesome. You understand, your kids aren’t as young but my kids are, I have two boys, one almost two and one almost seven and it’s like a Petri dish at our house. They just bring everything home. [laughter] We get everything and it leads us to our subject today, which is if I get flu shot, then I won’t get the flu, right? There you go. Before we get started, let’s talk about Revolution Health and Wellness Clinic.
Chad: Revolution Health and Wellness Clinic, man it’s an amazing place. Cash-based clinic, so you are actually in control of your own healthcare, you get the amount of time with the doctor that you want. We do all kinds of, we use all kinds of things, medical approach things. We do IV nutrition, we do bioidentical hormones where we look for the underlying cause of why you have a problem. Call us at 9-1-8-9-3-5-3-6-3-6 to schedule your appointment. Certainly visit our website at revolutionhealth.org, lots of contact information stuff there, you can read about us. Call us and schedule your appointment.
Brian: Awesome. I go to Revolution Health, my dad goes to Revolution Health, my wife goes to Revolution Health, a lot of my friends go there now and I’ll tell you one of the things I like about it is the way you’re treated there. Yes, you really are treated first class. You got a lot of good people working for you there Chad.
Chad: Thank you.
Chad: We are gifted. Blessed.
Brian: Our other sponsors, Upper Cervical Health Centers, you know these guys personally, right?
Chad: I do. They are amazing people, not your standard average chiropractic clinic, looking at overall health. I think there’s some statistic over there about —
Brian: Yes. 75% improvement in overall health, amazing.
Chad: Yes. Again, looking at, they’re just not your, ‘pop your back, pop your neck and get that feeling better’. We’re looking at overall health from a proactive perspective. They go hand-in-hand a lot with what we do at Revolution Health. They are amazing, amazing people looking for underlying causes, trying to get the physiology and the anatomy outlined correctly. Tulsa Prolotherapy
Brian: Awesome. You can call them at 9-1-8-7-4-2-2-3-0-0 or you can look at them online at uppercervicaltulsa.com/newyou. Chad, let’s get right to the topic here. Tulsa Prolotherapy
Chad: Yes, we got a lot to go over here.
Brian: Yes. This is a good one, this is a conversation that actually my wife has with other wives and it gets pretty passionate. Should you get the flu shot or not? Give us some answers here man.
Chad: Well, let me first say that I am not opposed to immunization. Some, it seems like there’s this hard line in the sand and do you immunize, period. Do you not immunize, period. I think that immunization is —
Brian: It does seem like there’s the two opposing views.
Chad: Absolutely. There are some immunizations out there, not the topic of this podcast, and we’ll go over a lot of that in the future. There are some that have dramatically changed medicine and the impact of infectious disease on our overall health. I am not 100% hard lined anti-immunization. Tulsa Prolotherapy
Brian: No way.
Chad: I just want to make that clear.
Brian: Tell us the difference between the flu shot immunization and in, is it in a different category? Then obviously is it carried differently, is it a different makeup than your average child immunization, for example?
Chad: Well, we’ll get into the weeds of this, the biggest thing is that the other childhood immunizations actually work. When it comes to like Haemophilus Influenzae Type B or what we call the HIB virus or polio, those vaccinations made a dramatic and profound difference. We don’t have polio any more, we don’t have smallpox. Tulsa Prolotherapy
Brian: It’s gone.
Chad: The vaccine essentially eradicated the illness. It was declared eradicated by the World Health Organization.
Brian: It worked.
Chad: Those immunizations work. Contrast that with the flu which has not been eradicated, different mechanisms and things like that. I don’t expect that the flu will actually ever be eradicated in the same way, but when it comes to the effectiveness, it’s just over time. This is not my opinion, this is the scientific data and we’re going to go over this. It just doesn’t work in the way that we think it works. I’m not saying it’s like has zero effect but it’s not what we’ve been told. Tulsa Prolotherapy
Brian: Well, both my kids had the flu vaccine and Jackson is seven, it depends on the year but he still gets the flu.
Chad: Yes, absolutely. Most of the time we think you tell me your thought or Marshall, you can weigh in on this, do you —
Brian: Marshall’s our behind the scenes guy. He’s much more handsome and has a better voice than both of us, so I don’t know why he’s behind the scenes.
Chad: Well, he’s got the height.
Brian: He’s got the height, 6’ 7” this guy. He’s single, we’re going to give out his number at the end of the show. That’s our new thing.
Chad: All you single ladies.
Brian: All you single ladies. That’s right. [laughter] We’re going to have a sting with all you single ladies. But go ahead.
Chad: Okay. Basically, immunizations across the board, what we’re doing is we’re introducing some kind of antigen and an antigen is supposed to stimulate your immune system to develop specific antibodies so that you’re able to fight some kind of infection. Jonas Salk first came out with the first vaccine way back when and that made a very specific difference. The idea of immunizations are that you prep the immune system so when they do see an offender, they’re immediately able to ramp up the immune response. We can talk more about the geeky stuff on the immune system in some other podcast if there’s interest for that. You’re developing antibodies so that when you see this stuff, you’re ready to rock and roll. Tulsa Prolotherapy
The flu is an immunization that is designed to stimulate your immune system in a very specific way against certain strains of the flu and-
Brian: With your own natural immune process to attack the flu virus.
Chad: That’s correct. Now in concept, I’m a big advocate for that. I think that it makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways. In concept, there are definitely some things that it just doesn’t pan out quite that way when the rubber meets the road. What I’d like to do, with a lot of things I like to understand the ‘why’. Where do we come from? In order to understand the future, I think it’s best that we understand the past.
Brian: In other words, where did the vaccine originate?
Chad: Exactly. Basically, we had this big massive flu pandemic in 1918 1919, influenza pandemic, and it killed, estimates are as high as 50 million people worldwide. this was a big problem.
Brian: Crazy to think about that.
Chad: Killed people.
Brian: Crazy to think about that.
Chad: There’s a lot of fear associated with the flu and that’s understandable.
Brian: Was it a stronger version of the flu or was it what we see today?
Chad: Well, there’s what’s called virulence factors. If you remember from 2009 we had the swine flu which was predicted to cause a lot of deaths and we had a lot of people that got really sick from that. There’s different virulence factors and, you know, there’s the hemagglutinin and there’s neuraminidase. It’ll be important to understand one of those, but basically you’ve got these proteins that are on the surface of the virus lipid envelope that make it more able to penetrate the respiratory epithelium, the cells in your respiratory tract. That it can get in and infect those cells and do what it does. Some of them are more able to spread, they’re more transmissible, some of them have higher virulence factors, some of them are more able make you really stinking sick, some of them make you a little bit sick. When I say really stinking sick, I’m talking ICU kind of sick, not like, “Holy crap, I feel bad”.
Brian: Not like you and I get sick. Which is, for our wives, it’s almost like an ER clinic at home, right?
Chad: Yes, exactly.
Brian: For guys. Yes.
Chad: Exactly. Big flu pandemic in the late nineteen teens and obviously that was occurring right about the same time as World War Two. I’m an Army guy, so the US military had a big vested interest in making sure that their soldiers were healthy. They definitely wanted to try to prevent something like this in the future. If your soldiers can’t go out and fight then your national defense would definitely suffer. The military supported the development of a flu vaccine. They first studied this flu vaccine in 1944 and found that it did decrease episodes of febrile illness. In other words, illness with a temperature greater than 99 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, that sounds good but that’s not definitive.
There’s a concept that we need to understand, we’ll talk a little bit more about it as we go, but there’s absolute risk versus relative risk. There’s absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, that will be a theme as we go through scientific studies in the future, that will be a big theme. I don’t think we talked that before in the first podcast.
Brian: No. I think we have either, I agree.
Chad: Okay. Basically absolute risk, I think about it in terms of winning the lottery. If you buy one lottery ticket then your absolute chance, if you want to call that risk, your absolute chance or risk of winning the lottery will be like one in a million, or one in gazillion, or whatever it is how many. If you buy two lottery tickets your chances are two in the million, but that’s absolute risk or absolute chance. Relative risk is if you buy a two tickets you’ve doubled your chances, you have a 100% increase in your chances of winning the lottery. Conversely, if you only buy one, you’ve cut your chances by 50%. Those are true and accurate numbers but it’s skewed, it makes you think, “Crap, I don’t want cut my risk in there. I don’t want to cut my chances in half. Or I do want to cut my risk in half.” You’re talking about something’s one in a million, or two in a million, so really small chances, a lot of data is reported in this.
Brian: Dumb and dumber. You’re saying there is a chance.
Brian: You’re saying there is a chance.
Chad: Okay. This relative risk stuff it’s very common and we’ll be talking more about that. They found that it did a decrease incidents of these Febrile illnesses, but a subsequent evaluation that they looked at it in 1947 found that the incidents of disease was no different in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Basically, if you get the vaccine or if you don’t get the vaccine, it didn’t make any difference on whether or not you got the flu. That’s what they noted in 1947.
Chad: All right.
Brian: That’s very interesting.
Chad: Yes, absolutely.
Brian: Say is this the same pretty much clinical vaccination is when they had in 1940s that we take today, you say?
Chad: Well, things definitely developed; we’ve learned more, we’ve refined techniques, those kinds of things. I would argue without knowing exactly what they used. I would argue that we’re more effective today than we were back then.
Brian: Still the initial foundational studies show again that there was no decrease in someone URI. Let’s say, you get the vaccine, I get the vaccine, it doesn’t necessarily prohibit us from getting a flu?
Chad: Going back to the scientific studies, we are not looking at what is your chance, we’re looking at what is the chance of someone like you. Does that make sense?
Brian: Yes, it makes sense.
Chad: You have to look at in generalization because we’re not looking that specific, we’re looking at — it’s a statistical analysis.
Brian: I want to encourage anyone, I think was either podcast one or two, to go back and look at how lab results are done and compared. In the same podcast where we talk about how people are measured in masses versus individuals, certainly could be helpful for people listening to.
Chad: I totally agree with that. 1957 had a new pandemic, it was called the Asian Flu. One is bad as that one in the 1980, 1990 timeframe but we did see one to two million fatalities worldwide, so still killed a lot of people. Again, more fear, it’s a bad illness, bad disease. They developed a vaccine to it, millions of doses administered the United States in response. Vaccine had no appreciable effect on the trend of the pandemic. We’re talking about millions of doses that were given, and from a public health perspective and did this really make any impact on how many people got the flu? We didn’t notice a specific event. When you’re talking about these scientific studies you have to be careful; did they study the right people?
We’re looking it like this big melting pot, and you just throw a bunch of flu vaccine into it, then we say, “Did it make any difference and how many people got the flu?” I just want to use caution when we interpret this data, same with the data that we get today, it’s more specific but I think more skewed in many ways. Okay, as we continue to go through there. We started doing this routine vaccination in the 1960s, and so in this 1950 pandemic when they didn’t really see a difference, they explained to that a way as there was a failure of the flu vaccine because the immunization campaign that they started was “Too little too late,” and so just didn’t have enough time to make an impact.
In 1960, they started the first routine annual vaccination, and they emphasized these high risk groups including those over the age of 65 and individuals with chronic illness. By the early 1960s, we had routine vaccination policy adaptation. Adoption, I should say, so we were adopting routine vaccination. Basically, everybody gets your flu shot, which is what we hear today. There was very little evidence to support this routine immunization policy, because as we can see in the 1940s and 1950s, it just didn’t have an appreciable effect based on the information that we had.
In 1964, Alexander Langmuir, he was an MD, MPH, so physician, master public health. He was the chief epidemiologist at the CDC, published a paper. His words were, “Reluctantly concluded that there’s little progress to be reported. The severity of the epidemic of 1962, 1963 demonstrate the failure to achieve effective control of access mortality.” That was “The Chief Epidemiologist.” Epidemiology is looking at the distribution of disease, and illness, and those kinds of things. He basically said it hasn’t made a difference in how many people die from the flu.
Brian: That is the CDC is the Center for Disease Control.
Brian: Let me ask you on that note, I get the impression that does the CDC actually make and has made a flu vaccine? They distribute the flu vaccination, how does that work?
Chad: No, we’ll get into the manufacturer of the flu vaccination and where did they get the strains. We’ll get into that.
Brian: That’s great. That’ll be helpful to know. The point is that he saying in 1964 that it’s had no real effective change?
Chad: To control that access mortality, because we’re trying to prevent death. When we look at these pandemics, big deal. We don’t people to die from this stuff.
Brian: Before we move on to current day, what’s your take away on what is the reason for so many deaths proportionally than versus now? Is it healthcare system?
Chad: I think it’s overall health access to care, health in general. In the past, infectious disease was a big killer. We don’t see as much of that today, part of it’s because if you get a secondary Pneumonia, secondary infection, we were able to treat those things. We didn’t use to have ventilators. We used to have an Iron Lung with Polio. Now we don’t need an Iron Lung, we actually have ventilators. We have a lot of support things that we can do to help people in that regard. I think that has a lot to do with mortality.
Let me be very clear, this podcast is Against The Grain and we’re challenging mainstream dogma about how the delivery of healthcare and medical care. However, when it comes to trauma care, acute care illness, there is no other place on the planet I would rather be. I’ve been multiple places. There’s no other place on the planet that I would rather be if I’m going to get in a car accident, if I’m going to have surgery, I’m going to get sick, need an ICU, I want to be in this kept. We are the best in the world at trauma and acute care. My issue is chronic illness, and the prevention of things like diabetes. That’s where we’ve gone awry.
Brian: To that point, I think there’s a misperception of when I look at statistic like this it’s probably been generated over time as we work through the facts here in the history of the flu vaccination. That a lot of the success that’s been at least perceived to be a result of this vaccine has actually been a result of an improved healthcare system here at home for incidences like Pneumonia.
Chad: Yes, absolutely.
Brian: We see a decline in those things because of the care?
Chad: Yes, absolutely. This paper by Langmuir, so he went on to say that it was questioning should we be routinely vaccinating people against the flu? The paper further said that he wondered whether it should be continued without better evidence to justify the major cost to the general public. Despite those questions annual vaccination continued. In 1968, the CDC performed an actual randomized double-blinded-trial, these were the gold standards of medical evidence trials to examine whether that vaccination made a difference on morbidity mortality. The authors of the state concluded, “Despite extensive use of influenza vaccines, attainment of improved morbidity mortality has never been demonstrated, 1968.
We’re seeing overtime a trend. 1976, H1NI, the Swine Flu appeared in large scale ever to immunize as many people as possible, was launched. We think that the immunization is going to be helpful and beneficial, we’ve got to do something. They didn’t see the level of disease that they anticipated. They did see something else. It was one of the side effects that we can see with some of the flu vaccines, and it’s a condition known as Guillain-Barre. Guillain-Barre is basically it’s an auto immune cross reactivity of the antibodies and you being to attack your own system. It produces this progressive paralysis. You are paralyzed basically starting in your feet working up. Now that can be potentially fatal, and most of the time we recover from it, provided you receive adequate treatment in short term.
The epidemic of Guillain-Barre lead to the cancelation of that wide spread vaccination program. Analysis in 1977 The CE concluded that Influenza control have been “Generally ineffective.” and that “statistically valid community trials were needed,” so we needed more research. In 1995 there was a major review by the USFDA, The Food and Drug Administration, which acknowledged the ongoing “paucity of randomized trials.” Again, we don’t have enough data. We don’t have enough data. We don’t have enough data. Now, I’m seeing an emerging trend here basically suggesting that we’re not seeing evidence from this. That means we just don’t have the studies to prove that it works. In other words, the underline theme is we know this works we just don’t have the study to prove it works.
My concern is your outcome that this works and we try to find the data to fit that, or is it being objective and saying, “maybe this really doesn’t have as much effect as we think and it just is what it is?” That’s something I want to follow in the back of the brain. They warned about serious methodological flaws in many existing flu vaccine studies. Now, that is a big, big issue today and we’ll talk a little bit about that. In 2000, the CDC performed a placebo-control trials, so we’re again comparing two different groups and found that vaccination when compared to placebo “May not provide overall economic benefit in most years.”
Again, staring in the 1940s up through 2000, we’re seeing some major organizations saying, “This just doesn’t have that much effect.” Regardless of all of that stuff, in 2004 the American Academy of Pediatrics said that annual influenza immunization for young children, household contacts and healthcare providers should be performed in 2004, despite the lack of evidence to support that. Then they continue to expand these vaccine recommendations and said, “Well, we got to get everybody vaccinated.” You and I talked about the Cochrane review. The Cochrane review is collaboration, it’s a group of people that review data, they pull the relevant studies, they look for biased, they look for good quality studies, they look for consistency. For the most part they do a really, really good job.
In 2012, they did a systematic review in meta-analysis of all the available flu shot immunization data, examining the efficacy and effectiveness, and that’s another term that we’ll discuss in a second. Now, these licenses influenza vaccines in patients with confirmed influenza illness. Their original statement was, “Recommendation to vaccinate the elderly was made without data for vaccine effectiveness or efficacy.” Then they went on and say, “We need a better vaccine and better studies to demonstrate its effectiveness.” Again, that same theme, we’re trying to prove that this stuff works even though we are consistently having difficulty proving that.
2005, did a study of 33 season, so in other words we got Flu Seasons, we’re coming up to Flu Season now, or we’re in the Flu Season now. A study of 33 season national data set it, and they attempted to reconcile the reduced all-cause mortality morbidity found in some observational studies of influenza vaccination. The fact that “National Influenza Mortality rates among seniors increased in the 1980s and ‘90s as the senior vaccination rate coverage quadrupled.” In other words, their mortality increased but yet four times as many of them got the flu shot.
Again, you’re taking a big melting pot, you got the people in there, you throw in some vaccinations, and you’re looking at what happened on the other side. We threw in more flu vaccine, yet more people died. We can’t’ say cause and effect, cannot say that.
Brian: If you look at the totality from the ‘40s all the way to present day, it’s hard to detect any public health impact, right? It’s really hard to say —
Chad: That has not been demonstrated. That’s correct.
Brian: How in the world as a doctor do you look at the landscape of that and say that the rate at which people continue to be immunized from the flu, and how does that perpetuate itself? How does the average doctor in a clinic not have these availability of the same studies, and the availabilities of the same knowledge, what’s the counter? How can they justify their position?
Chad: Well, it’s because we’re taught. We are creatures of what we’ve been taught. We’ve been taught. We’re told by the CDC. We’re told by —
Brian: CDC is saying that it’s ineffective though in some cases?
Chad: But if you pull up the CDC website, and basically just ask the question, “What should we do about flu?” Their very first recommendation is, “Get your flu shot.”
Brian: There’s no overwhelming evidence to suggest that it works?
Chad: Correct, but you have to dig to look for that.
Brian: Why? Why do you think this is perpetuated from the CDC?
Chad: Well, certainly you got conspiracy theories that’ll say, “This is a big conspiracy and the government is trying to tell us what to do,” and maybe I’m just not a conspiracy, I just refuse to accept some of the conspiracy.
Brian: Well, having worked in the government I can tell you they’re not that smart or organized. I can almost promise you.
Chad: [laughs] I get it.
Brian: The conspiracies theory is to cover-up how dumb, inadequate they are. I can tell you right now.
Chad: I get it.
Brian: It’s almost like a guy that doesn’t do his job, — what was it? Office space, the guy with the stapler in the basement. That’s the government. “Don’t take my stapler. Is it my stapler?” That’s the government. The government is not a high and sophisticated TI agent in most cases.
Chad: I get it. I get it. This concept resonates throughout, for example, and I don’t want to go off on this topic too much, and we’ll talk about more about this in the future. When you look at dietary recommendations for cardiovascular disease, we’ll talk about no more than 30% of your calories from fat, no more than 10% from saturated fat, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Any idea where that comes from?
Brian: The government.
Chad: It does. In the ‘1970s George McGovern was the chair on some nutritional, I don’t remember the name of his committee. They were getting disbanded, and they decided to come up with one more recommendation. They had some nutritionist come in. They had a senatorial committee. They listened to three days of testimony. At the end of this they hired a writer to come in and summarize everything that was done. Now, this writer was not a nutrition writer, didn’t know science, all those things, and he supposed to write all the stuff up. He didn’t know what to write up. He goes to one of the nutritionist and got his perspective, and his perspective was his biased right or wrong, but his biased perspective on the way thing should be. He wrote that stuff up and that was what was published as the senatorial recommendation.
Brian: Wow. See now, I think you have to view what’s going on here in terms that everyone can understand. I think if anyone listening right now, they think about just the people in their office, right? You’ve got a collective group of people in your office. The government is the guy who is not doing his job, who’s kind of lazy, but actually has a nice position within the company, right?
Chad: Yes. Let’s pack-up. You say you use to work in the government, let people know what does that mean, like were you postal employee or?
Brian: Yes, I was a postal,[laughs] Yes, I sorted mail which was –.
Chad: I don’t mean that as a now.
Brian: No, no. Now I totally figured it out, right in the mail room. No, I was the Executive Director of Conservative Leadership Political Action Committee, which basically meant that I raise money. I worked on Capitol Hill and I raised a large amount of money for presidential, gubernatorial, Senate candidates, Congressional candidates across the US. I got a front row seat to how things operate because I was at the — when you’re raising money in Washington, DC, you find out a lot more than if you just working in the Hill, right?
Chad: [laughs] Right.
Brian: I did work on the Hill for Dick army. I was trained to the Leadership Institute. I know Washington very, very well. I graduated from the Leadership Institute there.
Chad: You’ve met people like George Bush and Bill Clinton and those things.
Brian: Sure, absolutely.
Chad: I remember you watching Bill Clinton’s prowess in walking in room.
Brian: Yes, he’s very good, he is you typical politician. I don’t know what this has to do with flu vaccine but I will say that he is the guy in the office that he’s your sales guy, right? He‘s your concernment sales guy. To that point you have a lot of different personalities in the government but people, need to understand one thing about the government, they’re always behind the eight ball, they’re always behind the eight ball. I’ll give you an example of that, when I was in Washington DC, I was there in 2000, which is a great time to be in Washington DC, right? Because you have the contract with America, if anyone is old enough to remember all that Newt Gingrich.
Brian: I was a Republican, so I’m a Republican and it was a good time to be a Republican, right? Then of course came the election in 2001, and the Al Gore George Bush thing. You get to see a lot of the face of politics and what you begin to realize is. Again I was there 2000 and I had not been back since 2000, I came back to Oklahoma, we got married and I came back in this last year.
Chad: You and your wife not you and I.
Brian: Yes you and I did not.
Chad: Just to be clear.
Brian: Did I say you and I?
Chad: No, you just said we got married.
Brian: It’s because you choses, this Podcast six in the morning that I would ever say you and I. It is not on my mind. I came back, reason I was invited to the Benjamin Netanyahu speech and I went back. What’s interesting about Washington and it all relates to this topic, is that all the places that I have been and then come back to, it was as if time had stood still. They talk about Cuba and how Cuba hasn’t changed, that people are driving old cars and it’s still the 1960s. In Washington, people are still talking about the same things they talked about decade ago. Still using the same stories that they talked about. Even down to the dress, to the places that they ate. The world has changed and Washington has not, that’s the bottom line, right? At all.
Brian: As a conservative, I like some things that don’t change, right? Of course, but I also want to see progress. On both sides of there, there been no progress. I’ll go back to my original point. The government is the guy in your office or girl in your office that has a relatively high position within your company but everybody knows they don’t really do anything. Then when it’s time to come to the board room, they throw out things that no one can necessary disapprove but helps them promote themselves. I see this flu vaccine is one of those things. I can only imagine although I don’t have the facts. Again, if you compare to that person in your office, the CCDC covers the arrear by saying, “No it doesn’t work, the flu vaccine doesn’t work.” After the side if you will. Right? “
Brian: But you should get it because we’ve got an answer for it, nobody is getting the flu, right? They also know, somewhat clever in knowing that the improved healthcare environments has decreased the risk of death and flu because of the assistance that you said. The hospital have gotten better at treating pneumonia and those types of things. I absolutely believe that you have seen firsthand many cases like this maybe not in vaccine, but many cases where the government and government workers generally are very reactive rather than proactive in dealing with these types of situations. I think you can point to this as absolutely being one of those cases, it’s very systemic to how government works.
Chad: Right, and you have insights into that obviously I don’t have. That’s amazing input and I think that’s really good. From my perspective, this is just something that was recommended and it’s that traditional barbed thing. We always sit in the same pew, we do it this way because we’ve always done it. There’s no good evidence to do that.
Brian: No. I had to say this show is we got to stinger for this ready, let’s go into this topic.
Male: Against The Grain.
Brian: As if we haven’t been going Against The Grain already.
Brian: It is true, I think one of your passions Chad is I think throughout history we see this and especially in the healthcare industry, we see this hard type of mentality. Where big profits is made from people just believing in what someone says. Not necessary being good for those good group of people and we can go all the way back to the reformation. Would it be religion but I think religion and politics and healthcare are three big ones that people if you look back, generation after generation, people are being misled. I think you passion is to bring the truth to some of this topics.
Chad: Absolutely. I’m going to kind of wrap it fire a couple of things here because I want to get some data out. I want to get some studies out. I want to do it quickly and I don’t want to bore people with this stuff. I’m going to read, this is the paper from Medscape. Now, Medscape is internet site that is mainstream medical stuff. This is main stream medical, I’m going to read a little bit of this thing. They say, ”If the reason for flu vaccination is that if the flu is such a serious disease, then relevant outcomes of whether vaccination improves more a bit than immortality from the flu. However, after decades of vaccine use it is hard to detect any public health impact. This is in stark contrast, other routine vaccination such as polio and HIB, that we mentioned earlier, where introduction to vaccine led to obvious decline of the disease.”
They go on to say, “We are pediatricians and believe in childhood immunizations. Mini vaccines are provided in men’s political value. We simply question whether the policy of routine influenza vaccination has out passed the data supporting it’s use.”
Chad: That is mainstream medical stuff. That’s from one the things, now we’ll read a couple other things.
Brian: We still think you should get it.
Brian: Get it.
Chad: All right. Let me read a couple other things here. From the archives of pediatric and adolescent medicine, October 2008. These are going to be summarized, I’ve got this on my website they will be in show notes. “Giving the flu shot to young children had no impact on doctor’s office visits nor hospitalizations related to flu during two flu seasons. The researchers stated, significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season age or setting. From the land set, major medical publication, August 2008, flu vaccination did not decrease risk of developing pneumonia in older people.”
From the American Journal of repertory and clinical care medicine in September 2018, the 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed with patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination. From the lancet infectious disease, October 2007, “We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of nonspecific end point such as all class mortality have led cohorts that’s it’s to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits.”
Then we get into the Cochrane collaboration that started in 2006, there’s another one in 2010. I’ll just read this one, this is from 2010, “No effect was shown for specific outcomes such as laboratory and proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia.” Then we’ve got from 2010, this is looking at vaccination verse as unvaccinated people and what’s the risk of getting flu. “4% of unvaccinated versus 1% of vaccinated persons developed flue like symptoms.” Notice it’s flue like symptoms not influenza. “In the relative uncommon circumstances of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain.”
In other words, we know that, there’s different types of flu, right? There’s H1N1, there’s H5N2, there’s like all this different ones and the World Health Organization has these collaboration centers where they are getting people that get the flu. They’ve got these sites and these labs that will get strains and they will take that data and send it to the collaboration centers which feeds that up to the World Health Organization. That’s how on an annual basis they say, “This are the trends that we’ll see. This is what we think is going to be the influenza strain, most likely to cause the most problem. There’s a Northern Hemisphere and a Southern Hemisphere version on the flu short, that’s somewhat new.”
That’s how they get the strains and then they release that to manufacturers for the flu vaccination. You’ve got the high potential that there’s a mismatch. In other words, you think you’re getting a flu version one and this is actually flu version two that’s out floating around. We don’t know that yet we still say, “You should still get your flu shot,” and it maybe not be a match. In this case they are saying, “The relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching, it’s uncommon that we get it right,” it’s what they just said. “Matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, however under normal circumstances the numbers were 2% over unvaccinated and 1% of vaccinated people that get the flu.” When we talk about relive risk reduction if under normal circumstances there’s a 50% reduction in flu.
Chad: Because there was 2% verse as 1%, so 50% reduction. In absolute risk, it’s 1% difference.
Brian: Wow, I think this is definitely a hot topic for people and I think we could go on and on but our time is finished for this particular podcast. I think we’re going to do some possibly more shows on Chad on the difference between the mist and the shot. Some more extensive discussion around the flu and vaccines in general.
Brian: I think it will be interesting information for people. This is one of these shows that I’m not even sure how to tell people. What are the action steps that they take from here? Do they get their flu vaccine or do they not? Because, I think that there are some more questions that they probably have. I would highly recommend, if they don’t have a doctor that will sit down and talk to them about it, specifically with kids, right? Some of these new mothers out there that are making these big decisions on whether to vaccinate their kids, with the flu or be it other vaccinations, probably would do well to come sit and talk to you at your clinic, Revolution and Health and Wellness clinic.
Chad: Absolutely, let me do one more thing and then I’ll tie it up. The most recent review of the data was the Cochrane collaboration from 2012. In this review they showed the efficacy of the vaccine, but discussed the differences between efficacy and effectiveness. They did note significant side effects as stated, influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms, such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions and those were in kids. This review includes trials funded by the industry, they discuss much of that. The review showed that reliable evidence on the influenza vaccines is thin, but there is evidence of widespread manipulations of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.
The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding. In other words, so your action steps are you could go out and find data to say you should absolutely get your flu shot. That stuff is out there. I read a paper the other day that said that getting the flu shot caused a 60% reduction in your chances of getting the flu, zero references sided on that. Do they just make that up?
Brian: That’s maybe an observational piece.
Chad: Right. I think the action steps are, ask questions, where did this come from? Unfortunately your average primary care doc doesn’t know.
Brian: Yes, it’s the whole point of the show, right? That’s your passion is for people to take back their own health care.
Brian: Until they do that, they’re never going to be in a position to make good decisions.
Chad: I’m not saying you should or should not get your flu shot, I can’t substitute over the radio broadcast as a medical recommendation that’s between you and your doctor. My goal is you need to ask some questions, the data behind this is not what we’ve been told.
Brian: Yes, I think again, it goes back to whole point of the show and it’s that, don’t be intimidated by a doctor. Don’t be intimidated by their title, if something doesn’t make sense ask a question, study it, and understand it. Take back your health, right?
Brian: All right my man, it’s a passionate subject, Chad’s sweating over there I can see it.
Brian: Marshall are you still with us?
Marshall: I’m with you guys.
Brian: You want to take it out?
Marshall: I’ll take us out.
Brian: You’ve some cool music?
Marshall: Here we go.
Brian: Thank you guys.
Male: Thanks for listening to this week’s podcast with Dr. Chad Edwards. Tune in next week when we’ll be going Against the Grain.
[Audio ends 00:03:22]