Shingrix won't work

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Live vaccines are suppose to trigger a greater immune response? And Zostavax was basically ineffective especially over 75 to 80yo. Hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence of redness and swelling.
 
My live CEs and readings/data collected from articles on pharmacists' letter strongly disagree. Please take the time to read some of the articles and evaluate the comparison vs. Zostavax (might be dry/boring and full of statistics, but it's very insightful).

I will say it won't work if you can't get it in stock, LMFAO
 
RxVampire said:
My live CEs and readings/data collected from articles on pharmacists' letter strongly disagree. Please take the time to read some of the articles and evaluate the comparison vs. Zostavax (might be dry/boring and full of statistics, but it's very insightful).

I will say it won't work if you can't get it in stock, LMFAO
Click to expand...
You have a mind of your own use it. How did Flumist work out?
 
Bubba98 said:
Live vaccines are suppose to trigger a greater immune response? And Zostavax was basically ineffective especially over 75 to 80yo. Hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence of redness and swelling.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
Are you asking a question?

Are you expressing surprise that an injection meant to cause an immune response is causing an immune response at the injection site?
 
I mean it is a waste of money just like Zostavax
 
Bubba98 said:
Going out on a limb (and being accused of being anti vaccinations) I am predicting that shingrix, like Zostavax, doesn't work and causes injection site reactions...sorry science.
Click to expand...

97% effective but somehow it doesn't work.

I too feel sorry for that 3%.
 
I hear Flumist is coming back.. anyone else hear this? I’m too lazy to search the lit for that..
 
This is a troll thread. The vaccine underwent rigorous study and trials in order to be approved by the FDA. A significant number of individuals had to have significantly better outcomes than placebo. The drug also has to be safe for humans. Anecdotal evidence and "word of mouth" that it doesn't work are poor sample sizes and should be disregarded.

Edited: Changed some wording as it was pointed out that safety and efficacy are 2 different things. Also, changed a few sentences for semantic purposes.
 
Last edited:
Shingix is a dead virus mate. So... this is kinda awkward... and its like 97% effective according to CDC.

Unless you have visible, solid evidence to say otherwise... Imma go out on a limb and say that op either just learned how live vaccines work or is a new grad who got too excited and came too early.

Or is just seeking attention by provoking a controversial issue...

Bottom line: who gives a damn? A pharmacist or anyone in medical field that is a proponent of their own delusion over facts should be fired. Lol peace
 
Last edited:
OP, I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying you believe that live vaccines don't work, only attenuated vaccines? As has been pointed out, Shingrix isn't a live vaccine, plus unless you are related to Unchained, you probably are aware that live vaccines worked for decades in the past, before they were replaced by attenuated vaccines (polio, for example.)
 
MilknCheerios said:
This is a troll thread. The vaccine underwent rigorous study and trials in order to be approved by the FDA. A significant number of individuals had to have better outcomes in order for the drug to be safely marketed. Anecdotal evidence and "word of mouth" that it doesn't work are poor sample sizes and should be disregarded.
Click to expand...

Safety and efficacy are two different concepts. You can't use efficacy data to speak for safety.
 
Last edited:
yeah honestly all they needed to prove was non-inferiority and it would have gotten approved...especially since it’s not live.

For marketing and uptake I agree it needed to be a bit more.
 
confettiflyer said:
yeah honestly all they needed to prove was non-inferiority and it would have gotten approved...especially since it’s not live.

For marketing and uptake I agree it needed to be a bit more.
Click to expand...

Except most drugs that have been approved recently is based on non-inferiority trials....
 
confettiflyer said:
yeah honestly all they needed to prove was non-inferiority and it would have gotten approved...especially since it’s not live.

For marketing and uptake I agree it needed to be a bit more.
Click to expand...

Personally I appreciate the ambiguity of the word “better”. The poster could have meant better than placebo, which would be a correct statement. I am just curious what the poster meant as it could be taken many (mostly incorrect) ways.

The statement would have been even better (more ambiguous) if they had just said “it needed to be better” and left out the part about “for approval”. That way they could pivot later and claim they were talking about marketing or some other BS.
 
Fluad...regular tri vaccine plus squalene oil? Poof > 65 yo approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CetiAlphaFive
Weaponized Flirting at work
Replies
13
Views
3K
sunnyandseventytwo
sunnyandseventytwo
Wickett
Anyone ever work for Covetrus?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Wickett
Wickett
owlegrad
Relief work
Replies
12
Views
1K
Dred Pirate
Dred Pirate
BC_89
Liability Insurance While Working In Federal Govt
Replies
5
Views
2K
sunnyandseventytwo
sunnyandseventytwo
WestTXisGr8
Exactly How IHS Student Loan Repayment works
Replies
10
Views
3K
GrandTheftAutumn
G
Top