It contains MSG, which I react horrible to one tiny taste of, so I’d not take it.
ZOSTAVAX is a lyophilized preparation of the Oka/Merck strain of live, attenuated varicella-zoster virus (VZV). ZOSTAVAX, when reconstituted as directed, is a sterile suspension for subcutaneous administration. Each 0.65-mL dose contains a minimum of 19,400 PFU (plaque-forming units) of Oka/Merck strain of VZV when reconstituted and stored at room temperature for up to 30 minutes. Each dose contains 31.16 mg of sucrose, 15.58 mg of hydrolyzed porcine gelatin, 3.99 mg of sodium chloride, 0.62 mg of monosodium L-glutamate (MSG), 0.57 mg of sodium phosphate dibasic, 0.10 mg of potassium phosphate monobasic, 0.10 mg of potassium chloride; residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein; and trace quantities of neomycin and bovine calf serum. The product contains no preservatives.”
And what is MRC-5? Yum yum, it’s from cells originating in an unlucky unwanted fetus.
The MRC-5 cell line was developed in September 1966 from lung tissue taken from a 14 week fetus aborted for psychiatric reason from a 27 year old physically healthy woman.”
It doesn’t even help much prevent the deadly post herpetic neuralgia that can be very bad for older people.
Merck, touts a 39% decline with the use of the vaccine. Further analysis of the data might lead you to a different conclusion. Approximately 0.4% of unvaccinated persons versus 0.14% of vaccinated people developed postherpetic neuralgia. The 39% decline is the less-than-accurate ‘relative risk’ (0.14/ 0.4). If we looked at the more accurate absolute risk, we come up with a decline of 0.26% of postherpetic neuralgia in those that were vaccinated.”
I’m out. I wouldn’t like shingles much but this moneymaker product with no liability for its manufacture is not effective nor morally made enough for me.
Let’s look at the Shingrix data. I went to the Physicians Desk Reference information on Shingrix. In section 14, the clinical trials used to get the vaccine approved are described. There were 14,759 subjects aged 50 years and older who received two doses of either Shingrix or placebo. In the NYT article, it was written that SHingrix was about 98% effective at preventing shingles for one year. The PDR report stated that same thing. If this vaccine was truly 98% effective, then I would have to seriously consider recommending Shingrix.
Here’s the actual data:
Six people out of 7,344 who received the two doses of Shingrix developed shingles—that is 0.08%. 210 out of 7,415 people who received the placebo became ill with shingles—that is 3%. How do they get 98% efficacy out of these numbers? Again, I have written about how the Big Pharma Cartel manipulates statistics to make a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is by using the relative risk (RR). Dividing .08% by 3% and subtracting from one provides the RR decline of nearly 98%. However, the relative risk is an inaccurate statistical model that should never be used to make clinical decisions. The more appropriate statistical model to determine if a drug or therapy should be used is the absolute risk reduction (ARR).
The ARR for this study can be calculated here: 3%-0.08%=2.9%. Therefore, a more appropriate determination of the effectiveness of Shingrix is that it is 2.9% effective at preventing shingles for a median of 3.1 years (the length of the study). And, a true statement about Shingrix is that it takes 34 people to be vaccinated with Shingrix (1/2.9%) to prevent one case of shingles. That means the drug failed 33 out of 34 who took it which is a 97% failure rate!
So, Shingrix is certainly better than Zostavax since Zostavax fails 99% who take it. What an improvement. And, all for only about $300.
You may not pay $300 but that’s what the liability-free powerful manufacturer gets for each 2 shot vaccine. Such a deal. And that $ goes to DC to power your enemies. There are better ways to treat shingles.