So preemie babies, small babies, and hospitalized babies can be avoided by mom getting the flu shot?

[Noelle C.]

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20091030/flu-vaccine-safe-throughout_pregnancy

"Pregnant women who get the flu vaccine are less likely to have babies who are premature, small for their gestational age, or who have to be hospitalized, according to three new studies."

*sigh* So the way to prevent preemies, small babies, and hospitalized babies is the flu shot? No. Just NO. There's even a vague hint that the swine vax can prevent these things. (Mods, this isn't another swine topic - the article focuses almost entirely on regular flu.) There's just so much wrong with this article that it's like reading a made-up language.

When this article gets to talking about women in Bangladesh who are vaxed having babies that weigh more, well, I'd like to know if the considered how women from families that can afford vaxes most likely can afford to eat better foods.

I issue this dare: Read that article without once shaking your head or rolling your eyes. It's infuriating. I used to recommend WedMD. I guess that's ended. Ugh.

[nicolebeth]

It's not really from the flu shot--it's from having low Vitamin D levels. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6868729.ece

The flu shot people decided that it's a connection between not getting the flu and the birthweight--but, people who don't get the flu (due to high Vitamin D levels) also have higher birth weights. I think this attribution of higher birth weights and lack of prematurity to the flu shot is ridiculous.

[Deborah]

What is that thing about correlation and causation? The one that is always yelled at people who have concerns about vaccine damage?

This study sounds like a really good demo how to confuse the two!

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Deborah

What is that thing about correlation and causation? The one that is always yelled at people who have concerns about vaccine damage?

This study sounds like a really good demo how to confuse the two!

Only, somewhere it was written that there is next to no possibility for vaccines to cause damage and even the most unlikely correlation for benefits from vaccines is swallowed hook, line and sinker. Who needs evidence?

[Noelle C.]

Yup, correlation is not causation. Got to look at the other stats surrounding something. That's really where this article went wrong. What other information is there? They didn't look into who is more likely to get vaxed, why, other health issues, etc..

Megan, I know so many people who genuinely believe that vaccines can absolutely not harm someone, that it's literally impossible.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Noelle C.

Megan, I know so many people who genuinely believe that vaccines can absolutely not harm someone, that it's literally impossible.

It doesn't even cross the mind of some people I know. There is absolutely no element of risk in the minds of some people I know. Somehow all the risk is put on not getting the vaccine. And I have friends who think critically about their food, water and air - yet take a vaccine in a heartbeat. I struggle to understand sometimes.

[MyLilPwny]

"Pregnant women who get the flu vaccine are less likely to have babies who are premature, small for their gestational age, or who have to be hospitalized, according to three new studies."

I wonder how many people believe that. I sure don't.

[Jenivere]

Hmmmm; I've had three healthy, full term, winter babies and I've never had a flu shot in my life. Perhaps all of that sunshine and healthy food has something to do with it?

[Noelle C.]

Originally Posted by ThereseReich

I wonder how many people believe that. I sure don't.

I'm doubting this study took into consideration the socioeconomic difference between women who got the flu vaxes versus those who didn't. Poor women are less likely to have the money to spare on a shot, yet are also less likely to have the money to spend on good, high-quality, healthy food or even enough of it. Poor diets and inadequate amounts of food are undeniably causes behind low-birth-weight and premature babies. How likely are these mothers going to spend $20 or more on a shot when that money needs to go to food?

While some studies done have indicated that the majority of non-vaxers are better off, this generally refers to polio, MMR, and all the dozen and a half other vaxes that are pressed on poor mothers when they take their children to well-baby and well-child visits. If there's any fear about losing benefits for turning down a vax, here, shoot the kid up. But, to my knowledge, the flu shot is entirely separate and not part of the regular shot schedule.

I'm willing to believe that this whole "mothers who get flu shot are less likely to..." stuff is likely to be true, but NOT because of the shot itself. The other factors that come into play (money) are far more likely to actually be the driving cause.

[bbrandonsmom]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

It doesn't even cross the mind of some people I know. There is absolutely no element of risk in the minds of some people I know. Somehow all the risk is put on not getting the vaccine. And I have friends who think critically about their food, water and air - yet take a vaccine in a heartbeat. I struggle to understand sometimes.

Same here and I try to understand. Especially if it's some one I know who is very educated, but when it comes to vaccines or medical advice-dr knows best. They won't even second guess it.

Is there a study comparing women who recieved the flu shot and those who didn't to come to this conclusion? Did those women have prenatal care? Did they eat well? Smoke/drugs/drink? What ages were they? I didn't read the article.

[13Sandals]

I looked into the Bangledesh study showing the larger babies after flu vax and here is what I found http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/con...thers-jw.html:

In the randomized, blinded trial, the researchers recruited 340 healthy, unvaccinated pregnant women who had no history of pregnancy complications. The women were randomly assigned to receive either inactivated flu vaccine or a 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. After the women gave birth, their babies were assigned to receive either a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or a haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccin

If the flu vaccine group delivered bigger babies, couldn't you also say that the pneumococcal vaccine caused smaller babies in the other group?
How can you tell what the causative factor is here? Anyone remember learning the scientific method? Never mind nutrition, economic status, smoking, whatever, they don't even bother to control the vaccine variable by having a non-vax group.