New York Times Article on the Whooping Cough Outbreack in Washington State. - Page 2

[Taximom5]

This is EXACTLY what happened a couple of years ago with the h1n1 debacle. Doctors were told to abandon testing and assume all flu-like illnesses were the dreaded and deadly h1n1, and to report and treat as such, thus artificially inflating both the numbers of reported cases of flu and h1n1, and making it appear that a vaccine was necessary.

In retrospect, h1n1 turned out to be milder than seasonal influenza, the vaccine turned out to be ineffective (a Canadian study actually reported that being inoculated for both seasonal flu and h1n1 INCREASED chances of developing h1n1!), and the vaccine manufacturers were left with millions of doses of surplus flu vaccines that nobody wanted.

So they didn't bother to reformulate the vaccine for the 2011-2012 season, and announced that everyone need to get it again, but it was too late--too many people had figured out the truth, as published by the Cochrane Collaborative:the flu shot simply doesn't work as marketed.

In my opinion, there have been several good things that have come of this:
1) People have FINALLY learned to wash their hands and to keep sick children home from school,
2) People have learned that they can survive the flu, that the fear drummed up by the media is usually worse than the actual flu
3) People have stopped blindly trusting the FDA, the CDC, the pharmaceutical ads in the media, and their doctor's, and have started to educate themselves about their own health.

I wonder if the Cochrane Collaborative will come out with a study on the effectiveness of DTaP.

And isn't it amazing that the doctors don't know that you can go to a lab for pertussis testing rather than the MUCH more expensive ER?

(edited for clarification)
Edited by Taximom5 - 5/15/12 at 6:13am

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

And isn't it amazing that the doctors don't know that you can go to a lab for testing rather than the MUCH more expensive ER?

Maybe its because I live in an extremely urban area, but anytime we need testing/blood draws/whatever we are sent to a lab. By the doctor. So is everyone else.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Maybe its because I live in an extremely urban area, but anytime we need testing/blood draws/whatever we are sent to a lab. By the doctor. So is everyone else.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear, so I edited it.  I meant that the doctors didn't know that one could go to a lab rather than the ER for pertussis testing.  

[AbbyGrant]

I've been sent to the hospital several times for tests that didn't involve the ER. I just went directly to the appropriate department/lab.

nukuspot, were you told you had to go to the ER? If so, I agree that would be pretty ridiculous.

edited to fix typo

Edited by AbbyGrant - 5/15/12 at 7:42am

[Taximom5]

Two years ago, my best friend was sent by her doctor to the ER for an h1n1 test. Not to the lab, but to the ER.

On the other hand, that same month, my son's pediatrician did an h1n1 test in the office when he was seen for a UTI.

This was before the directive came down to assume all flu-like symptoms were h1n1.

[Rrrrrachel]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[nukuspot]

No not to the ER, to an in hospital lab. But the waiting room is full of very sick people (it's shared with all parts of the main hospital) and there is a wait involved. It's much easier and IMO safer as far as getting sick from someone (or likewise transmitting pertussis if my DD actually did have it) to go to the ER. We live in the state Capitol, it's crazy to me that even in an epidemic situation the only choices for getting tested are the hospital or one lab (and only in normal business hours of course.)

[AbbyGrant]

      Quote:

Originally Posted by nukuspot 

It's much easier and IMO safer as far as getting sick from someone (or likewise transmitting pertussis if my DD actually did have it) to go to the ER.

Safer and easier to go to the ER for a lab test?  I guess this must really depend on the hospital. That would not be the case here.

[nukuspot]

Oops I didn't mean go to the ER I meant easier to go to the lab.

[nukuspot]

And not the hospital lab, the private lab. Not explaining myself well, typing on a phone. Sorry!

[AbbyGrant]

  No problem. It all makes sense now. 
 

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

At some point, many anecdotes that tell the same thing might be worth considering.  You have to consider the source, blah,blah, blah, but I do not dismiss all anecdotes.

Ex:  Dh works in an office with about 40 people.  These are people who vaccinate their kids and are pretty mainstream.  Many of then noticed that every time they got a flu shot they became sick afterwards (and most got the shot 2 or 3 year running - thinking the other "time" was a coincidence")
 

Is that good enough for the scientific community?  Probably not.  I understand why and the burden of proof (which should involve large scale double blind studies) is not met.

Is it good enough to give me pause?  Absolutely.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

The statistic that "most people who get infected are fully vaccinated" is completely worthless, a total red herring, and akin to saying "the sky is blue.". It belies a total misunderstanding of statistics and relative risk at best and is intentionally misleading at worst.

Why the nasty tone above?

I think the below point illustrates what you are trying to say (which I mostly agree with, btw) without being so dismissive.  

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not saying the statement is wrong, it's just not very meaningful. It's absolutely expected that the majority of people who get infected in an outbreak are vaccinated. Even with highly effective vaccines that's the case.
Think about a 1000 student high school. Someone comes to school with pertussis. Assume the pertussis vaccine is 90% effective (in reality I think it's 80-95%, but that's from memory so take it with a grain of salt.). Say 95% of the students are vaccinated.
Of the 950 vaccinated students we would expect around ten percent, or 95 of them to still get pertussis. Even I all 50 unvaccinated students get it, still the majority of cases are in vaccinated students. 

I think part of the reason non-vaxxers like to point out that more vaxxers have the disease than unvaxxed often stems from the fact that disease outbreaks in mainstream media are often blamed on the unvaxxed.  With pertussis in particular, this is not the case.  Most of the people who spread the disease are vaxxed.  It is no one fault, really (and this whole trying to find out whose fault it is for a disease outbreak strikes me as witch-hunty anyways).  Pertussis is simply not a very effective vaccine.  It is 59-89% percent effective:     http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/pertussis-whooping-cough

Edited by purslaine - 5/15/12 at 11:05am

[erinsuzy]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

At some point, many anecdotes that tell the same thing might be worth considering.  You have to consider the source, blah,blah, blah, but I do not dismiss all anecdotes.

Ex:  Dh works in an office with about 40 people.  These are people who vaccinate their kids and are pretty mainstream.  Many of then noticed that every time they got a flu shot they became sick afterwards (and most got the shot 2 or 3 year running - thinking the other "time" was a coincidence")
 

Is that good enough for the scientific community?  Probably not.  I understand why and the burden of proof (which should involve large scale double blind studies) is not met.

Is it good enough to give me pause?  Absolutely.

That happened to my husband. EVERY time he got the flu shot he ended up sick with actual flu. Finally he stopped getting the shot and he hasn't had the flu since (its been @ 6 years too!). It would be interesting to find out why this happens to some but not others.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by erinsuzy 

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

At some point, many anecdotes that tell the same thing might be worth considering.  You have to consider the source, blah,blah, blah, but I do not dismiss all anecdotes.

Ex:  Dh works in an office with about 40 people.  These are people who vaccinate their kids and are pretty mainstream.  Many of then noticed that every time they got a flu shot they became sick afterwards (and most got the shot 2 or 3 year running - thinking the other "time" was a coincidence")
 

Is that good enough for the scientific community?  Probably not.  I understand why and the burden of proof (which should involve large scale double blind studies) is not met.

Is it good enough to give me pause?  Absolutely.

That happened to my husband. EVERY time he got the flu shot he ended up sick with actual flu. Finally he stopped getting the shot and he hasn't had the flu since (its been @ 6 years too!). It would be interesting to find out why this happens to some but not others.

Eh. Not all vaxers get the flu vax. I don't, neither does my ds. We just skip it and take our chances.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Eh. Not all vaxers get the flu vax. I don't, neither does my ds. We just skip it and take our chances.

Why?  I mean, you're pretty vehement about herd immunity, the safety of vaxes, and the efficacy of them, so why is all that applicable to everything BUT the flu shot?  I'm genuinely curious why "we just skip it and take our chances" is ok for you, but seemingly unacceptable for everyone else who says that about different vaccines.

[Rrrrrachel]

Lots of people feel the flu shot is different. The efficacy is much more hit or miss, for one. For another, right or wrong, I think it's kind of how our brain handles the risks of flying vs riding in a car. We're used to the flu and are more comfortable with the risk than other diseases.

I haven seen anyone say someone else's choices were unacceptable.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Lots of people feel the flu shot is different. The efficacy is much more hit or miss, for one. For another, right or wrong, I think it's kind of how our brain handles the risks of flying vs riding in a car. We're used to the flu and are more comfortable with the risk than other diseases.
I haven seen anyone say someone else's choices were unacceptable.

I wasn't asking you.

"We're used to the flu", and yet we're told year after year that tens of thousands of Americans DIE every year from the flu!  So get your flu shot!  From the same companies and organizations that push every other shot.  Tens of thousands die, and we're more comfortable with the risk than other diseases where the risk is practically zero (polio, diphtheria)?  Sorry, that reeks of hypocrisy to me.

[Rrrrrachel]

I wasn't claiming it was rational, hence the comparison to Flying vs driving. I dont know about hypocritical, but i can see how you would think it was inconsistent.

and no need to be rude. I assume questions on a public discussion forum are up for grabs.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I wasn't claiming it was rational, hence the comparison to Flying vs driving. I dont know about hypocritical, but i can see how you would think it was inconsistent.
and no need to be rude. I assume questions on a public discussion forum are up for grabs.

Yes, but I think it was pretty obvious that I was asking a specific poster a question.

It IS hypocritical, and "lots of people feel the flu shot is different" is an anecdote, isn't it?