or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Study: Getting flu shot 2 years in a row may lower protection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Study: Getting flu shot 2 years in a row may lower protection - Page 2

post #21 of 47
Yes, I'm going to vaccinate myself and my child next flu season. The body of evidence still points to that being the most effective way to protect us from flu. This is an interesting study, and I certainly hope they follow up and do more research on it, but it's not nearly conclusive enough to be the deciding factor in where or not I choose to vaccinate.
post #22 of 47

I found the question. "So given this information, are you going to vaccinate yourself and your child next flu season?"

 

I don't vaccinate, and even if I did, I wouldn't for the flu, but if I did vaccinate for the flu, and if I trusted this study, I would stop vaccinating for the flu most years, and only vaccinate years when the flu strain was especially strong. And I would hope that wasn't the case two years in a row.

post #23 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Yes, I'm going to vaccinate myself and my child next flu season. The body of evidence still points to that being the most effective way to protect us from flu. This is an interesting study, and I certainly hope they follow up and do more research on it, but it's not nearly conclusive enough to be the deciding factor in where or not I choose to vaccinate.

 

You are a true believer. 

 

But that is entirely your prerogative. 

Your child, your body, your beliefs.

post #24 of 47
I'm a true believer in science and evidence based medical care, yes.
post #25 of 47
Quote:
"So given this information, are you going to vaccinate yourself and your child next flu season?"

NO!

 

Simply the body of evidence is not there that supports the vac as the most effective preventive.

 

Given this study, the incidents of of effectiveness (per CDC) just looking at this year alone, the risk of narcolepsy (and what ever else may occur and how quickly it becomes known there is a problem) and the risk of reaction,the risk of toxins into a system, that's too much to assert it's the most effective - NO way!

post #26 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm a true believer in science and evidence based medical care, yes.

The same could be said for those who have come to the opinion that based on science and "evidence based" medical care, the safety and efficacy of vaccines are not to be believed in.

 
I am afraid at the end of the day, it very much comes down to personal belief. Your fervent support of vaccines, even in the face of studies like this one, and similar ones that show the poor efficacy of the influenza vaccine really does give me the impression it is more than just your opinion, it is a firmly held religious belief on your part.
 
Having said that, nothing could make me change my mind that vaccines are a uselful medical procedure, so in essence we are at opposite ends of the spectrum in many ways.
 
Have a nice day!  smile.gif
 
 
post #27 of 47
It's a very small study. I would want to see it repeated with a larger cohort before getting too excited about it.

I suspect the media aren't picking it because they don't think many people would be all that interested. Easy to forget on this board, but most people really don't think/care much about vaccines.

And before you ask, my kids and I don't regularly get the flu vaccine. It's only recommended in the UK for certain groups at high risk of flu and/or complications.
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm a true believer in science and evidence based medical care, yes.

And the great thing about science - it's true whether or not you believe it (garbelled quote from Neil de Grasse Tyson). smile.gif
post #29 of 47
Quote:
It's a very small study. I would want to see it repeated with a larger cohort before getting too excited about it.

Just how big do you think seasonal flu trials are? 

 

I found 1, 441 to be a just size.

post #30 of 47

Ahem it's not a vast conspiracy, it is something even mentioned out loud by Sebelius.

 

http://www.rd.com/health/wellness/h1n1-the-report-card/

 

 

Quote:

KS:There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines.

post #31 of 47
Mirzam that's not at all an accurate description of my position. I only look vehemently pro vax standing next to y'all.
post #32 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Mirzam that's not at all an accurate description of my position. I only look vehemently pro vax standing next to y'all.

Well, honestly you are certainly more vehemently pro vax than anyone I know IRL that vaccinates their children. I can't say I know anyone that defends vaxes way you do. Maybe I live a sheltered life.

post #33 of 47
Again, only because some of the views around here are so extreme and one sided. If someone came around and said every vaccine ever was completely safe and worth getting my response to them would seem pretty anti vaccine.
post #34 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Again, only because some of the views around here are so extreme and one sided. If someone came around and said every vaccine ever was completely safe and worth getting my response to them would seem pretty anti vaccine.

Really? I was under the impression you vaccinate to schedule, so your child does get every vaccine going and that adverse effects are vanishingly rare. 

post #35 of 47
The schedule doesn't include every vaccine. There are vaccines that the risk/benefit doesn't make sense for universal vaccination. I do think SERIOUS (life altering) adverse events are very rare. Vaccination isn't risk free, though. Serious and less serious adverse events can and do happen. As I've said before many times.

My daughter is vaccinated mostly on schedule with a couple of exceptions.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
The schedule doesn't include every vaccine. I feel most here know yellow fever (etc) isn't on the US list.There are vaccines that the risk/benefit doesn't make sense for universal vaccination. I do think SERIOUS (life altering) adverse events are very rare. Vaccination isn't risk free, though. Serious and less serious adverse events can and do happen. As I've said before many times.

My daughter is vaccinated mostly on schedule with a couple of exceptions.

So technically your child is not up-to-date per the CDC schedule-correct?, clearly not in the eyes of the science (and scientist) behind the CDC recommendations?

 

I find it so odd when one states  - I'm a true believer in science and evidence based medical care, yes. -yet you choose not to do the recommended vacs and not on schedule- some how I see a big contraction to that statement. 

post #37 of 47
My daughter is currently up to date. Thanks for asking.

The people who write the vaccine schedule have certain priorities. Their main interest is public health. My priorities are a little different. My main interest is the health of my individual child. The fact that we have slightly different primary objectives means we can sometimes look at the same body of evidence and come to slightly different conclusions about what's best.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

My daughter is currently up to date. Thanks for asking.

The people who write the vaccine schedule have certain priorities. Their main interest is public health. My priorities are a little different. My main interest is the health of my individual child. The fact that we have slightly different primary objectives means we can sometimes look at the same body of evidence and come to slightly different conclusions about what's best.

 

I don't understand when a pro-vax parent says this and then turns around and rags on non-vax parents for not vaccinating their children and lowering "herd immunity." Non-vax parents are only interested in the health of their child too, yet we constantly get bashed for not looking out for those who can't be vaccinated. I struggle to understand why it's okay for pro-vax parents to say this, but as soon as non-vax parents say it we're seen as selfish.

post #39 of 47
I'm not ragging on anyone. I do think herdimmunity is important and that people who work in public health have good reasons for trying to improve vaccination rates. It's not the reason I have my daughter vaccinated, though. I have her vaccinated to protect HER. The rest is just bonus.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
My daughter is currently up to date.

again, how is this possible? 

 

 

you are not up-to-date if you are not following the CDC schedule per the CDChttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-schedule.pdf

 

stating "mostly" and "with a couple of exceptions" means your child is not up to date- you can spin it any way you want put clearly you preach one way and do the otherROTFLMAO.gifsay as I do, not as I really do!

 

 

 

Quote:
The people who write the vaccine schedule have certain priorities.

and this "science" you don't buy into?! twins.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Study: Getting flu shot 2 years in a row may lower protection