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

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-31-2009, 08:18 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Noelle C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Noelle C. is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:35 AM
 
nicolebeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
nicolebeth is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 12:45 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,564
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
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!
Deborah is online now  
Old 10-31-2009, 01:48 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
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?

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 05:46 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Noelle C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Noelle C. is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 03:23 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelle C. View Post
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.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 01:16 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
"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.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 01:25 PM
 
Jenivere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Second star to the right...
Posts: 5,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?

:
Jenivere is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 10:24 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Noelle C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
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.
Noelle C. is offline  
Old 11-02-2009, 05:16 PM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
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.
hippy mum is offline  
Old 11-02-2009, 10:54 PM
 
13Sandals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: north of NY
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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:

Quote:
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.
13Sandals is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off