Cochrane review and flu vaccines - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I don't understand why you keep quoting that.  They still don't say the flu vaccine is ineffective.  I agree they are very critical of public policy and of the available research but the still ultimately conclude it is effective.

 

It is still a lie to say that they cochrane reivew says the flu vaccine is ineffective.  They dont' say it.  Not matter how many times you quote them saying something else.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#62 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:24 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't understand why you keep quoting that.  They still don't say the flu vaccine is ineffective.  I agree they are very critical of public policy and of the available research but the still ultimately conclude it is effective.

 

It is still a lie to say that they cochrane reivew says the flu vaccine is ineffective.  They dont' say it.  Not matter how many times you quote them saying something else.

 

I don't understand why you keep saying that the flu vax is effective - without - mentioning the warning that the Cochrane authors said, in - both - reviews ... that the evidence is thin and that there is evidence of widespread manipulation.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#63 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I actually am not saying it's effective (although I do believe it is) all I'm saying is that the cochrane review authors did not say it's ineffective, as has been claimed.  Actually, they found it WAS effective in several areas, in spite of the thin evidence.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#64 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:30 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I actually am not saying it's effective (although I do believe it is) all I'm saying is that the cochrane review authors did not say it's ineffective, as has been claimed.  Actually, they found it WAS effective in several areas, in spite of the thin evidence.

 

Effecitve or ineffective ... so, what is this conclusion based on - given the evidence is thin and there is evidence of widespread manipulation?


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#65 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I don't know, Mama.  But it's still a lie to claim they said the flu shot is ineffective.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#66 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:42 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't know, Mama.  But it's still a lie to claim they said the flu shot is ineffective.

 

But it's a - fact - that the Cochrane authors warned that reliable evidence is thin and that there is evidence of widespread manipulation.  In both studies.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#67 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

sure, but they DIDN'T say it was ineffective!  I feel like we're locked in a repeating pattern, here . . .

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#68 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 05:52 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

sure, but they DIDN'T say it was ineffective!  I feel like we're locked in a repeating pattern, here . . .

 

Sure, but it is - still - based on thin evidence and evidence of widespread manipulation. 


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#69 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 06:11 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

sure, but they DIDN'T say it was ineffective!  I feel like we're locked in a repeating pattern, here . . .


Yeah, it all comes down to perspective.  Rrrrrachel is probably assuming it's safe and worthwhile until proven otherwise, and MamaMunchkin is reluctant to inject her healthy children without more compelling evidence that it's worth it. 
 

I hope the Cochrane reviews help put an end to all the peer pressure and other nonsense that goes on during flu-shot season.  It would be nice if the flu shot could return to being a medical procedure that can be opted into with informed consent, instead of the hooplah that goes on right now.

rachelsmama is offline  
#70 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 06:12 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
What I'm assuming about the flu shot is really irrelevant, since all I'm doing is pointing out that they didn't say what people keep claiming they said.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#71 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 06:21 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Yes, people are going around saying the cochrane review said the flu shot was ineffective.  Which is why I started the thread.

Well, according to the lead researcher for the review:

 

"In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death.


I also like his final statement in that letter:  "It is not my place to judge the policies currently underway in British Columbia, but coercion and forcing public ridicule on human beings (for example by forcing them to wear distinctive badges or clothing) is usually the practice of tyrants."


 

 http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html#ixzz2Dx2sYzYQ

Taximom5 is online now  
#72 of 81 Old 12-02-2012, 07:16 PM
 
Mosaic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: La vida loca
Posts: 4,005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Way too many posts have been removed from this thread because of User Agreement violations (or responses to them). Props to HappyHappyMommy and Cynthia for cleaning up the mess in here!

I am opening this back up to discuss the Cochrane review, but I'm offering some additional guidelines for your consideration to avoid getting this thread shut down permanently:

1) Nazi references generally don't lead a conversation to a good place. So, please, don't go there.

2) People can interpret the same data differently. People also may have different feelings about what is considered "effective" or "ineffective." Your post would be more informative (and perhaps influential) if you explain your interpretation rather than argue against someone else's. Calling others' interpretations a "lie" is missing an opportunity to understand where they're coming from or point out something that you weigh more heavily in your interpretation.

Thanks for taking this as a fresh start!!

Mi vida loca: full-time WOHM, frugalista, foodie wannabe, 10+ years of TCOYF 

 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T spells BRAND NEW User Agreement!!

Mosaic is offline  
#73 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 06:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm not trying to be ornery. If people want to interpret the cochrane review as saying flu vaccines are ineffective, more power to them. If they want to say what they got out of the cochrane review was that flu vaccines are ineffective, not effective enough, or the research was unreliable, good for them.

but saying the cochrane review said flu vaccines were ineffective is a lie. Period. We can't call a lie a lie?

Not everything is open to interpretation.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#74 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 06:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

From the cochrane review on flu vaccine and healthy children:

 

 

 

Quote:
Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age.

 

 

From the review of healthy adults

 

 

 

Quote:
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost.

 

 

Not only does it not say the flu vaccine is ineffective, it says the opposite.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#75 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 07:10 AM
Banned
 
Eligracey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume 207, Issue 3 SUPPL., September 2012, Pages S38-S46


Safety of influenza immunization during pregnancy for the fetus and the neonate
Bednarczyk, R.A.ab, Adjaye-Gbewonyo, D.a, Omer, S.B.ab

a  Center for Health Research-Southeast, Kaiser Permanente, Atlanta,
GA, United States
b  Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States


Abstract
Since the 1960s, pregnant women in the United States have been
recommended to receive influenza vaccine. A maternal concern about the
possibility of adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes after the
vaccination of pregnant women has been cited as a reason for low
maternal influenza vaccination coverage. Recent research has
identified benefits to the fetus and neonate after maternal influenza
vaccination that have prompted efforts to increase coverage in
pregnant women. There is a long history of research findings that
highlight the safety of vaccinating pregnant women. This review
summarizes nearly 40 years of research on influenza vaccination of
pregnant women and the lack of association with adverse fetal or
neonatal outcomes. Future research should focus on vaccinations that
are given in the first trimester of pregnancy and on product-specific
analyses to account for differences in manufacturing processes. © 2012
Mosby, Inc.
Eligracey is offline  
#76 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 07:13 AM
Banned
 
Eligracey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry, cutting and pasting on my phone! So the review above indicates that the flu vaccine is safe for fetuses and provides health benefits to babies after they're born if they received it when in utero. I can get the full text from my work if anyone wants to see it.
Eligracey is offline  
#77 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 07:16 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Thanks, Eligracey!  There are a lot of studies that point to the flu vaccine being even more effective than the cochrane review said it was, but I am trying to keep this about the cochrane review, specifically.  I'm hoping to clear up some misunderstandings about it that may have been generated by some misleading claims.

 

 

(but here's a link to that study for anyone who's interested, which I definitely was: http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(12)00739-9/abstract )

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#78 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 07:56 AM
 
Mosaic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: La vida loca
Posts: 4,005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm not trying to be ornery. If people want to interpret the cochrane review as saying flu vaccines are ineffective, more power to them. If they want to say what they got out of the cochrane review was that flu vaccines are ineffective, not effective enough, or the research was unreliable, good for them.
but saying the cochrane review said flu vaccines were ineffective is a lie. Period. We can't call a lie a lie?
Not everything is open to interpretation.
I hate quibbling about word choice; but on a message board, that's all we have, right? The word "lie" implies dishonesty or intentional misleading, which is a judgement on the poster more than it is a comment about the facts. Your following post, however, which quotes the article and makes your point, is *perfect*. So perfectly perfectly perfect, I want to give it a kitten.

Mi vida loca: full-time WOHM, frugalista, foodie wannabe, 10+ years of TCOYF 

 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T spells BRAND NEW User Agreement!!

Mosaic is offline  
#79 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 08:08 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have been so insistent on using the word lie.  It is loaded.  It is very misleading, though.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#80 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 08:56 AM
 
geekgolightly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: on top of a very lovely mountain
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eligracey View Post

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume 207, Issue 3 SUPPL., September 2012, Pages S38-S46
Safety of influenza immunization during pregnancy for the fetus and the neonate
Bednarczyk, R.A.ab, Adjaye-Gbewonyo, D.a, Omer, S.B.ab
a  Center for Health Research-Southeast, Kaiser Permanente, Atlanta,
GA, United States
b  Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
Abstract
Since the 1960s, pregnant women in the United States have been
recommended to receive influenza vaccine. A maternal concern about the
possibility of adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes after the
vaccination of pregnant women has been cited as a reason for low
maternal influenza vaccination coverage. Recent research has
identified benefits to the fetus and neonate after maternal influenza
vaccination that have prompted efforts to increase coverage in
pregnant women. There is a long history of research findings that
highlight the safety of vaccinating pregnant women. This review
summarizes nearly 40 years of research on influenza vaccination of
pregnant women and the lack of association with adverse fetal or
neonatal outcomes. Future research should focus on vaccinations that
are given in the first trimester of pregnancy and on product-specific
analyses to account for differences in manufacturing processes. © 2012
Mosby, Inc.

 

 

Thanks for posting this. I didnt get the flu vaccine for years while I was TTC/Pregnant and wish I had. I was working as a nurse at the time, but was still under the last bits of antivax influence. Really wish this meta-analysis had come out sooner, but at least it is out now.


Momma to DS 1, age 8 and rainbow baby DS2 4-21-11.
geekgolightly is offline  
#81 of 81 Old 12-03-2012, 11:16 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)

I'll repeat this, since Rrrrachel apparently did not see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Well, according to the lead researcher for the review:

 

"In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death.


I also like his final statement in that letter:  "It is not my place to judge the policies currently underway in British Columbia, but coercion and forcing public ridicule on human beings (for example by forcing them to wear distinctive badges or clothing) is usually the practice of tyrants."


 

 http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html#ixzz2Dx2sYzYQ

Taximom5 is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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