A Physician Takes His Flu Vaccine Under Protest - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 44 Old 01-03-2013, 08:23 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

 

My question was in reply to Chickabiddy, not to you, Rrrrachel.  Or are both screen names yours?

 

Rachel is welcome to respond, and we are different people.

 

I don't feel that I can interact with you productively, Taximom, so I will choose not to.


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#32 of 44 Old 01-03-2013, 08:40 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Chickabiddy has the wise.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#33 of 44 Old 01-03-2013, 08:50 AM
 
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 chickabiddy View Post

 

Rachel is welcome to respond, and we are different people.

 

I don't feel that I can interact with you productively, Taximom, so I will choose not to.

I believe I asked you a reasonable, non-confrontational question:  "Why is that convincing to you when the Cochrane Review asserts that those studies are low-quality, and that those conclusions are not plausible?"  I was hoping to understand why you (not Rrrrrachel) came to a different conclusion than I did.

 

If you don't want to answer my question, that's absolutely fine.  smile.gif

Taximom5 is online now  
#34 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 06:23 AM
 
hobojungle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just wondering if people have read the review of flu vaccine effectiveness by CIDRAP

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/center/mission/articles/ccivi-landing.html

For some reason I don't see many people referring to this recently completed study. Everyone keeps referring to the cochrane review. I can't imagine any intelligent person who reads this whole report to be in favor of the flu vaccine. The ACIP moved in favor of universal flu shots over the past years without scientific evidence. It is very disturbing.

I'm a dad with a one year old son and refused the flu vaccine at his 9 mo appt and got a dirty look from the nurse practitioner. Connecticut is one of two states that requires this stupid vaccine for kids in daycare starting at 6 mos. I hope other states don't follow this.
hobojungle is offline  
#35 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 06:36 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It's not news to me that the flu vaccine varies widely in effectiveness, depending on how good the match is and how active the flu season is in a particular year. It's far from a sure thing, especially whe compared with other vaccines, and I didn't think it was going in.

Talking about how no intelligent person could do x or y shows a total lack of imagination.

Thanks for the link, though.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#36 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 06:47 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I have read a little about cidrap (although I didn't realize that's what it was when you said it). The main conclusion seems to be that we need to keep working on developing a universal flu vaccine, and we need to make sure public policy and research funding are aligned towards that end. It also says pretty much what I did above, that the flu vaccine isn't as effective as what we're used to from other vaccines, but when there's a good match it still makes you substantially less likely to get the flu.

I don't think I'm getting what you did from it at all.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#37 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 07:01 AM
 
hobojungle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, I think the main argument is that current flu vaccines effectiveness have been overstated and that they need a totally different approach for truly effective flu vaccines.

However within the report it talks about the push for flu vaccines to a broader population by the ACIP was not based on new evidence of effectiveness of current vaccines. It is now recommended for all people 6 months or older and if I remember correctly only 2 studies covered infants under the age of one and the results are inconclusive to any effectiveness.

They do recommend current flu vaccines should be use in the meantime but the argument hinges on the safety of current vaccines which you could argue is not truly known especially for infants.

Anyways I hope more people read this paper as it is very interesting and talks about how current flu vaccines work along with the development/funding process of vaccines
hobojungle is offline  
#38 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 07:12 AM
 
hobojungle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry about the comment about "intelligent people". I was trying to get across that anyone who reads this report in entirety should come away with some skepticism of the current universal flu vac recommendation.

That comment is showing my annoyance that there are not many balanced research papers on vaccines in general. I reluctantly vax my son on a slightly spaced out schedule.
hobojungle is offline  
#39 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 07:29 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)

Hi, hobojungle, welcome aboard!

 

In addition to CIDRAP and Cochrane, I also found this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/

 

"Last month, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies."

Taximom5 is online now  
#40 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 07:33 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)

Holy cow--even the DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND POLICY, who describes himself as a "pro-vaccine guy," is admitting that this vaccine is overpromoted and overhyped, and that it does not protect as promoted.  He also admits that it's not about health--it's all about marketing.

 

" 'We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,' said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. 'It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.' "

 

Apparently, he was out there heavily promoting the flu vaccine, mistakenly believing that it was effective--until he saw the actual study:

“I’m an insider,” Dr. Osterholm said. “Until we started this project, I was one of the people out there heavily promoting influenza vaccine use. It was only with this study that I looked and said, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#41 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 08:10 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Hi, hobojungle, welcome aboard!

In addition to CIDRAP and Cochrane, I also found this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/

"Last month, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies."

I believe this is referring to cidrap.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#42 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 10:47 AM
 
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


I believe this is referring to cidrap.

Yes, it is!  :)

 

And isn't it wonderful to see a whole article on this in the NY Times, and even quoting the director in "in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world?!"  

 

Bravo, Dr. Osterholm?  And brava to Roni Caryn Rabin, for daring to report this!

 

I found Dr. Osterholm's summary of the data in the comment section of the NY Times page:

 

For the injectable trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (shot):
• Protects healthy adults 18 to 64 years of age on average 59% (bolding mine)

(did they not look at protecting unhealthy adults?  I'd like to know how much more likely unhealthy adults are to have serious adverse reactions to the shot.)
• Lacks consistent evidence of protection in children 2 to 17 years of age (one of the main target groups)
• Inconsistent evidence of protection in adults 65 years of age and older  (also one of the main target groups)
For live attenuated influenza vaccine (nasal spray):
• Protects young children 6 months to 7 years of age on average 83% (but it's not recommended for children under the age of 3--is this because they are more likely to have severe reactions?)
• Lacks consistent evidence of protection in adults > 59 years of age 
• Lacks evidence of protection in individuals 8 to 59 years of age (so, no consistent evidenc of protection for those over the age of 8.  Great.  And the nasal mist vaccine is both more likely to cause a case of flu (though likely to milder) AND make the recipient a walking flu vector for up to 3 weeks. Why bother?)

 

Dr. Osterholm also had this to say, in a later post on the NY Times page: 

"We and other groups in the United States and Australia have NOT been able to demonstrate a significant impact on the level protection of any one year’s vaccine and the “match” between those influenza viruses that are included in the vaccine and those that are circulating in the community." (bolding mine)

Jennyanydots likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#43 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 11:02 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Yes it is nice to see this covered in a mainstream website.

You missed this quote from Dr Osterholm:

"He still considers himself a “a pro-vaccine guy,” Dr. Osterholm said.

“I say, ‘Use this vaccine,’ ” he said. “The safety profile is actually quite good. But we have oversold it. Use it — but just know it’s not going to work nearly as well as everyone says.”"

The summary I read from all this is that It's better than nothing, better still with other common sense against flu (hand washing etc) and very safe, just not as good as the "hype" might suggest so there's a concern people will take it and then not bother with the common sense stuff.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#44 of 44 Old 01-04-2013, 11:37 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
None of this is new information. It's pretty much inline with what cochrane said.
prosciencemum likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
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