Lets debate the flu shot! - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 08:01 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

pseudo-science
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

conspiracy

eyesroll.gifbanghead.gif
Mirzam and BeckyBird like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#32 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

There is zero convincing evidence that the flu vaccines have caused significant harm (by significant I mean local pain and swelling, malaise for a couple days) and some convincing evidence that it lends at least some protection from the flu. I care for pregnant women and work at an office and a hospital, and I do everything I reasonably can not to be flu vector to this vulnerable population. .

You're a nurse, and you say that there is zero convincing evidence of serious harm?

The flu shot manufacturers admit that there is risk of significant harm, and that there HAS been harm. That's why the US DEpartment of Health and Human Services has admitted and compensated hundreds of cases of flu vaccine-induced paralysis, stroke, autoimmune disorders, seizures, brain damage, death, etc. That's why, in Europe, governments have admitted that the h1n1 flu shot has caused hundreds of cases of pediatric narcolepsy, a lifelong neurological disorder that is similar to seizure disorders.

The Cochrane Review--considered the gold standard of mainstream medical review--concluded that there is NO evidence of any benefit to giving health care workers the flu shot.

If you want to get it, and you think it may help protect your patients, fine and dandy, but you should know the facts. And you should be aware that some of your colleagues are being forced into choosing between getting the flu shot and losing their jobs.

If someone who got the shot unwillingly because of such coercion ends up with a severe adverse effect--some blame goes to the colleagues who went along with it and didn't stand up for the rights of those who don't want to submit to a forced invasive procedure that doesn't live up to the safety/efficacy claims of its manufacturer--who profited million$.
BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#33 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Taxi, do you realize that the study referenced by that Cochrane review was very specifically referenced to workers caring for the elderly in long term care facilities? People took this study and extrapolated it to ALL hcw's in ALL settings, which doesn't make sense.

The pediatric narcolepsy risk with flu vaccine- that'd be the one not licensed for use in the US.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#34 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 03:14 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)

In the words of Dr. Tom Jefferson, lead researcher of the Cochrane Review's studies on flu shots and tamiflu:

 

"My group and I also carried out a review on 270 influenza vaccines studies on all types of populations published from the 1940s up to 2007 and found near universal poor methodological quality. We also found that pharma-funded studies were more likely to be published in the top journals and be more often quoted than their non pharma counterparts, but the quality and size of the studies were the same as the others. Their conclusions were not surprisingly far more optimistic on the vaccines’ performance. Their publication on top journals was probably a result of the fatal attraction of pharma sponsorship for big journals and their publishers."

 

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

 

There is no convincing evidence that vaccinating health care workers will protect the patients.  It clearly doesn't seem to protect the most vulnerable population--the elderly.

serenbat and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#35 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Pregnant women are highly vulnerable to flu as well. As the Cochrane review states repeatedly, the highest quality evidence is just not there regarding health care workers. The vaccine efficacy is not 100% but it is about 60%. Someone who doesn't get the flu can't pass it to others. I think the daya will come in time. Until then, I have no patience with HCW's who have no medical contraindications to the vaccine and refuse to get it. It's as if they don't want to wash their hands or wear a mask in the OR. Don't like the policy, get a different job.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#36 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 06:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Pregnant women are highly vulnerable to flu as well. As the Cochrane review states repeatedly, the highest quality evidence is just not there regarding health care workers. The vaccine efficacy is not 100% but it is about 60%. Someone who doesn't get the flu can't pass it to others. I think the daya will come in time. Until then, I have no patience with HCW's who have no medical contraindications to the vaccine and refuse to get it. It's as if they don't want to wash their hands or wear a mask in the OR. Don't like the policy, get a different job.

 

That 60% efficacy is the difference between the percentage of vaccinated who get the flu (about 1.2 %) and the percentage of unvaccinated who get the flu (about 2.7 percent).  Either way, the chance of getting the flu--meaning INFLUENZA, which is what the vaccine is for--is extremely small.  Either way, about 97% or more will NOT get the flu. The vaccine does NOT protect against "flu-like viruses," which is what most people get.

 

And someone who doesn't get flu symptoms CAN pass it to others.  In fact, someone who gets FluMist, which is a live virus vaccine, can pass it to infants and immunocompromised people for up to 3 weeks.

 

it is not at all like refusing to wash hands or wear a mask in the OR.

 

It makes much more sense to mandate that health care workers who are ill STAY HOME rather than coming to work.

Taximom5 is offline  
#37 of 55 Old 06-30-2013, 06:39 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Pregnant women are highly vulnerable to flu as well. As the Cochrane review states repeatedly, the highest quality evidence is just not there regarding health care workers. The vaccine efficacy is not 100% but it is about 60%. Someone who doesn't get the flu can't pass it to others. I think the daya will come in time. Until then, I have no patience with HCW's who have no medical contraindications to the vaccine and refuse to get it. It's as if they don't want to wash their hands or wear a mask in the OR. Don't like the policy, get a different job.

Um, nnnnnnnnnnnoooooooo. That's not how evidence-based medicine works. Medical interventions, particularly coerced ones like mandatory influenza vaccination, need evidence behind them. So you see, the burden of proof is on those making this draconian policy to prove that the policy works. To date, they've failed miserably.

I find the attitude of, "Gee, we don't have all of the data (it will come in time) but let's forcibly inject and nasal-mist everyone anyway" deplorably unethical. I, for on, have no patience for hospitals passing anti-informed consent, anti-evidence policies.
BeckyBird likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#38 of 55 Old 06-30-2013, 12:24 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Vaccinating those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people, as well as sick people staying home and lots of handwashing, is just good public health sense. Why should we have to do a specific study on it for each and every highly contagious disease? We know how flu is spread.

ETA: especially when the population you're dealing with tends to be unvaccinated because of unethical fearmongering.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#39 of 55 Old 06-30-2013, 12:32 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Vaccinating those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people, as well as sick people staying home and lots of handwashing, is just good public health sense. Why should we have to do a specific study on it for each and every highly contagious disease? We know how flu is spread.
This is based on the simplistic assumption that vaccination equals prevention, and in the case of "flu" it just doesn't.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
#40 of 55 Old 06-30-2013, 07:39 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Vaccinating those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people, as well as sick people staying home and lots of handwashing, is just good public health sense. Why should we have to do a specific study on it for each and every highly contagious disease? We know how flu is spread.

ETA: especially when the population you're dealing with tends to be unvaccinated because of unethical fearmongering.

Nope. Medicine is to be based on science, not your perception of "common sense." Science often defies "common sense."

Since you work in good ol' Golden Spoon obstetrics, how about an example close to home? It was once "common sense" that you should slice every laboring woman's perineum open to make babies come out faster. Enter science to tell us how that "common sense" is a no-no. It was once "common sense" that an x-ray machine was a great idea for pregnant women because you'd get a good view of the baby. Ooooooooooooops! duh.gif

But if you want to play the common-sense card, I'd say that it's common sense NOT to bully hospital personnel into a medical intervention when the best available, most strongly designed independent studies are indicating that it's having no effect in preventing influenza transmissions. It's common sense that when "flu-like illness" is a noted side effect, a lot of employees are going to be calling in sick and miserable after their shots. It's common sense that "herd immunity" is bar-none impossible to attain in hospitals when patients, visitors, gift shop employees, I.T. contractors, and Fed Ex delivery people aren't vaccinated.

Most of all, it's common sense that as a health care consumer, I can no longer trust hospitals and will need to be constantly on my guard if I end up in one. After all, what other science will they deliberately choose to ignore?

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#41 of 55 Old 06-30-2013, 08:14 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Vaccinating those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people, as well as sick people staying home and lots of handwashing, is just good public health sense. Why should we have to do a specific study on it for each and every highly contagious disease? We know how flu is spread.

ETA: especially when the population you're dealing with tends to be unvaccinated because of unethical fearmongering.

My goodness, Katie, you're missing some very important facts!

FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate anyone with a vaccine that has poor efficacy.

FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people with a live-virus vaccine that could end up transmitting disease (FluMist).

FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate those who are in contact with lots of vulnerable people with a vaccine that prevents disease symptoms but does not prevent transmission (pertussis, in DTaP).

FACT: It isn't good public health sense to vaccinate 100 people to prevent one case of flu symptoms (not one death from flu--one CASE of flu symptoms), which is what the Cochrane Review concluded.

FACT: It is absolutely necessary to do a specific study on each and every vaccine for each and every highly contagious disease because scientists are unable to accurately predict the adverse reactions caused by injecting these vaccines. The old, live-cell DPT shot, the Urabe MMR, Rotashield, and Pandemrix are all examples of vaccines that caused unpredicted and deadly adverse reactions, which is why they were eventually pulled off the market. We know exactly how all those diseases are spread, but scientists still don't understand why some populations have deadly reactions to some vaccines.

Seems to me that the unethical fear-mongering is not being done by those who criticize the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccines. It's being done by those who want to push mandatory administration of an ineffective, not-safe-enough vaccine.
BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#42 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 07:38 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)

Sorry haven't been on for a few days, just making a quick reply. 

 

"Teacozy's post shows an interesting double standard.


What if we changed the above quote from the Mayo Clinic to reflect vaccines and autism?"

 

From the Mayo Clinic website 

 

"Various strains of HPV, which spread through sexual contact, cause most cases of cervical cancer. Two cervical cancer vaccines have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in the U.S. — Gardasil and Cervarix. Both vaccines can prevent most cases of cervical cancer if given before a girl or woman is exposed to the virus.

In addition, both can prevent most vaginal and vulvar cancer in women, and Gardasil can prevent genital warts in women and men." 

Alright then, now we have established that in addition to the CDC, American Cancer Society,  and every other credible medical association, Mayo Clinic also believes that HPV causes most cases of cervical cancer and that Gardasil and Cervarix will prevent most cases of cervical cancer. 

Shocker! Less HPV= less cervical cancer.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#43 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 08:25 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,140
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)

teacozy - you seem to want to debate HPV, so I revived this thread:

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1385370/hpv-infections-drop-by-half-because-of-vaccination/60


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#44 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 08:34 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)

Nope.  At least two people asked why there weren't any pro vaccine people debating in the thread. I answered and used HPV as an example and someone tried to argue that perhaps Mayo Clinic didn't think HPV caused almost all cervical cancer so I responded.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#45 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 08:45 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,140
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)

Well, never mind then.

 

There are no pro-vax people arguing because most have gone on hiatus.  Maybe they have tired of infighting and feeling like they are banging their head against a wall, and that is fine.  I get it.  The hiatus predates this thread by quite a bit. 

 

You are new here, while it might seem to you the non-vaxxers are rigid meanies, I can assure you it very much goes both ways.  They just aren't here at the moment to demonstrate their loveliness (sarcasm).

 

This is not an easy board, it can be very polarized, and it isn't everyone cup of "tea" (ok - lousy attempt at a pun, lol).

 

I also think it is possible they are not defending the flu vaccine, because it is not easily defensible, and they don't want to have egg on their face.  Silence can be telling.  

BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#46 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 01:42 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Yeah, no conspiracy theorists here at all.


Wow. Accusations galore from you!

And all this nastiness is in response to what, exactly?

Oh, yeah. It's because we posted proof that some vaccines have caused far more harm than claimed, and that some vaccines are far less effective than claimed. Oh, and because the "but flu shot as public health policy!" argument marketing mantra was exposed as being completely based on fallacies.

So instead of intelligent debate, we have one side launching nasty personal attacks.

And that's actually just fine, because it just makes things that much more obvious.

If one is not a kind person on the Internet, then one is not a kind person, period.
Mirzam, BeckyBird and kathymuggle like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#47 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 04:37 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,140
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)

 

Random picture everyone agrees with…..

BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#48 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 05:11 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,140
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)

…and back on track….

 

Have any of you seen this?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/09/10/flu-shot-pandemic.html

 

 

"She and her colleagues worked with 32 ferrets, giving half the 2008 seasonal flu shot and the remainder a placebo injection. The work was blinded, meaning the researchers didn't know which ferrets received which shot. Later, all the ferrets were infected with the pandemic H1N1 virus.

The ferrets in the vaccine group became significantly sicker than the other animals, though all recovered.

"The findings that we show are consistent with the increased risk that we saw in the human studies," Skowronski said.

She said that in the time since the pandemic, researchers in other countries have reported a similar interaction."

 

I am only allowed to quote 100 words, but the whole article is worth a read.  There have been numerous studies showing people who got the seasonal flu shot were more likely to get H1N1.

Do you think this works with other flu like viruses - those injected with flu vaccine are more likely to get other flu like viruses?

H1N1 is in many seasonal flu vaccines  (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/vaccine-selection.htm) - do you think this has any repercussions?

BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#49 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 05:22 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Oh, for goodness sake, the thing you quoted was a bit of a tongue in cheek joke.  No lightness allowed here, I guess.  Perhaps that was not clear - but even still most people clarify before going off on a rant.  

I started to write a longer reply but decided not to bother.  I have flagged your post.  Calling people a conspiracy theorist is not allowed.  Calling Taxi a liar is pretty nasty as well.






Well if you flagged her post you better flag Taxi's right above yours because she's equally as nasty right back. I thought this was the "big girl panties" forum?
TCMoulton is offline  
#50 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 05:56 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post

Well if you flagged her post you better flag Taxi's right above yours because she's equally as nasty right back. I thought this was the "big girl panties" forum?

If you think my post violated MDC policy, by all means, please either report it, or pm me to suggest an appropriate edit, TCMoulton.

If you disagree with what I've written, please feel free to discuss or even debate my points.

I think that's more appropriate than attacking my post.
Taximom5 is offline  
#51 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 06:42 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

If you think my post violated MDC policy, by all means, please either report it, or pm me to suggest an appropriate edit, TCMoulton.

If you disagree with what I've written, please feel free to discuss or even debate my points.

I think that's more appropriate than attacking my post.

Read closely Taxi, I never said I felt your post was a violation but instead was pointing out to Kathymuggle that if she felt Katie's post violated the UA (which i also disagreed with) then yours did as well.
Remember, this is the "big girl panties" forum :-)
TCMoulton is offline  
#52 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 08:32 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post

Read closely Taxi, I never said I felt your post was a violation but instead was pointing out to Kathymuggle that if she felt Katie's post violated the UA (which i also disagreed with) then yours did as well.
Remember, this is the "big girl panties" forum :-)

Read closely, TC, it is a violation of MDC policy to imply that a member is lying. Katie's post did just that. Mine did not.

Perhaps in your concern for reminding us of "big girl panties," you've forgotten both That policy and the one that asks us to stay on topic, which, in case you've forgotten, is the flu shot.
Taximom5 is offline  
#53 of 55 Old 07-01-2013, 08:38 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

…and back on track….

Have any of you seen this?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/09/10/flu-shot-pandemic.html



I had not seen that. It's fascinating.

I particularly like this quote: "But who knows, frankly? The wise man knows he knows nothing when it comes to influenza, so you always have to be cautious in speculating."

Perhaps the people who contrary to the scientific evidence, insist that the flu shot offers significant protection against the flu, should remember this.
BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#54 of 55 Old 07-02-2013, 07:35 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,140
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)

This article is well worth a read.  It is on the flu vaccine in pregnancy.  A lot of it is common knowledge/arguments for vaccine debaters, but she did link to a study or two I have not seen.  it linked to this study, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21945263, which had this as a cocnlusion. 

 

"Trivalent influenza virus vaccination elicits a measurable inflammatory response among pregnant women. There is sufficient variability in response for testing associations with clinical outcomes. As adverse perinatal health outcomes including preeclampsia and preterm birth have an inflammatory component, a tendency toward greater inflammatory responding to immune triggers may predict risk of adverse outcomes, providing insight into biological mechanisms underlying risk. The inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is substantially milder and more transient than seen in infectious illness, arguing for the clinical value of vaccination. However, further research is needed to confirm that the mild inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is benign in pregnancy."

 

Bolding mine. Only about 1-2% of the population gets the flu strain in the vaccine, so comparing vaccine to disease (when most people do not get the disease) is not a fair comparison.  

 

 

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/featured-guest-blog-your-body-your-baby-their-flu/

BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#55 of 55 Old 07-02-2013, 10:36 AM
 
Kamiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ok ladies. I got the flags last night on this, and deleted the offending post.

 

((Sorry for my absense - we were battling a trojan on the machine. bigeyes.gif))

 

I sent PM's asking for edits on quotes surrounding the offending posts, and asked for general edits before bickering takes over this thread and it winds up locked.

 

We can't call people liars on Mothering if there is any question about that -it does go against the UA.


As a side note, Yes, this is the "big girl panties" forum. I am trying to moderate it as such so as to make it more enjoyable for all.

 

That doesn't mean this is the "mean girls" forum. Let us not ever confuse those two, mmkay? I invite you to look over your post and remove anything that is more along the lines of 'mean girls' and less along the line of 'big girl'.

You all are adults - use that discernment!

 

I'll be back tonight and send out PM's to remind any one who needs one. Thank you all so much for your cooperation, and remember that compassion is never wasted.

BeckyBird likes this.

sewmachine.gifknit.gifrainbow1284.gifDaughter of Him, Wife and Mother to them partners.gifstillheart.gifstillheart.gifstillheart.gifstillheart.gif,  

heartbeat.gifOne more on the way Fall 2013 pos.gif

 

Kamiro 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