Lets debate the flu shot! - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 55 Old 06-21-2013, 12:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Would you all read this article with Julie G, then head of the CDC and tell me if you learn why the vaccine is now given to pregnant women and children under 5? I assumed health reasons. Was I right?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15704744/

(The article is from 2006, but very relevant, IMO)

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#2 of 55 Old 06-21-2013, 01:01 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 littlec View Post

Would you all read this article with Julie G, then head of the CDC and tell me if you learn why the vaccine is now given to pregnant women and children under 5? I assumed health reasons. Was I right?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15704744/

(The article is from 2006, but very relevant, IMO)

Holy crap. I hadn't seen that before.

So Julie Geberding flat out lied, citing "the life-saving effects" of a vaccine that has, so far, never been proven effective in pediatric and elderly populations, and having never been studied for safety in pregnant women.

And they went public with the admission that the reason for the push was to sell unused (and unwanted) vaccines???? My first thought was, how stupid ARE they? But my second thought, wait a minute--maybe those that went public with the truth (that the priority was sales, not health) were hoping someone WOULD notice...
Taximom5 is online now  
#3 of 55 Old 06-23-2013, 04:16 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/us_government/325689-100-million-bipartisan-flu-vaccine-tax-bill-approved/

 

 

Quote:

The passing of the bill will not increase the cost of flu shots, but will allow the vaccine to benefit from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The VICP works by taxing 75 cents per shot and creating a type of insurance for the public in the event that injury or death is caused by vaccines. The program was originally formulated to diffuse claims in 1986 that vaccines cause injury or death, Bio News Texas reports.

 

 

Quote:

 

The tax on flu vaccines will produce about $100 million annually, which will be invested into security in the U.S. Treasury to help decrease the national debt of $16.5 trillion. As of May 2013, the VICP has paid out $2.7 billion for cases involving injury amongst all vaccines. The program has gained $3.4 billion from the tax and is projected to balance the budget in 25 years if current levels of revenue remain constant, according to Bio News Texas.

So, they are admitting the flu shot can cause damage.......and those who buy them are helping pay down the nat'l debt

emmy526 is offline  
#4 of 55 Old 06-23-2013, 04:40 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Wait a minute. What the heck? The flu shot is ALREADY covered by NVICP. How does the bill do anything to change that?

A partial list of 2012 vaccine court judgments for flu shot alone:
http://drtenpenny.com/vaccine-court-judgements-for-flu-shot-injuries/

Was the flu shot not previously subject to the 75-cent VICP tax? If not, how will adding that tax NOT increase the cost of the shot? If it was already subject to that tax, what does this bill REALLY change?

And I thought the program was created to compensate vaccine-injured people, not to diffuse "claims" that vaccines cause death or injury.

This stinks to high heaven.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#5 of 55 Old 06-23-2013, 05:48 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Wait a minute. What the heck? The flu shot is ALREADY covered by NVICP. How does the bill do anything to change that?

A partial list of 2012 vaccine court judgments for flu shot alone:
http://drtenpenny.com/vaccine-court-judgements-for-flu-shot-injuries/

Was the flu shot not previously subject to the 75-cent VICP tax? If not, how will adding that tax NOT increase the cost of the shot? If it was already subject to that tax, what does this bill REALLY change?

And I thought the program was created to compensate vaccine-injured people, not to diffuse "claims" that vaccines cause death or injury.

This stinks to high heaven.

I can only imagine the push for flu shots this fall, since their sales will help the Nat'l debt...we should start seeing ads anytime now

applejuice likes this.
emmy526 is offline  
#6 of 55 Old 06-24-2013, 07:07 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)

Thanks for the link OP.

 

I am not going to debate it, as it is quite old, but I do think the background info on part of the reason why they push the flu shot (so manufactures continue to make it!) is pretty interesting.

 

 

"We are concerned that we're going to have more doses of flu (vaccine) than we might use," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More than 110 million doses — a record amount — are being made for the 2006-07 flu season. The previous record was 95 million in 2002-03. That year 12 million doses went unused and one manufacturer quit making shots.

CDC officials said they want to prevent a repeat of that experience and are promoting Nov. 27-Dec. 3 as "National Influenza Vaccination Week."

 

Yeah, I always take drugs I do not think I need and do not work that well so pharmaceutical companies don't have unsold product…eyesroll.gif


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  
#7 of 55 Old 06-24-2013, 07:18 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Can't click on thumbs up from my phone, so consider this a joy.gif reaction to kathymuggle's post, above.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#8 of 55 Old 06-24-2013, 11:46 AM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
I know sometimes its slow here, but I find it interesting that no one who is in support of vaccines has said anything. To me, I compare the silence on this to when staunch republicans (or democrats) are let down big time by one of their own. They can't bring themselves to speak poorly of one of their own, so they just sit quietly until it blows over.

Of course I could be wrong. In fact, I would LOVE to hear from a flu shot supporter on this- specifically how the the. Head of the CDC said (in a mainstream article) that the recommendation for pregnant women and children under five to get the flu shot is so the vaccine wouldn't go to waste. That is not about health, public safety, or anything aside from money. But please, take a look and tell me what you think.
BeckyBird likes this.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#9 of 55 Old 06-24-2013, 01:06 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Maybe the flu shot supporters are starting to realize that the erosion of the right to turn down a shot is going to affect them at some point. Since there is both an increase in required vaccines and an increase in awareness of adverse reactions, more and more people are becoming aware of such reactions happening to children of friends, relatives, neighbors, colleagues, etc.

Even pro-vaccine people are feeling justifiably threatened when their right to say, "I don't want this injected in my child" or even "I would like to delay this shot for my child" is taken away, particularly with the flu shot, with its poor record of safety/efficacy.

Most of my colleagues are pro-vax--and almost all of them opt for a sel/del schedule, because they can. They--like a growing segment of the population--won't take kindly to having that option taken away because the government says it knows what's best for your baby.
Mirzam, applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#10 of 55 Old 06-24-2013, 08:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Taxi, I totally agree. I do know of many who (at least online) do not want people to have the option not to vaccinate at all.

I find it interesting that those who have been on here asking why we don't vax and saying they are safe have chosen not to comment on a very specific vaccine issue. Again, I'm assuming they choose not to (over 100 views and no pro vax comments).

I haven't looked at vaccine stuff in a while, but it does seem more and more information about vaccines is coming to light, or at the very least, more people are speaking out.
BeckyBird likes this.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#11 of 55 Old 06-25-2013, 05:21 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf

 

 

Quote:
The ACIPs citations and the current literature indicate that
influenza infection is rarely a threat to a normal pregnancy. There is
no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of influenza vaccination
during this critical period. No studies have adequately assessed the
risk of influenza vaccination during pregnancy, and animal safety
testing is lacking. Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative present
in most inactivated formulations of the vaccine, has been implicated
in human neurodevelopment disorders, including autism, and a
broad range of animal and experimental reproductive toxicities
including teratogenicity, mutagenicity, and fetal death. Thimerosal is
classified as a human teratogen

 

BeckyBird and kathymuggle like this.
emmy526 is offline  
#12 of 55 Old 06-25-2013, 05:59 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

Egg allergy? No worries, you can now have a flu vaccine grown in insect cells.

 

 

Quote:
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), passed the measure recommending Protein Science's FluBlok for the 2013-14 season in a 13 to 0 vote.
 

FluBlok is produced with an insect virus and recombinant DNA technology. Its only flu virus component is hemagglutinin, which is produced by infecting cultures of insect cells with a baculovirus.

 

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/jun2013allergy.html


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#13 of 55 Old 06-26-2013, 05:36 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130625162235.htm

 

Quote:

 

"It's quite common for people to say they are not going to get the flu shot this year because they've heard it does not match the strain of flu going around," said Dr. Andrea Tricco, the lead author of the paper and a scientist at the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital. "However, we've found that individuals will be protected regardless of whether the flu strain is a match or not."

so, why is it people got the flu anyways, regardless of being vaxed?  I would think if they were protected, they wouldn't have caught any flu at all. since 'they' claim it's effective for strains not included. 

BeckyBird likes this.
emmy526 is offline  
#14 of 55 Old 06-26-2013, 06:07 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

The flu is really a collection of healing symptoms that can be caused by any number of viruses, so when someone gets sick with the flu who's to say, unless they test, it is actually influenza anyway. I beleive the figure is around 16% of 'flu' is caused by influenza viruses.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#15 of 55 Old 06-27-2013, 01:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)

And still NOTHING from the pro-vax side, huh? Come on, guys. I really wanted to hear from you. Not in a "lets cut each other down" debate, but if this is a debate board, let's talk about the flu shot. Do you get it? Do you think it's necessary? Do you blame the flu outbreaks on unvaccinated, or on a defective vaccine? Do you think it's safe? 

 

Most importantly, what do you think about the article I posted? How do YOU, as a supporter of vaccines feel about the head of the CDC saying the reason they recommended pregnant women and children under 5 get the flu shot is so it doesn't go to waste? 


"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is online now  
#16 of 55 Old 06-27-2013, 02:47 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I will answer. First, the reason I personally have stopped posting is because it became apparent that it wasnt' desired by many to have a pro-vax opinion. Almost immediatelly it would get met with the accusation of being a "pharma-shill" and accusations of being paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Since it has been requested I assume that it is wanted and will provide only MY pro-vax opinion.


Do I get the flu shot? sometimes. I did this year, I did not last year. I did not get it when I was pregnant because I got it before I conceived so it wasn't an issue. I am not sure if I would have gotten it when pregnant or not.

Do I think it is necessary? No, not the flu shot. I am largely apathetic about the flu vaccine. It isn't the same as polio, MMR Tetnaus etc. It is also a guessing game on which strains will be most prevelant . I don't have really strong feelings about flu vaccines.

Do I blame flu outbreaks on unvaccinated or defective vaccines? Neither of these. Flu shots are based on predicted strains and sometimes they are wrong and vaccinated people get the flu. Many are not actually vaccinated for that strain of flu. I blame flu outbreaks on the flu.

Do I think the Flu vaccine is safe? yes I believe the flu vaccine is safe.

What do I think of this article? It is a business article from 7 years ago. It is what it is. But it doesn't say what is being suggested here as I will elaborate on next

What do I think about the head of the CDC saying that the reason they recommend pregnant women get the flu shot is so it doesn't go to waste?

I would be upset by that. BUT that isn't what she said at all. She said she was concerned that the doses would go to waste and that was why in 2006 they were encouraging people harder to get the flu shot. But they were re-eiterating that the same people should get the flu shots. They weren't changing and increasing the numbers so the doses didn't go to waste.

If you read the article further it goes on to explain the supply and demand delicate balance since the government is making recommendations and private companies are basing production based on that recommendation. But it is hard to guess how many of those recommended to get it actually will in a given year (understandable because many are like me and get it some years and not others). The CDC increased the demand that year by expanding the recommmendations to pregnant women etc. Then the suppliers made MORE vaccine based on the expansion. But that year many people were not getting it leading to an oversupply.

The recommendation that pregnant women get the flu shot PRE-dated the oversupply . The recommendation of pregnant women getting a flu shot is in no way to make sure that they don't go to waste.

That is my pro vax opinion.
MichelleZB likes this.
Dakotacakes is online now  
#17 of 55 Old 06-27-2013, 07:10 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)


 

 

 

 

 

 

"Flu shots are made by private companies, and both sides of the supply and demand equation for flu vaccine are complicated. CDC officials have tried to increase demand through public health campaigns and by expanding flu shot recommendations to include health care workers, pregnant women and children ages 6 months to 5 years."  \

 

Article in OP


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  
#18 of 55 Old 06-27-2013, 07:40 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am ot very good at quoting but if you continue to read that article directly below the quote it reads that now recommended dthat 218 million of the US 300 million residents though only a fraction of them are expected to ge tthe flu shot. These expanded recommendations helped lead to this years RECORD PRODUCTION.

I think the essence of this article is being missed. If you read the article in its entirety you will see that the CDC leader did not say that she was expanding recommendations to prevent the flu shot from going to waste. nothing anywhere close to that.

The article is saying that the CDC expanded recommedations in 2006 to cover pregnant women health care workers and children 6 months to 5 year. Thereby increasing the number of people that are recommended to get flu shots. THEN because now 218/300 million people where recommended to get flu shots companies increased the production of the flu vaccine because more people where recommended to get them. But few people did get them, and since they had increased production now the CDC was concerned that it would go to waste.

But no where in this article is it implied that the recommendations where changed to deal with the oversupply. It is the otherway around. there is no conspiracy, and no shady recommendations to keep from throwing out flu vaccines.
Dakotacakes is online now  
#19 of 55 Old 06-27-2013, 08:30 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

I am ot very good at quoting but if you continue to read that article directly below the quote it reads that now recommended dthat 218 million of the US 300 million residents though only a fraction of them are expected to ge tthe flu shot. These expanded recommendations helped lead to this years RECORD PRODUCTION.

I think the essence of this article is being missed. If you read the article in its entirety you will see that the CDC leader did not say that she was expanding recommendations to prevent the flu shot from going to waste. nothing anywhere close to that.

The article is saying that the CDC expanded recommedations in 2006 to cover pregnant women health care workers and children 6 months to 5 year. Thereby increasing the number of people that are recommended to get flu shots. THEN because now 218/300 million people where recommended to get flu shots companies increased the production of the flu vaccine because more people where recommended to get them. But few people did get them, and since they had increased production now the CDC was concerned that it would go to waste.

But no where in this article is it implied that the recommendations where changed to deal with the oversupply. It is the otherway around. there is no conspiracy, and no shady recommendations to keep from throwing out flu vaccines.

eyesroll.gif over the bolded.  Do we have to go there?

 

We just interpret it differently.

 

I have read the article twice and to me it seems like the article was saying the CDC was fiddling with demand  over market concerns.

 

 

 

 

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  
#20 of 55 Old 06-27-2013, 08:58 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
I thought the flu shot wasn't recommended for pregnant women until 2009? Can anyone find a link showing when it was first recommended for pregnant women?

Personally, I am very upset by the flu shot campaigns. The Cochrane review is clear that the flu shot is not effective, and the high volume of flu shot cases in US vaccine court indicates that the flu shot is not safe, enough, either: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/search_vaccine (and that's JUSt for May of this year).

We have a vaccine that is neither safe enough nor effective enough, yet people across America are losing their jobs for refusing it--or are forced to be injected with it in order to keep their jobs. Pediatricians are kicking patients out for refusing it--even if they are "caught up" on other shots. Some states are barring children from school/camp without it.

Why is there such complacency with this situation?

I am also upset that pro-vaxxers who are admittedly apathetic about the flu shot, who do not think it is necessary, stand mutely by while others are faced with losing their job over it. Seems to me y'all can defend whatever vaccines you think are necessary and still step unto the plate and say, "ok, with this one, yes, Big Pharm/government is going too far."
BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#21 of 55 Old 06-28-2013, 12:12 AM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
no the flu shot was not recommended for pregnant women before swine flu. I was pregnant 2007/08 and it was never offered. No other pregnant woman got it that I know of. 2009 when my sil was pregnant the second time the h1n1 was suddenly recommended, she opted against. She was pregnant the first time in 06 and flu shots were not standard. Just like during my pregnancies nobody offered tdap, that's new as well.
nia82 is offline  
#22 of 55 Old 06-28-2013, 04:47 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)

"First, the reason I personally have stopped posting is because it became apparent that it wasnt' desired by many to have a pro-vax opinion." 

 

I haven't been here long, but I do feel the same way. When people that are anti vaccine refuse to concede ANY point it really is not fun debating.

 

A lot of pro vaccine people will concede that some vaccines don't work as well as others or that some aren't as important as others (flu vaccine, chicken pox come to mind) but anti vaccine people just will not budge on anything. 

 

Not to derail this thread but when a simple question like " Do you think that over 4,000 people die a year from Gardasil vaccines? If not, can you admit that your chance of dying from cervical cancer is higher than your chance of dying form the vaccine?"  Is answered by "Well the CDC stats are probably wrong...take those numbers with a grain of salt.." (not an exact quote but it was the gist) it is not really debating at all. It is talking to a brick wall that refuses to think logically or answer a logical question. 

 

So I pretty much have decided to find another forum where there are people that will debate logically and not act like every government statistic or even the american cancer society is involved in some crazy conspiracy to inflate the number of people that die from cervical cancer. 

 

Sorry. Rant over.  Continue! 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#23 of 55 Old 06-28-2013, 06:26 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

 

Not to derail this thread but when a simple question like " Do you think that over 4,000 people die a year from Gardasil vaccines? If not, can you admit that your chance of dying from cervical cancer is higher than your chance of dying form the vaccine?"  Is answered by "Well the CDC stats are probably wrong...take those numbers with a grain of salt.." (not an exact quote but it was the gist) it is not really debating at all. It is talking to a brick wall that refuses to think logically or answer a logical question. 

 

So I pretty much have decided to find another forum where there are people that will debate logically and not act like every government statistic or even the american cancer society is involved in some crazy conspiracy to inflate the number of people that die from cervical cancer. 

 

Sorry. Rant over.  Continue! 

 

The point is Gardasil has not yet been proven to have prevented one single case of cervical cancer.

 

Pulling the conspircacy card, is right out of the vaccine proponents playbook, so will get the eye roll from the non-vaxers here. I hope you find a place more to your liking to debate.

 

Back to the flu.

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#24 of 55 Old 06-28-2013, 07:01 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)

Yeah pretty much my point exactly, Mirzam.  

 

Virtually all cervical cancer is caused by HPV (unless you can show me some source that says otherwise?)  so less HPV= less cervical cancer. That is LOGICAL. The fact that anti vaxxers I guess don't want to acknowledge that is exactly what I am talking about.  Yes cervical cancer rates won't be known for a long time since HPV causes cancer slowly over time but that is like saying if there was a drop of 50 percent of people that smoked cigarettes that that wouldn't mean there would be less lung cancer in 40 years.  

 

Later folks! Thanks for proving my point exactly Mirzam! 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#25 of 55 Old 06-28-2013, 07:09 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

wave.gif Bye Teacozy!


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#26 of 55 Old 06-28-2013, 09:23 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 teacozy View Post


Virtually all cervical cancer is caused by HPV (unless you can show me some source that says otherwise?)  so less HPV= less cervical cancer.

Well, according to http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/DS00167/DSECTION=causes:

"What causes cervical cancer isn't clear. However, it's certain that the sexually transmitted infection called human papillomavirus (HPV) plays a role. While HPV is a very common virus, most women with HPV never develop cervical cancer. This means other risk factors — such as your genetic makeup, your environment or your lifestyle choices — also determine whether you'll develop cervical cancer."

Teacozy's post shows an interesting double standard.

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

"What causes autism isn't clear. However, it's certain that vaccines play a role. While vaccines are widely used, most children who receive them never develop autism.. This means other risk factors — such as your genetic makeup, your environment or your lifestyle choices — also determine whether you'll develop autism."
serenbat and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#27 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 01:21 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
I got the flu shot in 2007 when I was pregnant (in the US). I also got it in 2009 at the same time as h1n1 shot.

I was personally more worried about the effects of flu while pregnant so very keen to protect myself as best I could.

In general - like dakotacakes this is not a shot I feel strongly about. I do not think in black and white but shades of grey, so I do not have a single viewpoint on all vaccinations.

There is evidence it helps, but that is not strong evidence. There is strong evidence it's very safe that many posting here will dismiss. I recommend people read *all* the Cochrane reviews on it (don't just cherry pick the ones which agree with your world view).

Like teacozy I'm kind of bored of posting here just to be the focus of antivax attacks. I'll probably come on occasionally - probably mostly on mindful vax, but I'm over trying to debate every single piece of pseudo-science shared in these boards.

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 offline  
#28 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 05:51 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 prosciencemum View Post


Like teacozy I'm kind of bored of posting here just to be the focus of antivax attacks. I'll probably come on occasionally - probably mostly on mindful vax, but I'm over trying to debate every single piece of pseudo-science shared in these boards.

The pharmaceutical industry has claimed that ALL their products are safe, and has produced studies supposedly proving it. They claimed safety with thalidomide, and mounted immense pressure against FDA reviewer Frances Kelsey, who refused approval of the drug. The manufacturer did not issue an apology for 50 years.

We've seen similar behavior with many other drugs (Vioxx, Lipitor, etc), as well as unethical behavior (the mumps efficacy lying scandal, testing without informed consent among illiterate populations, and the fact that, in most vaccine testing today, a true placebo is not used. Add to that the Cochrane Review's conclusion that the studies provided by the pharmaceutical industry are of poor quality, and I think it's unfair to characterize posters here as inflicting "antivax attacks" on you when we point out studies that do not support vaccine safety/efficacy. It's certainly unscientific to characterize such studies as "pseudo-science" when the studies on both sides are flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

. There is strong evidence it's [administering the flu shot to pregnant women] very safe that many posting here will dismiss.
. (Italics mine)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23023030
Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons: Was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season?

Many of us feel that it's naive to accept as "strong evidence" studies from a business/government alliance with a long track record of financially-based ethical problems. But that is a poor excuse to dismiss us, and those who question/criticize vaccines as "conspiracy theorists."

And please don't forget about those of us who were injured, or whose children were injured by vaccines. We believed--wrongly--that we were not at risk of harm from vaccines.

And we believed this because of the propaganda from the above-mentioned business/government alliance. And, apparently, so do you.
Taximom5 is online now  
#29 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 06:29 AM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I think that dakotacakes's response to the article expressed anything I might want to say about it. For the flu vaccine itself, all they can do is make an estimate of the most likely dominant strains in a season, and some years they are better than others. 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. The increases VAERS reports of miscarriage that year, Taxi, as I have said in another thread, happened in a year when many more pregnant women were vaccinated and at the same time bombarded with unfounded claims on the Internet making claims that it was dangerous- there is no evidence of a true increase in miscarriage rates. Miscarriage is very common, particularly in older moms who were especially urged to be vaccinated because the flu is more likely to injure or kill them.

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  
#30 of 55 Old 06-29-2013, 06:48 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,136
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post



There is evidence it helps, but that is not strong evidence. There is strong evidence it's very safe that many posting here will dismiss. I recommend people read *all* the Cochrane reviews on it (don't just cherry pick the ones which agree with your world view).

 

Well, all vaccines can cause adverse reactions.  Even if you believe a serious negative reaction is very rare, what is the point of getting a vax if it does not work?

 

More importantly, what if the act of vaccination lowers your immune system in some way so you are actually more likely to catch one of the many other viruses going around?  (something I think may be happening as so many people (anecdotally) who get the flu shot get sick afterwards - and not just a day or two of mild vaccine reactions)

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/study-prompts-provinces-to-rethink-flu-plan/article4287079/

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/754263

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  
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