Flu shot zealots.

[BotchCat]

Something funny and thought provoking happened yesterday. While at a routine doctor's visit my doctor asked me if I had received the flu shot, I had not. I never get them, for reasons that really are not important to the story. Anyways he didn't push the issue rather just simply said he had to ask. He did put a stamp on my file...which I thought was funny.

Anyways, I posted this on Facebook, making it more humorous and meant to be satire. Anyways, the result was unexpected, maybe I should have seen it coming. It started a huge flame war on the status with people trying make my choice about the flu shot a moral issue. Some went as far as saying that if I got someone sick with the flu, an old person or child, that I would be complacent in...wait for it..murder. Which is insane. I deflected the rage mostly...didn't pay to argue with them.

The people that were most vocal critics are all self identified as very liberal and atheists. That was the common thread that I noticed. Take note that I have no issue with people being ethier of those things, it was just an observation.

So what do you think? They brought my satirical statement into the greater vaccine discussion. For me, I just get bothered when people come on so strong and start throwing 'facts' at me...and calling into question my moral character based on said 'facts'.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The problem with saying that you could be complicit in murder by not getting a flu shot is that it's a slippery slope. What if you go into work when you have a cold and get someone sick? What if you have a disease and don't know it yet---perhaps manslaughter charges?

On the other hand, people who don't have their kids vaccinated are idiots. So I'm drawing a line somewhere, but I'm not sure I can specify exactly where.

~~ Paul

 

[Vault313]

I agree with Paul. You do have to draw a line somewhere, and sometimes that line is fuzzy. Sometimes it even moves around on you!
But equating influenza with MMR, polio, hep A and B and Tetanus is just plain ignorant.

That's the problem with the anti-vaccine crowd. They have been fooled by the safety that immunization has provided for generations into believing that vaccines are the threat! Parents of young children now didn't have to live through the times when these diseases were devastating lives and killing people. Complacency can be a dangerous drug.

I myself get the flu shot every year. The one year my husband and I didn't, we suffered through the worst flu of our lives. My husband ended up having to be treated for a secondary infection that developed in the lymph nodes in his neck due to the flu virus. We've gotten one every year since and have either not had the flu in years, or it was so mild we didn't realize we had it. The flu vaccine is a personal choice. Influenza is mainly dangerous to the very young and very old or the immunocompromised.

I can see where these people on Facebook were coming from, but it's not quite the national emergency they seem to be making it out to be.

Just curious, why are you against the vaccine Botchcat? If you don't want to disclose, I understand. I'm just curious to hear the reasons people choose not to vaccinate. If anyone else here doesn't vaccinate, I'd like to hear why.

 

[Vault313]

That is pretty ridiculous. Why are they conflating flu shots with not getting vaccinated against, say, measles, mumps and rubella? From what I've read, flu shots aren't terribly effective, given the nature of the virus. I only got vaccinated when I was pregnant, because of H1N1.

From what I understand, there are many strains of influenza, like the common cold, but a few emerge each year that tend to be the most likely to cause illness. The vaccine is produced to target these two or three strains. It's very effective against the strains it was produced against unless you have already been exposed. Influenza can take anywhere from 2-7 days after exposure before becoming symptomatic. You can have it but not know it, go get your flu shot, then come down with the flu. Not because the vaccine is ineffective, but because it was already inside you, replicating before you ever got the shot. You may also be exposed to a strain that the shot doesn't immunize you against, but it's far less likely for that to happen.

It is also the case that the vaccine doesn't work in some people. This is true for any vaccine, and why herd immunity is so important. Our immune systems are incredibly complex and each and every one of us has a unique immune system built for us, by us. Sometimes their bodies don't produce the antibodies needed when exposed to a certain vaccine. Last I knew, they weren't sure exactly why.

 

[Craig Weiler]

I agree with Paul. You do have to draw a line somewhere, and sometimes that line is fuzzy. Sometimes it even moves around on you!
But equating influenza with MMR, polio, hep A and B and Tetanus is just plain ignorant.

That's the problem with the anti-vaccine crowd. They have been fooled by the safety that immunization has provided for generations into believing that vaccines are the threat! Parents of young children now didn't have to live through the times when these diseases were devastating lives and killing people. Complacency can be a dangerous drug.

I myself get the flu shot every year. The one year my husband and I didn't, we suffered through the worst flu of our lives. My husband ended up having to be treated for a secondary infection that developed in the lymph nodes in his neck due to the flu virus. We've gotten one every year since and have either not had the flu in years, or it was so mild we didn't realize we had it. The flu vaccine is a personal choice. Influenza is mainly dangerous to the very young and very old or the immunocompromised.

I can see where these people on Facebook were coming from, but it's not quite the national emergency they seem to be making it out to be.

Just curious, why are you against the vaccine Botchcat? If you don't want to disclose, I understand. I'm just curious to hear the reasons people choose not to vaccinate. If anyone else here doesn't vaccinate, I'd like to hear why.

I never get the flu shot because it's not necessary for me. The flu is never more than a minor inconvenience for me so what's the point? Besides, half the time the vaccine is wrong for the type of flu going around anyway.

And it is a drug, which means that there is always a chance of side effects from some bizarre ingredient they put in it, which means that it comes with its own risks, which may not be disclosed.

 

[Vault313]

I never get the flu shot because it's not necessary for me. The flu is never more than a minor inconvenience for me so what's the point? Besides, half the time the vaccine is wrong for the type of flu going around anyway.

And it is a drug, which means that there is always a chance of side effects from some bizarre ingredient they put in it, which means that it comes with its own risks, which may not be disclosed.

I think often people fear what they don't understand. And vaccines are one of those things that have been battered to near death (I wonder if they've had NDEs? ;)). Just so much misinformation is out there and the healthcare industry just is not doing a very good job at correcting these errant beliefs (not saying this necessarily applies to you Craig, just in general).

 

[Vault313]

Btw, I hope I'm not coming off preachy. I do truly still want to know why people choose not to vaccinate (thanks for your response Craig) and I promise I will not respond to each one with how wrong they are. :)

I really do want to understand another's perspective. And I'm sorry if I hijacked your thread, BotchCat. I will make a new thread for this if you wish for me to.

 

[Chris]

"It started a huge flame war on the status with people trying make my choice about the flu shot a moral issue."

I think there must be a Transatlantic cultural difference, because in the UK flu vaccination is very much targeted at the groups which are particularly vulnerable.

On the other hand, in principle I suppose it's not that ridiculous to see it as a moral issue. When a person's actions can affect others, morality tends to come in.

 

[malf]

Should we insist that healthcare workers get the flu shot?

 

[Vault313]

Should we insist that healthcare workers get the flu shot?

I'm not sure how it works in hospitals here. Some may very well be required. Working in a medical lab, I'm not required but I'd be an idiot not to. And my employer provides the shot for free. So does my husband's. But that's more to save themselves from lost productivity than giving a crap about the health and welfare of their employees or others.

It was mandatory that I had a TB test every year when I worked in a hospital lab, but once I moved over to the reference lab I didn't have to (no contact with patients or sputum samples). I also had to either provide proof of all vaccinations (including Hep A&B) or sign a waiver (again, CYA for them). I would imagine if you work NICU,CCU or ICU you would have to. Just too much risk there. My cousin is an RN that worked oncology, NICU and hospice. I'll have to ask her what vaccinations she had to have.

But the TB test was mandatory and if anyone tests positive, then the Health Department steps in and pretty much requires you to go on prophylactic treatment. Flu isn't as serious as TB, but it is infectious. If they can force one, who says they can't force them all?

 

[Craig Weiler]

Btw, I hope I'm not coming off preachy. I do truly still want to know why people choose not to vaccinate (thanks for your response Craig) and I promise I will not respond to each one with how wrong they are. :)

I really do want to understand another's perspective. And I'm sorry if I hijacked your thread, BotchCat. I will make a new thread for this if you wish for me to.

Ok, don't shoot the messenger here. I don't have a dog in the vaccine fight as my wife and I have no kids, no grandkids and no one in either of our families has any stake in this.

One thing to keep in mind is that any time you have these large controversies, there's something there. That's what keeps them large. And this one is no different. One of the problems here is that you have official versions which differ greatly from alternate versions of this controversy. To believe the official version requires a lot of trust in drug companies and the government, neither of which has earned it.

Merk makes the MMR vaccine. If you know your history, they were at the center of the huge Vioxx scandal where they colluded with the FDA to suppress information that this anti-inflammatory was killing people. The drug companies are also protected by law from lawsuits for damages for the harmful effects of vaccines. This is does not inspire confidence and it lowers the bar -by a lot- for believing that there might be wrongdoing. If they did it once they could do it again. Vaccines are a 50B dollar industry, so there is a lot of money at stake.

So before you even look at the evidence, you're faced with the dilemma of who to believe. Mainstream media/drug companies/government or someone else. You can argue the evidence until you're blue in the face, but if the person you're trying to persuade regards your sources as suspect, it's a lost cause. And truth be told, how on earth is ANYONE supposed to know for sure whether this isn't a big snow job on the part of the drug companies?

I can understand why someone would trade the risk of a very harmful disease for what they believed was the risk of autism. Autism presents parents with some very challenging, perhaps lifelong issues to deal with. A kid who is maimed by a disease though, will still be the same kid. I wouldn't want to have to make that choice, but I would probably vaccinate my kids if I had any. But that's because of my family history. We are made from exceptionally sturdy stock. No one dies young, no one has any genetic issues to deal with, no one gets sick easily, especially on my father's side.

 

[Vault313]

Ok, don't shoot the messenger here. I don't have a dog in the vaccine fight as my wife and I have no kids, no grandkids and no one in either of our families has any stake in this.

One thing to keep in mind is that any time you have these large controversies, there's something there. That's what keeps them large. And this one is no different. One of the problems here is that you have official versions which differ greatly from alternate versions of this controversy. To believe the official version requires a lot of trust in drug companies and the government, neither of which has earned it.

Merk makes the MMR vaccine. If you know your history, they were at the center of the huge Vioxx scandal where they colluded with the FDA to suppress information that this anti-inflammatory was killing people. The drug companies are also protected by law from lawsuits for damages for the harmful effects of vaccines. This is does not inspire confidence and it lowers the bar -by a lot- for believing that there might be wrongdoing. If they did it once they could do it again. Vaccines are a 50B dollar industry, so there is a lot of money at stake.

So before you even look at the evidence, you're faced with the dilemma of who to believe. Mainstream media/drug companies/government or someone else. You can argue the evidence until you're blue in the face, but if the person you're trying to persuade regards your sources as suspect, it's a lost cause. And truth be told, how on earth is ANYONE supposed to know for sure whether this isn't a big snow job on the part of the drug companies?

I can understand why someone would trade the risk of a very harmful disease for what they believed was the risk of autism. Autism presents parents with some very challenging, perhaps lifelong issues to deal with. A kid who is maimed by a disease though, will still be the same kid. I wouldn't want to have to make that choice, but I would probably vaccinate my kids if I had any. But that's because of my family history. We are made from exceptionally sturdy stock. No one dies young, no one has any genetic issues to deal with, no one gets sick easily, especially on my father's side.

You make some good points. However, the autism-vaccine link was based on one, completely false study. As far as I know, there has never been a single shred of evidence outside of one thoroughly debunked study to support the conclusion that vaccines cause autism.

The way I see it, there are risks in getting vaccinated, but the odds of harm are incredibly low, especially compared to the risks associated with contracting the disease. Obviously vaccines have proven their effectiveness. Just like many other medications and medical procedures. They are effective but carry a certain level of risk.

The whole controversy behind vaccination is, where does one's right to choose not to vaccinate infringe on one who doesn't have that choice? What, if any, responsibility does one who chooses not to vaccinate have in regards to those who cannot vaccinate or has chosen to vaccinate but it was ineffective? When one person's choice directly causes harm to one who chose differently, or didn't have the option, do we hold them responsible for that choice?

 

[Craig Weiler]

You make some good points. However, the autism-vaccine link was based on one, completely false study.

That's up for debate:

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/br...w-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/

Excerpt from the article: Bolding mine.

In 1998 the Lancet published a case series on twelve children receiving treatment for bowel dysfunction at the Royal Free Hospital in London. The paper called for further study of a possible association between bowel disease and developmental delay, including cases of autism. It also noted that eight of the children’s gastrointestinal and autistic symptoms began shortly after they received the MMR vaccination. The verdict today raises questions about whether or not the Lancet should have retracted the paper after the GMC decision, as the reasons for its retraction have now been contradicted by the judge’s decision.

The thirteen original co-authors of the 1998 Lancet case series were members of the Royal Free’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group. In 2004, under pressure from the British medical establishment, ten of the co-authors signed a letter retracting an interpretation of the paper that it proved that vaccines caused autism, which the paper never actually claimed in the first place. John Walker-Smith, Andrew Wakefield and Dr. Simon Murch were subsequently brought up on misconduct charges before the GMC. The proceedings resulted in Walker-Smith and Wakefield being found guilty and being “struck off” the medical register, while Dr. Murch retained his status as a physician. Wakefield was then vilified by corporate media and by bloggers eager to repeat scandal and engage in industry protectionism, rather than investigate the complicated facts of the story.

Today, almost 14 years after the paper was published, the high court determined that John Walker-Smith was innocent of the wrongdoing alleged by the GMC. Judge Mitting reported that the GMC, “on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.”

British parents from the group CryShame, which includes parents of the Lancet 12, issued a statement saying that they “welcome with immense relief the end of the eight year ordeal of Prof John Walker-Smith and the quashing of all substantive charges against him in the High Court, and wish him their heartfelt congratulations at finally clearing his name.”

 

[Vault313]

The problem with the Wakefield study is that it was never replicated. Not once. There have been dozens more studies since then and not only were these not able to replicate Wakefield's results, they showed just the opposite, that there is no credible link between autism and vaccines. Here's an article that pretty thoroughly debunks the theory from all angles:

.http://m.cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

Plus there's this

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/

.Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield's paper last February.

 

[Red]

.

I think often people fear what they don't understand. And vaccines are one of those things that have been battered to near death (I wonder if they've had NDEs? ;)). Just so much misinformation is out there and the healthcare industry just is not doing a very good job at correcting these errant beliefs (not saying this necessarily applies to you Craig, just in general).

I think these statements are quite naive.

As Craig points out, where there's smoke there's often fire. The vaccine debate goes far beyond Wakefield. While he does have his supporters (mostly the parents who's children were involved in the Lancet study), he is a small part of the big picture today. It is also worth noting that Wakefield never stated a direct link between MMR and autism, and that he concluded only that further studies needed to be done. To quote from Craig's link: "The paper called for further study of a possible association between bowel disease and developmental delay, including cases of autism. It also noted that eight of the children’s gastrointestinal and autistic symptoms began shortly after they received the MMR vaccination."

Many people branded "anti-vaxxers" are not actually anti vaccines. They may ask for more reassurances of safety, and with good reason. If the drug companies that profit from a vaccine are also the ones in control of the research and testing, and cannot be held accountable for vaccine injury, then the system is open to corruption.

There are examples that suggest that our vaccines and schedules could be vastly improved. But when we approach the subject of vaccines with such vitriol against those that question, and never actually address their concerns adequately, then the system is failing. In fact, we can see the results of this unsympathetic approach -- people who would otherwise agree to vaccination are choosing not to because they have lost faith in a system that continually erodes this trust at both a systemic level, and a personal level with doctors treating patients' questions with callous disregard.

Here are a couple of examples. The second affects me personally as I have a child with severe asthma that developed at age seven even though no-one else in the immediate family has it. Our daughter was vaccinated according to the prevailing schedule at the time. Who knows, but given the knowledge I have now, I would put off her first immunizations for an extra 2 months. I was not informed of this, it was not a discussion with our doctor, and the schedule has not changed since.

http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16

http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(07)02379-2/abstract

http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?o...&id=71:more-details-on-vaccine-induced-asthma

 

[Craig Weiler]

The problem with the Wakefield study is that it was never replicated. Not once. There have been dozens more studies since then and not only were these not able to replicate Wakefield's results, they showed just the opposite, that there is no credible link between autism and vaccines. Here's an article that pretty thoroughly debunks the theory from all angles:



Plus there's this

Again, we have the problem of who to trust. As Red has pointed out, it matters a whole lot who is in charge of the studies and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. According to Whistleblower William Thompson of the CDC, there was tremendous pressure to produce certain results favorable to drug companies. He is scheduled to appear before Congress. It should be interesting.

Anecdotally, it seems to matter how old a child is when they are vaccinated. If they are old enough, the possibility of problems such as autism drops dramatically.

 

[Vault313]

.Again, we have the problem of who to trust. As Red has pointed out, it matters a whole lot who is in charge of the studies and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. According to Whistleblower William Thompson of the CDC, there was tremendous pressure to produce certain results favorable to drug companies. He is scheduled to appear before Congress. It should be interesting.

I totally agree. Knowing who to trust is a difficult judgement to make.

I think on this matter, the science is pretty clear. The benefits of vaccination have been proven pretty effectively and it is incredibly unlikely that vaccines cause autism. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But as it stands, I've seen no evidence to make me think differently.

 

[Boo boo]

Same here, Craig. I don't get one either for the same reasons. I have had the flu three times in my life, though it was miserable. It is a drug with side effects. I don't take pharmaceutical drugs unless necessary. I don't take aspirin or ibuprofen, etc, unless I am really suffering. I try to do most things in moderation.

If I had someone in my household with immune issues or worked directly with patients, that would be different.

I got the flu shot, like, 4 years ago. About 12 days later, when I was getting ready for bed, I started having chills. I thought it was just the cold weather outside, because it was winter and the window was cracked open.
I woke up in the morning and felt weak and dizzy upon standing, so I went back to sleep.
Then I woke up with a REALLY sore throat. It felt like I was swallowing acid coated razor blades.
Had a stuffy nose, uvulitis ( the worst part ), aches, cough, ect. That was the last time I got a flu shot. I had the flu last year, but it wasn't as severe. I thought it was just a little cold. After that one, I've been doing fine.

 

[Craig Weiler]

I totally agree. Knowing who to trust is a difficult judgement to make.

I think on this matter, the science is pretty clear. The benefits of vaccination have been proven pretty effectively and it is incredibly unlikely that vaccines cause autism. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But as it stands, I've seen no evidence to make me think differently.

So you trust the government and the drug companies to be fair and honest and to put your interests ahead of their profit and wealth?

 

[Saiko]

The people that were most vocal critics are all self identified as very liberal and atheists. That was the common thread that I noticed.

Yep. I'd posted a study on that. I'll see if I can find it.

Found it -> Study on Liberals, Conservatives and their approaches to knowledge