Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The link between GBS and influenza has long been viewed as a link between GBS and influenza vaccination on the basis of the report of an abnormally high number of GBS cases during the mass vaccination campaign against swine influenza in the United States during 1976–1977 [6]. Our study demonstrates that there is also a risk of GBS after influenza virus infection in adults, with an expected frequency much higher than that after influenza vaccination using either inactivated vaccines (1 GBS case per 1,000,000 vaccinated persons [34–36]) or live attenuated vaccines (2 GBS cases per 2,500,000 vaccinated persons [37]). Tam et al. [28] recently provided evidence that influenza vaccination might actually protect against GBS. These authors pointed out that this finding was not inconsistent with an absolute increase in GBS risk after vaccination but that it indicated a smaller risk than that after influenza."
The risk of serious illness or death from influenza is greater than the risk of serious injury or death due to GBS from the vaccine.
Why would you feel the need to emphasize that after I already stated GBS was rare? Is it rarer than what I already stated? Again, I'm a farmer, not a chicken.
My post explained why someone might feel like they have the flu after the shot. Something I think you've addressed as imaginary or coincidence. Not very useful information from you, IMO.
Geez, I can't win, can I?
You get your nose out of joint even when I agree with you.
You brought up the GBS risk and I used it to make a point about the use of statistics in evaluating medical risk. That was all the post was meant to be.
And I have never said that the flu like symptoms from flu vaccine are imaginary. Please point me to the post where you think I made that statement. Someone might indeed actually have the flu even if he is vaccinated, either because the vaccine did not have time to work or because it is due to a strain not covered in the vaccine.
Most often the symptoms are just because the body is starting to respond to the vaccine and make protective antibodies.
Aw, if only real life was like general data you'd be all set. Throw some variables in there and you've got real life. Do I really need to list them for ya? I'm a bit tired and I think you should learn this yourselves. Take a look at how they found out seniors weren't getting immunity, that is a great start.
Another thing, why don't you pro vaccine individuals spend your time testing those who are vaccinated for immunity if you are so worried about the actual spread of disease and their health? You have plenty to do in your own backyard. Mandate a test for immunity in school children for a start. If you focus on the unvaccinated you'll miss those in your own camp who aren't immune.
People who don't vaccinate will be responsible for getting the flu, they realize they didn't vaccinate. Those who do vaccinate, not so much. As you clearly display by this post. If only life were so easy.
Give it a rest and focus on how you can up those rates of immunity in the flu vaccine. Or, at least be accountable for those people you say are immune that are not. Good God, they are probably spreading a virus right now, completely oblivious to the fact their vaccine failed. You have plenty of work to do.
Hey, I believe there is math involved as well. Should be easy peasy lemon squeezy.
For the last time, have fun. No need to keep a dead horse standing here people. I don't mean to be rude but I won't be replying anymore. Feel free to respond but don't wait for that answer.
I'm glad we could all help out. Great!
No vaccine will ever reach a 100% success rate. None claims to. But are you debating here that unvaccinated people spread disease less? Because unless you are, I don't see what your issue is with what was posted.
Are there other variables? Of course. But the basic fact remains the same...unvaccinated people will spread more of the same disease than vaccinated. You seem to be claiming that unvaccinated people will take precautions, while vaccinated people will be unaware that they are infected and thusly will not. That might be true if most diseases did not have symptoms that alert the carrier to the fact that they are infected. If you look at the flu, a person is only capable of spreading it for about a day before the symptoms hit. Once they do, both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals will be aware they are infected and capable of spreading the virus. While some diseases are more 'silent', they are rarer. So if your theory holds any truth would be dependent on the disease in question. Even then, we can look at history to tell us if knowledge alone is able to stop a disease from spreading.
For the most part, a person who refuses a vaccine is of the opinion that the disease it is preventing is not so great a risk, either because they consider it mild or rare. Several people on this thread have said they felt the flu was no big deal. Does it seem reasonable to presume a person who believes this would take all possible precaution to prevent spreading it to others? The problem with this theory is it assumes that knowledge changes behavior...for most people, it does not. Knowing you could possibly be harboring a virus and not yet showing symptoms doesn't make most people wash their hands more often. It also doesn't take into account the ease by which some diseases are transmitted. When you are speaking of a disease like polio or measles, they have a very high transmission rate...basic precautions simply are not enough.
As for your last statement...I am participating in a thread as much as I responding to you. It is interesting that you think you can shut down conversation though.
I will answer the OP's question about the perceived dangers of the constitution of vaccines, and then the philosophical question of declining them because of the body's innate ability to form immunity.
The first aspect of this is the perceived danger of vaccines. Firstly, the ingredients in question are in such small doses that it is highly unlikely to damage anything. Secondly, there are no viable studies out there using a control and variable group to compare folks given a placebo versus vaccine. Such a study would be difficult though, since folks in the placebo group could very well form illnesses and cancers, etc. just from other things. In other words, if I were the OP, I would worry more about my diet, how much exercise I get, my environment, and mental health more than the very minute doses of potentially harmful materials in vaccines. All those are many many times more likely to cause serious illness than a flu shot.
As a side, many people use flawed statistical arguments to place a particular aberration in data and festoon it on some poor scapegoat; in this case, it is the vaccine. Vaccines have saved many orders of magnitude more lives than harmed, period.
The second aspect in my opinion is much more ripe for debate; that is, do you want the body to fend for itself or get a vaccine?
Vaccines for the common flu I agree are widely overused and provide a false sense of security. Further, it I think empowers people to come to work sick in the false belief that "well I got a flu shot, so I won't pass it on" or "well I got a flu shot so I won't get it" and so forth. Some people who are immuno-deficient (e.g. people who have HIV/AIDS, the elderly and very young) should get a flu shot because their immune systems are naturally deficient and at a higher risk of getting serious complications because of the flu. But most healthy young and adults do not need it. Besides, I think the flu mutates into something different than the models predicted most of the time, so the flu shot is almost useless, but for those who need it, it is better than nothing.
For other diseases, pertussis, tetanus, etc. I think it is wholly irresponsible for the OP to not get a shot to vaccinate against these painful and potentially deadly diseases. It's like being confronted with an axe murderer and saying "oh I don't need a shield, my natural agility will aid me!" Yeah. good luck with that. Let me know when you're hospitalized and need a bed pan because your body is convulsing uncontrollably from the tetanus and can't control your stool.
In other words, for common flu and other common bugs that are not serious in the grand scheme of things (like the flu) a vaccine probably doesn't do a healthy adult much good. But other more serious diseases and an especially virulent disease (like swine flu and bird flu) should definitely be vaccinated against.
Flu IS a serious illness, and it's not just the very young and very old who can get hit hard with it. Not to mention, missing 1-2 weeks of work can be problematic as well, as well as infecting people who definitely shouldn't get flu b/c people are contagious before they develop symptoms themselves.
Geez, I can't win, can I?
Win what????? I'm not thinking you are trying to win anything from me. You've spent most of this thread being condescending to me and I think in that post you were just doing it again.
You get your nose out of joint even when I agree with you.
I question your sincerity. Honestly, if you agreed you would have just put that you agreed, not the big follow up.
You brought up the GBS risk and I used it to make a point about the use of statistics in evaluating medical risk. That was all the post was meant to be. Why?
You went overboard because I put in the GBS risk. I stated it was rare, no need to freak out and add more, IMO.
And I have never said that the flu like symptoms from flu vaccine are imaginary. Please point me to the post where you think I made that statement. Someone might indeed actually have the flu even if he is vaccinated, either because the vaccine did not have time to work or because it is due to a strain not covered in the vaccine. You did, why do you think they were insulted? I will point it out to you.
Then you either had already been exposed to the flu around the time you received the vaccine or it was a strain not included in the vaccine. The vaccine did not cause you to get sick. It cannot. The virus in it cannot reproduce. It has been inactivated. by Suzy_q
Already exposed to the flu (coincidence)
The vaccine did not cause you to get sick.(imaginary)
The vaccine could have very well made her/him sick. It's side effects are "flu like" of course they think they've caught the flu. I've known people in bed for days after a flu vaccine with a fever, aches, chills and fatigue.
Most often the symptoms are just because the body is starting to respond to the vaccine and make protective antibodies.
No vaccine will ever reach a 100% success rate. None claims to. But are you debating here that unvaccinated people spread disease less? Because unless you are, I don't see what your issue is with what was posted.
Are there other variables? Of course. But the basic fact remains the same...unvaccinated people will spread more of the same disease than vaccinated. You seem to be claiming that unvaccinated people will take precautions, while vaccinated people will be unaware that they are infected and thusly will not. That might be true if most diseases did not have symptoms that alert the carrier to the fact that they are infected. If you look at the flu, a person is only capable of spreading it for about a day before the symptoms hit. Once they do, both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals will be aware they are infected and capable of spreading the virus. While some diseases are more 'silent', they are rarer. So if your theory holds any truth would be dependent on the disease in question. Even then, we can look at history to tell us if knowledge alone is able to stop a disease from spreading.
For the most part, a person who refuses a vaccine is of the opinion that the disease it is preventing is not so great a risk, either because they consider it mild or rare. Several people on this thread have said they felt the flu was no big deal. Does it seem reasonable to presume a person who believes this would take all possible precaution to prevent spreading it to others? The problem with this theory is it assumes that knowledge changes behavior...for most people, it does not. Knowing you could possibly be harboring a virus and not yet showing symptoms doesn't make most people wash their hands more often. It also doesn't take into account the ease by which some diseases are transmitted. When you are speaking of a disease like polio or measles, they have a very high transmission rate...basic precautions simply are not enough.
This all applies to both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. I was talking about the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine is a work in progress, it's all they've got. You don't know who spreads more flu, there isn't a long term study on that subject. It's just guestimating. They are fixing the guess that seniors and young children benefit the most from the flu vaccine right now. They were wrong about that guess. We just don't know.
As for your last statement...I am participating in a thread as much as I responding to you. It is interesting that you think you can shut down conversation though.
I wasn't aware I couldn't shut down my end of the conversation or that there is more to debate for us. I'm just tired of talking about the same thing with you 2 over and over and over again. I'm not going to give on my end, I doubt you are either so why not just give it a rest?
Call it my opinion and your opinion. You don't have to, obviously, but why keep it going? I think the flu shot is a work in progress, I think they have been wrong and will be wrong until they get it closer to right. It's all they've got and that's ok but I don't buy the information you pose, it's your general assessment of their data, with your own variables, it's just, in the end your opinion of what's happening. I have a different one. Period. Say your peace all you want but it isn't going to change my opinion of your statements being your opinions. Try using IMO, that way you aren't posting your opinions as facts. Just an FYI.
I wasn't aware I couldn't shut down my end of the conversation or that there is more to debate for us. I'm just tired of talking about the same thing with you 2 over and over and over again. I'm not going to give on my end, I doubt you are either so why not just give it a rest?
Call it my opinion and your opinion. You don't have to, obviously, but why keep it going? I think the flu shot is a work in progress, I think they have been wrong and will be wrong until they get it closer to right. It's all they've got and that's ok but I don't buy the information you pose, it's your general assessment of their data, with your own variables, it's just, in the end your opinion of what's happening. I have a different one. Period. Say your peace all you want but it isn't going to change my opinion of your statements being your opinions. Try using IMO, that way you aren't posting your opinions as facts. Just an FYI.
I believe that was my third post on the thread...if you've been debating someone over and over, it hasn't been me. Still, you are free to simply not reply and I suggest you do so if you are not interested in the discussion. It really is as simple as that, and can be done without announcing it.
I fail to see any possible way that the argument can be made that vaccinated people spread more disease than unvaccinated. This applies to the flu and any other disease. Even if the vaccine had a failure rate of 99%, it would still protect one more person than in the unvaccinated group. You can debate side effects and if the failure rate is higher than currently known, but to make the statement that unvaccinated people are less likely to spread disease requires much more of an explanation, which has not been offered. Is this is my opinion? Of course. I'm actually very open to changing my opinions if evidence is presented. But the opinion 'unvaccinated people spread more disease than vaccinated' is based on the most basic laws of immunity and herd principle.
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Geez, I can't win, can I?
You get your nose out of joint even when I agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Win what????? I'm not thinking you are trying to win anything from me. You've spent most of this thread being condescending to me and I think in that post you were just doing it again.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but I believe I know my own intent. Your defensiveness hints that you feel your "opinion" is on shaky ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
I question your sincerity. Honestly, if you agreed you would have just put that you agreed, not the big follow up.
You went overboard because I put in the GBS risk. I stated it was rare, no need to freak out and add more, IMO.
Good grief. It's the way the forum works. People build on other posters' information all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 And I have never said that the flu like symptoms from flu vaccine are imaginary. Please point me to the post where you think I made that statement. Someone might indeed actually have the flu even if he is vaccinated, either because the vaccine did not have time to work or because it is due to a strain not covered in the vaccine.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead;27849196I
You did, why do you think they were insulted? I will point it out to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 Then you either had already been exposed to the flu around the time you received the vaccine or it was a strain not included in the vaccine. The vaccine did not cause you to get sick. It cannot. The virus in it cannot reproduce. It has been inactivated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead;27849196I
Already exposed to the flu (coincidence)
The vaccine did not cause you to get sick.(imaginary)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead;27849196I
The vaccine could have very well made her/him sick. It's side effects are "flu like" of course they think they've caught the flu. I've known people in bed for days after a flu vaccine with a fever, aches, chills and fatigue.
You continue to impute motives to me that I do not have. Anyone who gets so sick that he has to go to bed for days after flu vaccine may very well have the flu. However, it was not caused by the virus in the vaccine. That is a fact. Coincidental infection with another virus does occur. That is a fact. The flu-like symptoms after the vaccine are not because you"caught" flu from the vaccine. That is a fact. If someone is insulted by facts, that is his problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 Most often the symptoms are just because the body is starting to respond to the vaccine and make protective antibodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Really, why didn't you just say that then? I did.
So did I.
I will continue to bring facts to this discussion in the hopes that others will use facts rather than opinions to make decisions concerning vaccination. It serves no one well to make decisions based on opinions that are derived from faulty premises and pseudoscience.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 01-20-2013 at 10:17 AM..
Reason: Trying to format the post properly
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have plenty of work to do. 
