U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Special Needs Children
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:07 AM
 
9,595 posts, read 5,814,921 times
Reputation: 9693

Advertisements

What does science say about the flu vaccine and children?
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children | Cochrane
https://www.newsmax.com/Health/Dr-Br.../11/id/701718/
https://link.springer.com/article/10...096-014-2236-2

Last edited by MissTerri; 12-05-2017 at 08:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2017, 11:28 AM
Status: "Disagreeing is not the same thing as trolling." (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Texas
9,683 posts, read 3,694,065 times
Reputation: 19807
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
Yes, which is the point. Last year was a particularly bad year for the flu in southern California. This article is from earlier this year.

"Not everyone is lucky enough to survive the flu. Some people develop and die from severe complications like pneumonia.

Dr. Benjamin Schwartz, acting director of the acute communicable disease program at Los Angeles County's Department of Public Health, said eight people in L.A. County alone have died of the flu this season — “an extreme underestimate” because the flu often doesn’t get listed as the official cause of death."

First child death from flu reported this season in California as cases rise sharply - LA Times
When I was 17, I had flu and mono at the same time. I was in the hospital and almost died. The illness got so bad it caused problems with my liver. I developed what's known as flu-induced hepatitis. (And no, this isn't the same thing as Hep C which is a communicable liver disease).


Anyway, I was disappointed to learn that this year's flu shot is only 10% effective. I got the shot and was hoping it would offer more protection. That's the only real problem I have with the flu vaccine, is that it only protects against certain strains of the flu. But I don't see any real serious risks involved with getting the shot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Southern California
23,819 posts, read 8,314,964 times
Reputation: 15517
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla View Post
When I was 17, I had flu and mono at the same time. I was in the hospital and almost died. The illness got so bad it caused problems with my liver. I developed what's known as flu-induced hepatitis. (And no, this isn't the same thing as Hep C which is a communicable liver disease).


Anyway, I was disappointed to learn that this year's flu shot is only 10% effective. I got the shot and was hoping it would offer more protection. That's the only real problem I have with the flu vaccine, is that it only protects against certain strains of the flu. But I don't see any real serious risks involved with getting the shot.
I had asian flu when I was 18 and I'm 79 and no flu since and NO VACCINES....I may have had a couple in my 30's-40's I don't remember exact age, but do remember the asian flu.

I'm one who works on prevention and keeping my immune system strong and I don't think that's true for most here who applaud the vaccines.

Again, do what one is right for their mindsets. And science, good grief, there are so many scientists and all have different opinions.

Work on all the sugary stuff the children are consuming. Sugars don't strengthen the immune system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 01:39 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,993 posts, read 2,302,078 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
There is really no motivation for doctors to ascribe some other cause to a condition that was due to a vaccine. For example, when the association between the original rotavirus vaccine and intussusception was identified and further research confirmed it was probably causative, the vaccine was withdrawn and replaced with an improved one.
Did they have a choice?

Intussusception can be clearly diagnosed with imaging studies & within hours. Having a twisted & telescoped bowel is a horrifically painful condition & the symptoms are so intense there is really no mistaking it for anything else.

It is not injured brain tissue caused by an antibody/immune response dictated by tiny genetic codes deep inside your DNA that initiate months of developmental regression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
I know a doctor who blew this one out of the water during testimony in court on behalf of a patient. It is impossible for every single aspect of an encounter with a patient to be documented in a chart. In fact, one problem with electronic charts is that things that were never done are being documented as having been. It's easy to click the wrong box.
Hmm. The chart is a legal document.

If a doctor is finding it impossible to accurately document every single aspect of an encounter that occurs during their allotted 10 minutes of billable time per patient?

Maybe they need to be in-serviced by some RN's, because we've been doing it electronically since the 1990's, for every patient & for up to 12 hours straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
It's even more unbelievable because it's not just US doctors, it's doctors around the world. Doctors are not ignorant of complications from vaccines. Those complications just do not include the long list of things the anti-vax folks try to blame on them, from SIDS to autoimmune disease. Where complications are known to be due to vaccines, they are often the same as complications due to the infection itself. For example both flu infection and the flu vaccine can cause Guillain Barre syndrome. The risk is actually higher with the infection
SIDS really isn't a "thing" ... it's an event that defies the presence of any known medical/clinical process.

Saying that: "Babies dying without explanation within 48-72 hours of Immunization is a coincidental correlation" ... Is not reassuring to a parent. Not to me, at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Why?
Because it's sort of like saying "I have lung cancer & I've always smoked!" Or; "I drive recklessly, never wear a seat belt, crashed my car & now I'm a paraplegic!"

Something more effective, from the standpoint of a parent of a child with Autism, might be:

"I had no prenatal exposure to vaccine's, including Rhogam, had a home birth to ensure that there was no immediate dose of Hib given & have not immunized my child at all & he was diagnosed with Severe Regressive Autism (not HF) anyway, after his 3rd birthday but before his 5th!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The "documents" that Thompson had are available on the internet for anyone who wants to read them. They are not the "smoking gun" that Posey implied proved some coverup about vaccines and autism. Thompson disagreed with the interpretation of a part of one study that involved a handful of children. Independent review of the study confirmed the original conclusions. Thompson was the one who was wrong about the study.
Didn't the study involve over 1,800 children? And the "handful" of children were the African American children? In a study conducted in Atlanta...

I was not aware that Thompson has admitted to being wrong about the study. How does a CDC Senior Scientist misinterpret his own study, anyway?

Regardless, I don't really give a rats a$$ what the numbers said. What is epically concerning is a bunch of CDC Senior Scientists huddled around a trash can in a locked office at night, destroying documents from a study because they even thought that the results might indicate a risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Sure there are such conditions, but they are very uncommon. Did you watch the video that Zimbochick posted? It described a child who started having seizures after being vaccinated. He has a condition called Dravet Syndrome. He would have had his seizure disorder even if he had never been vaccinated at all.
Dravets is one of seven SCN1A-related seizure disorder phenotypes involving an incidence of 1 per 15,700 births. Compared to Autism at 1 out of every 68.

And, studies have identified this phenotype as being present in anywhere from 27-78% of children diagnosed with post-vaccine encephalopathy & seizures.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1318/.

Again; as a parent; this is hardly reassuring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
No, in people with those mutations a vaccine might trigger symptoms. It is the underlying condition that causes the autism, not the vaccine itself.
So if you knew that your child had the mutation ... would you introduce the trigger?

Why aren't all children tested for these mutations as part of the newborn screening protocols?

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
If they were frequent enough to disrupt herd immunity then we would not have eliminated measles and eradicated smallpox and be on the verge of eradicating polio. They are fortunately just not that common.
Wait ...! How could I have missed this? So they are testing for genetic pre-dispositions & medically exempting those from immunizations who have them? No. They are not.

Which means we have "eliminated measles and eradicated smallpox and are on the verge of eradicating polio" ... at their expense.

Just how un-common would they have to be to call this scenario "fortunate"? Oh ... We don't know. Because we are not even testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
His lack of education about immunology and vaccine science is evident in what he says about vaccines. He is a good example of the hazards of politicians mouthing off about medical conditions when they have no science background.
I don't care about his science background. I am intrigued by the fact that a Kennedy has said there is a government cover-up going on.

If I'm going to find any politician mouthing off about a government cover-up as valid? Yeah; it would probably be a Kennedy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
I am not sure what your point is here. US physicians for the most part follow the evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that vaccines do not cause autism.
I think that the evidence that physicians ... & yourself ... follow? ... Is wrong & you know that.

We are both looking at this from different angles. You:

Are a poster here on CD who asserts herself as being from a generation that knew & lived with vaccine-preventable disease & saw history in the making as those fears & the disease were eradicated.

You are dedicated to using your considerable medical & health science literacy & articulation, to advocate Immunization as the greatest medical development of all time.

To advocate that a layperson can trust in the politicians & Pharma executives alike, to have our best interest at heart. To be honest & proactive when mistakes are made. To be ethical & without ulterior motives. So that medical & health science academia is legitimate. And R&D will be legitimate. So that our health care professionals will be legitimate after they receive their legitimate educations. And you maintain that this is the way it is. I:

Believe the advances made in human health have been due to a combination of developments, including:

The germ theory in the early 1860s, by Louis Pasteur. The practice of prophylaxis via isolation, quarantine, and disinfection being established as routine by the 1880's. Municipal Sanitation districts approved in cities by the early 1890's. Chlorination and sedimentation of water in the early 1900's. Pasteurization of milk made compulsory in the 1910's & by the 1920s and 1930s; IV fluid and electrolyte therapy. And antibiotics along with other first gen medications such as Benadryl & Insulin. Advancement of imaging diagnostics.

And yes; Vaccines.

As you know, I think something went wrong, very unintentionally, with a vaccine back in the 1950's. I think the NIH (CDC) was at a loss as to how to remedy it & it turned into a snowball rolling downhill.

I think there has been an impact on our medical & health science academia. And R&D, our health care professionals & their educations. So now, there is incongruency between the experience of the people & the doctors that believe that their knowledge is legitimate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 03:12 PM
 
5,482 posts, read 2,362,340 times
Reputation: 15142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
And yet you never, ever provide any scientific data to support your opinions. Why is that?
+1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
I stated my opinion because that is what the op asked for. The end.
The OP asked for it 10 years ago. It's a decade old thread.


Why this thread was reopened is beyond me. No matter how many "new people come here all the time" they probably aren't seeking 10 yr old threads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 03:27 PM
 
Location: So Ca
15,805 posts, read 15,051,405 times
Reputation: 13733
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi View Post
I don't care about his science background. I am intrigued by the fact that a Kennedy has said there is a government cover-up going on.
I would hesitate to trust Robert Kennedy's word about anything, including the subject of vaccines.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/22/...accine-safety/

The thimerosal episode explains the danger of RFK Jr.

Smoke, mirrors and Robert Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine safety panel:
https://spectrumnews.org/opinion/vie...-safety-panel/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,457 posts, read 28,322,096 times
Reputation: 29049
The author is an infectious disease specialist who actually treats patients with influenza and explains why a meta-analysis of influenza vaccine conducted by Dr. Thomas Jefferson may be ... biased:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/one...-cuckoos-nest/

"Perhaps the highest profile critic of the influenza vaccine is Dr. Thomas Jefferson of the Cochrane Group. He generally takes the narrow perspective on the efficacy of the flu vaccine, that of preventing a case of influenza in an exposed individual and argues that the clinical trials that demonstrate efficacy are too flawed to make recommendations."

In other words, Jefferson has never met a flu vaccine study he likes.

"The interview suggests a conspiracy theorist who has a narrow viewpoint and ignores or misstates his own studies and the studies of others and prefers a simple message to the complexity of influenza and its many complications. What comes across in his interview, and in his written, and presumably carefully considered oeuvre, is buckets of anti-influenza vaccine bias; someone who has an opinion first which he defends with the narrowest of data second."

Lets look at what Brownstein has to say:

"In children over two years of age, it was only effective 33 percent of the time in preventing the flu."

Yes, we know that flu vaccine is less effective than other childhood vaccines. However, if you were offered two lottery tickets, one with a 33% better chance of winning than the other, which would you choose? A vaccine with a 33% effectiveness rate is better than no vaccine at all (0% effectiveness).

"The authors reported that six children under age six need to be vaccinated with live vaccine to prevent even one case of the flu. In other words, five out of six children 83 percent got no benefit from vaccination."

Although the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) is derived from the effectiveness of the vaccine, the two concepts are not identical. To calculate number needed to vaccinate you have to also know the incidence of the disease. NNV equals 1 divided by (the annual incidence of the disease in the unvaccinated times the vaccine effectiveness). Brownstein attempted to calculate the effectiveness from only the NNV without factoring the incidence. It shows he does not understand the metric he is using. A number needed to vaccinate of 6 is actually quite small. He did the same thing with the over age 6 age group.

Here is where we get to the nuts and bolts of things though. Suppose that tomorrow morning six moms bring six children to one pediatrician's office to discuss the flu vaccine. From what Dr. Brownstein tells us, vaccinating all six will only prevent one from getting the flu. What should our pediatrician do? Play eeny, meeny miny moe and choose one child to vaccinate? What if he chooses the wrong child? There is no way for any doctor to predict who "needs" the vaccine and who does not. That is why six get vaccinated to prevent one from getting sick.

"The scientists stated that they could find 'no usable data for those aged two years or younger.'

Who determines what is "usable"? No study will ever be perfect.

This one, done over 4 seasons, showed that flu vaccine was 85% effective in children under two. It was not done with drug company funding:

Effectiveness of Trivalent Flu Vaccine in Healthy Young Children | Articles | Pediatrics

This one was done in children under age 3 in Finland. It found a 66% effectiveness rate. It was sponsored by a drug company. If you are going to allege bias you need to explain how the source of funding affected the results.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...255-3/fulltext

This one showed protection even in a mismatched year:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...No+local+token

The Cochrane review did not include any of those studies.

https://www.unitypoint.org/blankchil...0-0c4c16088e68

"Now, the reason you might hear a flu shot doubter claim the vaccine is ineffective in kids under two is because of language used in a 2012 Cochrane Review of influenza vaccine efficacy, which states, "Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo."

How is that conclusion reached, given the above data? Well, meta-analyses like this one necessarily don't look at all the data, but only studies that meet certain parameters for inclusion. For whatever reasons, none of these were included in the review. The only study that was included in the review was from 1976, which looked at a whopping 16(!) infants, and used a single-strain, highly reactogenic influenza vaccine, a far cry from the trivalent and quadrivalent vaccines used today. This is completely irrelevant to modern policy-making, and no basis to declare the vaccine similar to placebo."

Your last link is just a list of more links.

The bottom line is that we need better flu vaccines, the effectiveness of flu vaccine is not optimum but it is the best we have at present, and too few people take the vaccine for us to achieve the maximum potential of a flu vaccination program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 03:55 PM
 
9,595 posts, read 5,814,921 times
Reputation: 9693
Suzy, Your entire post is a cut and paste job of a blog post. Do you have anything to say yourself? Or are you the blog author? Is that not a violation of the terms of service.

You accuse me of not posting credible evidence but when I do go against my better judgement and get deeper into the conversation by providing a link to a review of the studies on the flu from a very credible, respected source you refute it by copying and pasting an entire blog post from one of your propaganda blogs.


The Cochrane collaboration is very well respected as is British epidemiologist, Tom Jefferson.

About The Cochrane Collaboration and How to Get Involved
Quote:
Who are we?

Cochrane contributors from more than 120 countries work together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest. Many of our contributors are world leaders in their fields - medicine, health policy, research methodology, or consumer advocacy - and our groups are situated in some of the world's most respected academic and medical institutions.
Our work is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high quality, trusted information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,457 posts, read 28,322,096 times
Reputation: 29049
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The author is an infectious disease specialist who actually treats patients with influenza and explains why a meta-analysis of influenza vaccine conducted by Dr. Thomas Jefferson may be ... biased:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/one...-cuckoos-nest/

"Perhaps the highest profile critic of the influenza vaccine is Dr. Thomas Jefferson of the Cochrane Group. He generally takes the narrow perspective on the efficacy of the flu vaccine, that of preventing a case of influenza in an exposed individual and argues that the clinical trials that demonstrate efficacy are too flawed to make recommendations."

In other words, Jefferson has never met a flu vaccine study he likes.

"The interview suggests a conspiracy theorist who has a narrow viewpoint and ignores or misstates his own studies and the studies of others and prefers a simple message to the complexity of influenza and its many complications. What comes across in his interview, and in his written, and presumably carefully considered oeuvre, is buckets of anti-influenza vaccine bias; someone who has an opinion first which he defends with the narrowest of data second."

Lets look at what Brownstein has to say:


"In children over two years of age, it was only effective 33 percent of the time in preventing the flu."

Yes, we know that flu vaccine is less effective than other childhood vaccines. However, if you were offered two lottery tickets, one with a 33% better chance of winning than the other, which would you choose? A vaccine with a 33% effectiveness rate is better than no vaccine at all (0% effectiveness).


"The authors reported that six children under age six need to be vaccinated with live vaccine to prevent even one case of the flu. In other words, five out of six children 83 percent got no benefit from vaccination."

Although the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) is derived from the effectiveness of the vaccine, the two concepts are not identical. To calculate number needed to vaccinate you have to also know the incidence of the disease. NNV equals 1 divided by (the annual incidence of the disease in the unvaccinated times the vaccine effectiveness). Brownstein attempted to calculate the effectiveness from only the NNV without factoring the incidence. It shows he does not understand the metric he is using. A number needed to vaccinate of 6 is actually quite small. He did the same thing with the over age 6 age group.

Here is where we get to the nuts and bolts of things though. Suppose that tomorrow morning six moms bring six children to one pediatrician's office to discuss the flu vaccine. From what Dr. Brownstein tells us, vaccinating all six will only prevent one from getting the flu. What should our pediatrician do? Play eeny, meeny miny moe and choose one child to vaccinate? What if he chooses the wrong child? There is no way for any doctor to predict who "needs" the vaccine and who does not. That is why six get vaccinated to prevent one from getting sick.


"The scientists stated that they could find 'no usable data for those aged two years or younger.'

Who determines what is "usable"? No study will ever be perfect.

This one, done over 4 seasons, showed that flu vaccine was 85% effective in children under two. It was not done with drug company funding:

Effectiveness of Trivalent Flu Vaccine in Healthy Young Children | Articles | Pediatrics

This one was done in children under age 3 in Finland. It found a 66% effectiveness rate. It was sponsored by a drug company. If you are going to allege bias you need to explain how the source of funding affected the results.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...255-3/fulltext

This one showed protection even in a mismatched year:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...No+local+token

The Cochrane review did not include any of those studies.

https://www.unitypoint.org/blankchil...0-0c4c16088e68

"Now, the reason you might hear a flu shot doubter claim the vaccine is ineffective in kids under two is because of language used in a 2012 Cochrane Review of influenza vaccine efficacy, which states, "Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo."

How is that conclusion reached, given the above data? Well, meta-analyses like this one necessarily don't look at all the data, but only studies that meet certain parameters for inclusion. For whatever reasons, none of these were included in the review. The only study that was included in the review was from 1976, which looked at a whopping 16(!) infants, and used a single-strain, highly reactogenic influenza vaccine, a far cry from the trivalent and quadrivalent vaccines used today. This is completely irrelevant to modern policy-making, and no basis to declare the vaccine similar to placebo."

Your last link is just a list of more links.

The bottom line is that we need better flu vaccines, the effectiveness of flu vaccine is not optimum but it is the best we have at present, and too few people take the vaccine for us to achieve the maximum potential of a flu vaccination program
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Suzy, Your entire post is a cut and paste job of a blog post. Do you have anything to say yourself? Or are you the blog author? Is that not a violation of the terms of service.
The words I have marked in green are my own. Your statement that my "entire post is a cut and paste job of a blog post" is demonstrably false.

Quote:
You accuse me of not posting credible evidence but when I do go against my better judgement and get deeper into the conversation by providing a link to a review of the studies on the flu from a very credible, respected source you refute it by copying and pasting an entire blog post from one of your propaganda blogs.
No, I did not copy and paste "an entire blog post".

I quoted - clearly marked - selected passages. Several of those passages are quotes from one of your links. I have marked those in blue.

The author of the first article I quoted is an infectious disease physician. He actually treats sick folks. What he says is not propaganda. It is science based.

Quote:
The Cochrane collaboration is very well respected as is British epidemiologist, Tom Jefferson.
On Cochrane reviews:

Overstated Attack Hiding Behind Scientific Assessment: An April 2014 Cochrane Review Trashes the Usefulness of Influenza Antiviral Drugs (Peter Sandman site article)

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...cts-fallacies/

Jefferson's contacts with the anti-vax community suggest that Cochrane reviews on flu vaccine need to be done by someone else. You often accuse pro-vax sources of being biased. Sorry, but Jefferson's bias against flu vaccine is clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 05:13 PM
Status: "Disagreeing is not the same thing as trolling." (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Texas
9,683 posts, read 3,694,065 times
Reputation: 19807
I would like to know, other than vaccines, what are some ways to prevent the flu? Aside from the obvious - washing hands and using hand sanitizer.


Would taking Vitamin C help?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Special Needs Children
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top