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 12-11-2017, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,424 posts, read 28,280,822 times
Reputation: 29007

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
All of them should be taken into account when weighing risk
Good grief. Just name one of "all of them"!

Quote:
The death rate from flu is an estimate. These are not based on lab confirmed flu deaths. Anyone who dies from pneumonia during flu season will be counted as a flu death even though only 8.5% of all pneumonia deaths are influenza related. The number is grossly over estimated. Also keep in mind that most people won't get the flu so even by using that grossly overestimated number, one's risk of dying from the flu is nowhere near 1.4 per 100,000. It is tiny.
You do not understand the epidemiology. I get that. You have no desire to learn how the methodology works. The number is obtained by collecting data on confirmed influenza cases from monitoring sites around the country, then extrapolating to a total for the country. It is not just made up with no evidence to support it. Also, since every flu season is different, some years will have more deaths than that 1.4 per 100,000 and some will have fewer.

No, not "anyone who dies from pneumonia during flu season" is counted as a flu death. A patient who clearly has some other cause of pneumonia is not presumed to have had influenza. Influenza in adults is not a reportable disease because there is such a large number of cases that trying to count them all would be extraordinarily expensive. That is why statistical methods of estimation are used.

On the other hand, pediatric flu deaths are reportable, and 75% to 90% of children under age 18 who die from flu were not vaccinated. Half of those deaths were children with no underlying medical problems to increase the risk of severe influenza.

Quote:
On that same note, it's also impossible to get an accurate assessment of serious adverse reactions to the influenza vaccine, including death since VAERS only represents a tiny portion of all reactions and among those only a small proportion seek compensation from the vaccine court and even if they win, the vaccine makers still don't take any responsibility.
VAERS is only a tool to try to pick up a signal that there may be a problem with a vaccine. It never proves causation.

There is another surveillance system that can help prove causation: The Vaccine Safety Datalink. Interestingly enough, I have never seen an anti-vaxer mention the Datalink. All they want to do is misrepresent VAERS, just as you did in your post. I note that you chose not to mention all the VAERS reports that are hearsay and are found upon investigation to have nothing to do with vaccine safety at all.

The Datalink uses medical charts to look for adverse effects from vaccines, including outpatient records, emergency rooms, and hospitals. The massive number of severe adverse effects you think are caused by vaccines just does not exist.

Quote:
Your blogs utilize inflammatory language, half truths and twisted info in order to promote vaccines, pharmaceuticals and denigrate anything that could be considered alternative. I stopped reading your links long ago after seeing the very blatantly obvious pattern of propaganda and misinformation. I am sure these blogs are very well funded by the industry they support.

If your bloggers' accusations stand and these studies that were not included were actually studies that were up to scientific rigor and not just excluded because they were junk science then why does the meta analysis stand to this day? Are you seriously taking the bloggers word over the scientific community's word on this one?
Are some of the authors snarky?

Yes, some extremely so, such as the breast cancer surgeon who has seen real live women in his office who are going to die because they chose "alternative medicine" to treat their cancers.

They "denigrate" "alternative medicine" because 99.99999% of it is pure woo.

Please choose one of the articles I have linked to and point out a "half truth" in it. If you do not do so, I will presume that you cannot find one.

If you are "sure these blogs are very well funded by the industry they support" please provide a source to support your opinion. In order to be "sure" you surely must have such a source. If you do not provide it, I will presume you are unable to do so.

The scientific community has serious reservations about Jefferson's influenza Cochrane reviews. The evidence he declined to include is not junk science. The people you refer to as bloggers are basing their criticism of Jefferson on science.

This blogger is an infectious disease specialist who actually treats people with flu, some of whom die. His viewpoint carries more weight with me because of his clinical expertise than that of Jefferson, who chose to leave out valid studies in his meta-analysis.

You do not get the privilege of criticizing what Dr. Crislip says if you do not read it.

Cochrane is not the only meta-analysis of flu vaccine that has been done.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032844

"Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality."

The lack of controlled studies in the over 65 age group is because the vaccine has long been advised for that age group and placebo controlled studies are now considered unethical for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2017, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,424 posts, read 28,280,822 times
Reputation: 29007
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
I made the decision years ago that my son would not be a victim of big pharma or the medical machine. He glows with health and happiness, so..............
My oldest son would not be here without "big pharma" and "the medical machine". He would have died from leukemia in 1989. Twenty nine years later he "glows with health and happiness".

If your son comes down with leukemia - and I fervently hope not - would you just let him die?

If you do not vaccinate you can thank those of us who do, because the only thing between your son and not getting a vaccine preventable disease is herd immunity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 03:09 PM
 
9,595 posts, read 5,806,602 times
Reputation: 9693
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
My oldest son would not be here without "big pharma" and "the medical machine". He would have died from leukemia in 1989. Twenty nine years later he "glows with health and happiness".

If your son comes down with leukemia - and I fervently hope not - would you just let him die?

If you do not vaccinate you can thank those of us who do, because the only thing between your son and not getting a vaccine preventable disease is herd immunity.
It's not and either or scenario. It's about weighing one's risk. Sometimes it might make more sense to take medications, vaccines, etc. and sometimes it might not not. There's no one size fits all. People can weigh their risks and make decisions.

There will be zero herd immunity this flu season so you can stop patting yourself on the back and assuming that you are saving lives because you got your flu vaccine.

Feel free to get all of the vaccines you want but don't expect everyone to jump on board for a flu vaccine in a year where it is said to only be 10% effective. You can't control everyone and you cannot impose your version of health on everyone in the country. Good luck to all this flu season.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,424 posts, read 28,280,822 times
Reputation: 29007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
It's not and either or scenario. It's about weighing one's risk. Sometimes it might make more sense to take medications, vaccines, etc. and sometimes it might not not. There's no one size fits all. People can weigh their risks and make decisions.

There will be zero herd immunity this flu season so you can stop patting yourself on the back and assuming that you are saving lives because you got your flu vaccine.

Feel free to get all of the vaccines you want but don't expect everyone to jump on board for a flu vaccine in a year where it is said to only be 10% effective. You can't control everyone and you cannot impose your version of health on everyone in the country. Good luck to all this flu season.
Preventing even 10% of flu cases is a worthy goal. Ten percent is better than zero percent unless you live in Nirvana and anything less than 100% is worthless.

There is never a high enough uptake of flu vaccine to produce solid herd immunity. Folks like you who insist the vaccine is not "needed" and discourage people from vaccinating are a big cause of that.

I note you still have not told us what side effects of flu vaccine make taking it more dangerous than having the flu. Why do you refuse to tell us what risks you personally "weigh" in making your decision? So far you have not told us a single one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 04:25 PM
 
9,595 posts, read 5,806,602 times
Reputation: 9693
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Preventing even 10% of flu cases is a worthy goal. Ten percent is better than zero percent unless you live in Nirvana and anything less than 100% is worthless.
There's a huge range in between 10% and 100%. If you feel it's worth it then get it.

Quote:
There is never a high enough uptake of flu vaccine to produce solid herd immunity.
The flu vaccine has never conferred herd immunity not only due to the fact that not enough people get it but also due to the fact that it's effective rate is never high enough to be able to do that. So why did bring it up in a conversation about the flu vaccine?

Quote:
I note you still have not told us what side effects of flu vaccine make taking it more dangerous than having the flu. Why do you refuse to tell us what risks you personally "weigh" in making your decision? So far you have not told us a single one.
Make note all you want, this conversation is not about me. I believe that all of the side effects should be taken into consideration when weighing risk. People should do their own research.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,424 posts, read 28,280,822 times
Reputation: 29007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
There's a huge range in between 10% and 100%. If you feel it's worth it then get it.

The flu vaccine has never conferred herd immunity not only due to the fact that not enough people get it but also due to the fact that it's effective rate is never high enough to be able to do that. So why did bring it up in a conversation about the flu vaccine?
Your feet are firmly planted in Nirvana. If you had a choice between two automobiles and one was 10% safer, which would you choose?

The vaccine coverage needed to produce herd immunity depends not only on how effective the vaccine is but how infectious the organism the vaccine protects against. For flu vaccine, a level of 80% in healthy people and 90% in high risk groups could do it in most seasons. If people take your stance and do not take the vaccine in a mismatch season obviously getting herd immunity will be impossible. You have to actually get the vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22414740

Contrast that to measles where a rate of about 95% coverage is needed.

A study done in Hutterite communities:

Effect of Influenza Vaccination of Children on Infection Rate in Hutterite Communities: Follow-Up Study of a Randomized Trial

"Immunizing children and adolescents with inactivated influenza vaccine can offer a protective effect among unimmunized community members for influenza A and B together when considered over multiple years of seasonal influenza."

Quote:
Make note all you want, this conversation is not about me. I believe that all of the side effects should be taken into consideration when weighing risk. People should do their own research.
Your viewpoint in this conversation is clearly anti-flu vaccine. Since you are posting here and telling people the flu vaccine is not "needed", it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain why you think taking the vaccine is more dangerous than getting the flu and what evidence you "weigh" that supports an "informed choice" not to vaccinate.

What are "all of the side effects" that "should be taken into consideration when weighing risk"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 05:20 PM
 
9,595 posts, read 5,806,602 times
Reputation: 9693
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Your feet are firmly planted in Nirvana. If you had a choice between two automobiles and one was 10% safer, which would you choose?
Another bad example as buying a car is not the same as putting something into one's body. But let me humor you. I'd consider many factors when choosing a vehicle including gas mileage, space, personal needs, value, etc. I would definitely not automatically choose the one that is 10% safer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 06:05 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,424 posts, read 28,280,822 times
Reputation: 29007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Another bad example as buying a car is not the same as putting something into one's body. But let me humor you. I'd consider many factors when choosing a vehicle including gas mileage, space, personal needs, value, etc. I would definitely not automatically choose the one that is 10% safer.
You readily listed the factors that would affect your choice of a vehicle, but you still have not told us why you would not use the flu vaccine, apart from the possibly low effectiveness rate this season.

Why is a 10% effective vaccine worse than no vaccine at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 06:16 PM
 
9,595 posts, read 5,806,602 times
Reputation: 9693
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
You readily listed the factors that would affect your choice of a vehicle, but you still have not told us why you would not use the flu vaccine, apart from the possibly low effectiveness rate this season.

Why is a 10% effective vaccine worse than no vaccine at all?
Look at the side effects listed in the vaccine insert, look at vaers, look at payouts from the vaccine court. Look at the growing body of research that shows that people who get annual flu shots are at greater risk of catching the flu in subsequent seasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2017, 06:26 PM
 
Location: So Ca
15,790 posts, read 15,022,430 times
Reputation: 13707
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
I made the decision years ago that my son would not be a victim of big pharma or the medical machine.
When my son was seven, he came down with Scarlet Fever. I have never seen anyone so sick. His grandmother was frightened because when she was a child, penicillin had not been discovered and she'd had to be quarantined when she developed this illness. Another child she knew died.

I have to say that I'll take Big Pharma any day.
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.

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