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.
Yes they did and they made adjustments based on their analyses. I think they did the best they could with the information available. Like I said, it's always interesting to see the process.
They did not discount parental reports altogether, though. If anything, the trauma of losing a child would probably sharpen the memory of whether the child was vaccinated or not, I would think.
Quote:
Maybe, maybe not. If their parent says they were vaccinated but they don't have proof because they got the shot at a flu shot clinic or at the pharmacy instead of their doctor's office then they won't be counted as having received. It's a limitation that we have to live with.
No, they did not completely exclude parental reports. Pharmacies keep records. You have to sign a consent even if you received the shot at a flu clinic, which should keep those records, too. Parents should not really have a hard time documenting vaccination.
Quote:
Do all states have this? If not all then how many states have this?
I'm aware of this but I do think it would be interesting to see if people were more likely to come down with the flu in the time period after vaccination then they would if they had not received a vaccine at all.
The flu vaccine does not cause flu or make you more susceptible to catching it. The immune response does take about two weeks to work.
Quote:
Like I said, I found the study to be interesting. I'm not criticizing it. They did the best they could with the available information. Science and research is always ongoing. It will be interesting to see how things continue to evolve with the flu, the vaccine, etc. over time. We've already seen flu mist pulled. We are in a year where the vaccine is not very effective. We will always see mutations because that is what the flu virus does. Is our attempt to halt the virus via vaccines potentially making mutated versions worse? So much to learn when it comes to science, our bodies, medicine, etc. Science is ever evolving.
The problem this year with H3N2 was related to producing the vaccine in eggs. That can be mitigated by using different methods to grow the virus used in vaccines. Those methods are available, but will make the vaccine more expensive. The ultimate way to resolve the problem is with a universal vaccine that works against all strains. The researchers are working on that, but it is a very difficult nut to crack.
MissTerri, you can nitpick this study until the cows come home, get milked and go to bed. It was reviewed by peers of the authors, that is, people with equivalent knowledge, education, and experience. It was accepted. The authors followed the correct principals for doing this research.
MissTerri, you can nitpick this study until the cows come home, get milked and go to bed. It was reviewed by peers of the authors, that is, people with equivalent knowledge, education, and experience. It was accepted. The authors followed the correct principals for doing this research.
You shared a link to a study and I genuinely found it interesting so was attempting to have a conversation about it. I wasn't even criticizing it. If you don't want people to discuss information contained in links such as studies, articles, etc. on a discussion board then I don't know what to tell you.
And I will add that I think it's a good study.
Last edited by MissTerri; 01-20-2018 at 06:36 PM..
Here's another study, eight years of data: Influenza-Associated Pediatric Deaths in the United States, 2004 - 2012
"Among those who were (6 months of age or older) whose vaccination status was known,19 of 203(9%) children without high-risk medical conditions and 64 of 290(22%) children with high risk medical conditions had been fully vaccinated with seasonal influenza vaccine."
Not into the flu shot? Think of it as a heart attack vaccine instead.
That's because the first week or so of a flu infection appears to make you much more susceptible to a heart attack, according to a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Preliminary data from five sites around the country suggest that people who got vaccinated this flu season reduced their risk of getting a serious case of influenza by 36%.
That figure covers all types of flu viruses circulating in the United States.
When people refuse vaccines out of fear of autism (unfounded fear, as there is zero reason to believe vaccinations cause or trigger autism - the only studies showing causation were frauds), they're essentially saying they'd rather risk a dead child than have an autistic child. I think that's rather grotesque.
I asked my husband yesterday "How successful do you think a product would be on the market that was 10% effective in doing what it was supposed to do?" The answer to that question is "Only if backed by big pharma/CDC (one in the same).
I'm sure you and your husband felt very clever about that conversation, but if I could take a pill or get a shot or push a button that made me 10% less likely to, say, have a house fire, or a car accident, or a heart attack, or be assaulted, or whatever life threatening thing you might care to name, if it was readily accessible and reasonably priced, as the flu vax is, I'd sure take that pill or shot or push that button. A one in ten chance of avoiding something really unpleasant? Why would anyone sneeze at that? I mean, you continue working to make it better, and you combine it with other preventative measures, but it's better than nothing.
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.