Quote :

"is only ~75% effective and only protects against 3 strains from previous years. The fact that it wears off and has to be administered year after year means it's not that effective of a vaccine anyway, since you can get a shot or series of shots in your youth that protect you for life against other illnesses. "

Is that not because of the mutation of the disease, rather than the vaccine "wearing off"?

10/25/2011 10:58:13 AM

^ You are correct. If the mumps up and mutated one day to a form very different from what we know now we'd all be fubar.

10/25/2011 11:03:01 AM

^Hope the mumps don't have a TWW account.

10/25/2011 11:06:41 AM

Quote :

"The fact that it wears off and has to be administered year after year means it's not that effective of a vaccine anyway, since you can get a shot or series of shots in your youth that protect you for life against other illnesses. Not to mention the other crap they put in there, like formaldehyde and thimersol. I'll take my chances of getting sick and letting my body heal itself. "

Quote :

"Oh, and, please, Dr. Gordon, please stop with the formaldehyde bit. I know it's a convenient scary-sounding chemical used in the vaccine manufacturing process that antivaccinationists like to point to, but by the time the finished vaccine is made, there's nothing more than a trace amount in any vaccine. You breathe more formaldehyde sitting in an L.A. traffic jam in your Mercedes (or whatever no doubt highly expensive care you drive, thanks to credulous patients like Jenny McCarthy) than is in any vaccine. The plastic products and varnishes in your house produce more. Really, Dr. Gordon, I'm not kidding when I say that it's downright embarrassing to me as a physician to see a fellow physician like you saying something so utterly scientifically ignorant for public consumption. Really. Take it as a bit of advice from one physician to another. Your repeating that particular bit of antivaccinationist propaganda just makes you look really, really ignorant. Of course, if you actually believe that stuff about formaldehyde, you are really, really ignorant. If you don't believe it, then you're really, really cynical. Take your pick."

10/25/2011 11:07:45 AM

Quote :

"To be honest, I don't."

because a graduate education and extensive research in environmental toxicology has taught me that shit happens and the "oh, balls, we probably shouldn't have done that" bit usually takes place after it's too late

i see no reason to expose a child to completely avoidable and unnecessary compounds, chemicals, or treatments...i'm a proponent of vaccines, but the flu shot is not usually a "zomg this will save my life!" type thing and as such, is unnecessary (for infants, anyway)

i have done virtually no research on the flu shot's effects (or lack thereof) on infants exposed through breastmilk, so i won't claim it's not safe...i just can't think of any good reason to risk it

it's ridiculous how much we're learning about the development of children as a result of exposure through mother's milk

*shrug*

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2011 11:09:15 AM

Quote :

"i have done virtually no research on the flu shot's effects (or lack thereof) on infants exposed through breastmilk, so i won't claim it's not safe...i just can't think of any good reason to risk it"

I see you're taking the Jenny McCarthy approach to vaccine education

10/25/2011 11:12:13 AM

Quote :

"i see no reason to expose a child to completely avoidable and unnecessary compounds, chemicals, or treatments...i'm a proponent of vaccines, but the flu shot is not usually a "zomg this will save my life!" type thing and as such, is unnecessary (for infants, anyway)"

People die from the flu every year. Flu-like symptoms will kill a child. Take it from a parent whose kid was taken to the ER in an ambulance from RSV.

10/25/2011 11:19:42 AM

people in this thread talk about the flu vaccine like it's actually 100% effective. it's far from it; pharmaceutical companies take a guess at what strand of influenza will outbreak each year and try to make everyone get the vaccine for it. you have about a 50% chance of them actually predicting it right, while I have about a 100% chance of the vaccine making me feel like shit for 2-3 days while my body builds up antibodies. I'm not at risk of dying from the flu like the elderly or people in poor health, and I don't get sick very often. For me, it just doesn't make sense to get vaccinated.

Also, this "herd immunity" concept that your doctors have you convinced of is bullshit. That actually works with specific vaccines like for whooping cough or the measles. There's no herd immunity with the flu vaccine; since it only reduces the odds of a person getting the flu by a small margin. The studies touting the benefits of flu vaccines all point at evidence of small reductions in sickness and lost sick time - not in elimation of seasonal sickness.

10/25/2011 11:23:02 AM

Exactly. While the flu is relatively minor for healthy adults, it can be deadly to children.

Quote :

" - Children commonly need medical care because of influenza, especially before they turn 5 years old. - Each year an average of 20,000 children under the age of 5 are hospitalized because of influenza complications. - Flu seasons vary in severity, however some children will die from flu each year. From 2003-2004 to 2010-2011, pediatric deaths reported to CDC ranged from 46 to 153 per year. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, 345 deaths in children were reported to CDC from April 26, 2009 to May 22, 2010. - Severe influenza complications are most common in children younger than 2 years old. - Children with chronic health problems like asthma and diabetes are at especially high risk of developing serious flu complications."

Quote :

" I'm not at risk of dying from the flu like the elderly or people in poor health, and I don't get sick very often. For me, it just doesn't make sense to get vaccinated."

We're not talking about getting vaccinated for your own benefit though. We're talking about getting vaccinated in order to visit premature infants with weak immune systems. If you don't want to get a flu vaccine to help reduce the chances of these babies not contracting the flu, then just wait to visit them when they're out of the hospital.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 11:27 AM. Reason : a]

10/25/2011 11:24:53 AM

Someone else quoted that the vaccine is "only" 75% effective. I would argue that each time I get a headache, the aspirin I use is only about that effective, but I keep using it because it's better then having a 0% chance and causes little-or-no inconvenience to my life. If you have a newborn baby who has a particularly weak immune system, there aren't many logical arguments you could use to claim that it's not better to be 75% "immune" than 0% "immune".

10/25/2011 11:26:12 AM

It's the autism links I believe.

10/25/2011 11:27:29 AM

Oh dear sweet baby Jesus seriously? THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN AUTISM AND VACCINES. The entire study that claim is based on was fabricated

10/25/2011 11:28:42 AM

that's why your wife is against vaccines?

she, and you, know that the study that was based on was proven to be false (as in the data was falsified)? and the doctor that claimed it has since been laughed out of his profession and BANNED for falsifying that information?

10/25/2011 11:30:40 AM

Facts aside (yeah, sometimes that's what these issues devolve into), it goes back to what was said on page one: play by the rules or stay home. If you make a personal choice, you have a right to make that choice. The thing I keep thinking is that this isn't a niece, a nephew, or a sibling... this is a friend's baby. It's not like there is any strong family connection here that gives yall a "right" to see the baby in the hospital, especially if someone's not willing to obey the doctor's orders.

10/25/2011 11:36:54 AM

I agree and that's why we aren't going to visit them. Like I said before I feel like we could for the next two weeks because everyone else (family) is just getting flu shots today and that's how long it takes to be effective.

10/25/2011 11:46:12 AM

Quote :

"I agree and that's why we aren't going to visit them."

So wait, why did you make this thread in the first place then

10/25/2011 11:50:55 AM

apparently bc he wanted to complain about how the others are getting shots & could still be spreading it in the 2 week period that the vaccine isn't effective.

this thread is just one giant

10/25/2011 11:55:07 AM

I see what you're saying, but I think you have two different things going on. Your friends chose a doctor so you must respect the doctor's wishes (sounds like you are, so... cool). The second thing is what your friends are okay with. If your doctor says "you have to get the vaccine", but you don't think it would matter until 2 weeks after getting the shot, you could always ask your friends what they think. If your friend's response is "we don't care", then it seems like the easiest option would be to just go ahead and get the shot and everything's fine.

Either way, have you mentioned to your friend that you've seen flu vaccine's aren't effective until 2-weeks after receiving the shot? I'm sure the "doctor knows about these things", but that might be something your friend would want to know.

10/25/2011 11:57:54 AM

For all we know this woman isn't even expected to go into labor for another two weeks. I doubt the doctor is asking people to get flu shots just for shits and giggles.

10/25/2011 12:00:27 PM

Just to see if any others had ideas.

^^^that part really doesn't make sense to me... If the doc was so adamant about folks only visiting that had the flu shot and the two week thing is true then why wasn't he adamant about folks that have had the shot for less than two weeks not being able to visit?

^ she went in to unexpected labor this morning at 5 and they are here and healthy...

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM. Reason : 1]

10/25/2011 12:01:53 PM

How do you know the doctor didn't tell them patient more than two weeks ago about this and they didn't get around to tell people until later?

10/25/2011 12:04:42 PM

The babies are 8 weeks early.

10/25/2011 12:07:16 PM

just by a little googling you should know there is no provable link between autism and vaccines

10/25/2011 12:11:42 PM

Quote :

"It's the autism links I believe."

10/25/2011 12:11:43 PM

Kind of seems like you're being asked direct questions and you're answering by pushing blame on the doctor.

Doctors are normal people who have to make judgement calls. Anytime you purchase a service you are entitled to question a professional's judgement so long as you accept their explanation or chose another service provider.

If YOU think there is a flaw in his logic and YOU are really good friends with the patient, maybe YOU should approach YOUR friend and let them know that something doesn't make sense. That would be a lot more productive and truth-revealing than coming on TWW and questioning a doctor's competence.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM. Reason : Engineering EngRish strikes again.]

10/25/2011 12:14:28 PM

Quote :

"That should would be a lot more productive and truth-revealing than coming on TWW and questioning a doctor's competence."

Or he could

Quote :

"stop by with a hot meal once they're home from the hospital, say hello, and then skidaddle real quick."

10/25/2011 12:17:48 PM

We can leave it at their door.

10/25/2011 12:21:20 PM

Quote :

"I see you're taking the Jenny McCarthy approach to vaccine education "

i noted a distinct difference between serious vaccinations and the flu shot for a mother who is breastfeeding what i assume is a younger-than-6-months-old child

Quote :

"People die from the flu every year. Flu-like symptoms will kill a child."

no shit, sherlock...which is why i never once said that children should not be vaccinated, nor that a breastfeeding mother SHOULDN'T get the shot...just that of all times in one's life NOT to get it, breastfeeding an infant is one of the more valid ones in my mind

i mean, it's not like your child can be vaccinated if they're less than 6 months, anyway, and they're not magically going to be safe because they're breastfeeding from someone who's had the vaccine...add that to the fact that the vaccine isn't 100% effective against the flu and i still don't see any reason to freak out over a mother who doesn't want to get it while nursing

if someone with more time than i have wants to give me some evidence that irrefutably proves that breastfeeding babies are significantly safer from getting sick if their mothers have had the flu vaccine, by all means

10/25/2011 12:24:42 PM

I'm a teacher. There are almost 3000 people crammed into my building at an given moment, and i deal directly with over 100 kids and numerous teachers who each deal with over 100 kids a piece.

I got a flu vaccine.

10/25/2011 12:29:42 PM

Quote :

"if someone with more time than i have wants to give me some evidence that irrefutably proves that breastfeeding babies are significantly safer from getting sick if their mothers have had the flu vaccine, by all means"

Uh... yeah, it's pretty simple. Let's assume the mother doesn't live in a bubble and from time-to-time, people come to visit, they receive meals and gifts from friends, and they have a spouse. Any of those three things could introduce airborne viruses into the area. So mother, who spends the most time around the child, can contract the flu virus from multiple sources. If she doesn't get the vaccine, or begin a similar immune-system boosting regimen, she is 0% protected versus getting the vaccine and being 75% protected. If you'd rather take the 0% than the 75%, that's your call.

As far as the irrefutably proving anything medically, there isn't much that 100% is certain when it comes to cures so you're asking someone to do something that you can't do in a lot of different circumstances. Chemo doesn't 100% cure anything, but it's safe to say most people view that as a viable option. It's all about what you view the risk as. For Chemo, the worst option is you radiate your body and you die at the same rate you currently are. For a six-month old (or younger), the worst case is you have your child contract a 75% preventable disease and have to spend time in the hospital. It's a personal call.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 12:49 PM. Reason : [b] added.]

10/25/2011 12:39:18 PM

Regarding the "Please, Dr Gordon" quote above...that's a poor argument. I can see what the person is saying, but if I have a chance to minimize exposure to a known toxin, why wouldn't I? I don't live in LA, I eat as much organic food as possible, I try to minimize plastic toys for my kids, etc.

Like nearly everything in life, vaccines have risks and rewards. I think for major diseases, the reward is worth the risk. In my personal situation, I do not feel like the flu vaccine provides very little, if any, reward to me as a healthy adult. As with Smath and others, your situation may be different and the flu vaccine may be worth it to you. Make your own decision and let other people make theirs. If I were in ctnz71's shoes, I'd probably make the same decision he's making.

Also, I never claimed that in this situation that people shouldn't go by what the doctor is saying. I can understand the concern he has for the babies. My statement was more toward those who think anyone who doesn't get the vaccine is a moron and is putting the rest of the public at risk

10/25/2011 12:44:16 PM

Quote :

"My statement was more toward those who think anyone who doesn't get the vaccine is a moron and is putting the rest of the public at risk "

So your statement was directed at no one.

10/25/2011 12:48:15 PM

Healthy and fine?

And born 8 weeks early?


I think you mean they are stable, because that sure isn't healthy... And I see the other people have already jumped all over the autism statement BUT GOOD LORD, JUST STOP IT PEOPLE

10/25/2011 12:59:47 PM

Quote :

"Uh... yeah, it's pretty simple. Let's assume the mother doesn't live in a bubble and from time-to-time, people come to visit, they receive meals and gifts from friends, and they have a spouse. Any of those three things could introduce airborne viruses into the area. So mother, who spends the most time around the child, can contract the flu virus from multiple sources. If she doesn't get the vaccine, or begin a similar immune-system boosting regimen, she is 0% protected versus getting the vaccine and being 75% protected. If you'd rather take the 0% than the 75%, that's your call."

okay, i misspoke (or mis-typed, i suppose)

i agree with you that short-term, it's just about as simple as you described

but i will call anyone an idiot who truly believes that they can PROVE that exposing their extremely young children (in this case, an infant) to this particular vaccination will cause no developmental effects down the road

obviously things are rarely (if ever) 100% certain...but history is chalk full of things we "knew" that turned out to be a big "oops" instead

there was a time when using antibacterial soap for EVERYTHING, as frequently as possible, was considered good, but we know have some pretty strong evidence suggesting that there is such a thing as being too clean

heck, the spanish flu was more dangerous to younger, healthy adults than it was for children and the elderly...the prevailing thought behind that is because of the strong immune response

it's just downright stupid how much stock is put into vaccinations as a whole (though i admit that there are differences between vaccinations and some are arguably safer and more effective than others and therefore may warrant usage), all the while failing to raise a kid that gets his/her vitamins and minerals from a healthy diet and exercises regularly

10/25/2011 1:09:03 PM

Yo man it's "chock-full"

Proceed

10/25/2011 1:10:06 PM

^ derp derp you're right

i've been editing like crazy today, i can't seem to finish a sentence without forgetting a word or misspelling something

10/25/2011 1:11:34 PM

Sidebar, but I'll tell you one vaccine I was actually excited to get last year

Varicella

I dont even want to know how bad having the chickenpox as an adult would be

10/25/2011 1:13:06 PM

We have the option to decline it here at work. But they make you feel like an asshole if you do. Everyone who get the shot has to wear a patch on their name badge that says "I'm vaccinated because I care". I get dirty looks and asked about it all the time because I don't have a patch. It is to the point that I just tell people that I don't really care that much.

10/25/2011 1:13:30 PM

Man the chickenpox suck ass. Glad I got that over with in 1st grade

10/25/2011 1:13:47 PM

Still lots of people who don't understand herd immunity ITT.

The more people in a group that get a vaccine, the less people in the group will get sick, even people who DON'T get a vaccine. It's in the best interest of EVERYONE for as many people as able to get vaccinated, because it means EVERYONE, whether they happen to get vaccinated or not, will have a reduced risk of getting sick.

It doesn't matter if it's not "100% effective," because it's still effective.

It's hard to tell sometimes where the lines of selfishness, ignorance, and stupidity are drawn.

10/25/2011 1:14:06 PM

Quote :

"Regarding the "Please, Dr Gordon" quote above...that's a poor argument. I can see what the person is saying, but if I have a chance to minimize exposure to a known toxin, why wouldn't I? I don't live in LA, I eat as much organic food as possible, I try to minimize plastic toys for my kids, etc. "

The point is that if you're worried about the amount of "toxins" in vaccines, then stop breathing or shoot yourself in the head. You receive more than the trace amount you would in an entire childhood regimen just standing in your house. Mentioning formaldehyde or Thermisol (especially funny since they don't even use that any more) as potential threats is an unscientific canard propogated by anti-vax nuts.

10/25/2011 1:19:14 PM

I remember hearing in one of my courses you get more exposure to toxins microwaving food in plastic containers than you do from vaccines. I'm sure that hasn't stopped Jenny McCarthy from eating her Lean Cuisines.

10/25/2011 1:22:01 PM

Maybe the doctors just said that to keep really, really stupid people away from the babies.

10/25/2011 1:24:37 PM

10/25/2011 1:25:23 PM

I am doing my clinicals on a high-acuity unit at a hospital, I work at and go to school at 2 separate universities, and volunteer around at-risk members of the population, so I will most definitely be getting any shot possible to keep the funk I can pick up from other students and people at bay.

+ I think I got more shots/titers taken for nursing than the general population, like Hep B and the like.

All it takes is caring for one patient with the flu or TB and you realize the importance of vaccines for at-risk populations like immunocompromised, elderly and the young.

10/25/2011 1:33:20 PM

I thought that it was generally accepted that Jenny McCarthy's son wasn't even autistic, but had Landau–Kleffner syndrome. So all of her crazy bullshit can just be tossed out the window anyway.

10/25/2011 1:33:48 PM

Thank you, informed people for calling out the Jenny McCarthy followers ITT, so I didn't have to type out a textwall.

10/25/2011 1:36:53 PM

I don't know if I am "anti-vaccine" or not, but I am certainly quite anti-medical-establishment. They refuse to do science on this issue.

I've been researching this stuff fairly consistently over a couple years, and I've been utterly dissatisfied with any of the studies on vaccine safety. With my first child due in a few months, I've begun looking closer. I have no information at all to use for an informed decision. For any given vaccine or vaccine regimen, I should compare the probability of my child contracting the diseases and their severity vs. the probability of adverse outcomes from the vaccine and their severity. Simple. But nothing has been done.

One proper study would be invaluable, but the medical establishment refuses to do it.

1) Find thousands, or tens of thousands, of completely unvaccinated children. Don't withhold vaccines from anyone - just find those who have already made that decision.
2) Find thousands, or tens of thousands, of children who had the CDC-recommended vaccine regimen.
3) Adjust for demographic and lifestyle variables, and compare rates of asthma, autism, neurological disorders, intestinal maladies, etc. between the groups. Then we would know something about the risks of the regimen as a whole, if not individual vaccines. It would be a start.

That's science. And they refuse to do it. Nobody in the world has done that study. Until then, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. The studies out there on vaccine safety are, in short, astonishingly stupid.

Only a single Belgian study from the 90's has even done science on the issue. They tracked groups that had received their full load of vaccines (including MMR) vs. those who had the full load minus the MMR. They found no difference in autism rates, after adjusting for demographics.

That satisfies me that the MMR vaccine poses no additional risk for autism beyond the rest of the vaccine schedule. They didn't study the rates of any other disorders among the groups.

I'm not an unreasonable vaccine hater. I'm not even a hater at all. As it stands, we're planning to use a slightly delayed/spaced-out schedule and get all the normal vaccines for the baby.

Lastly, yes, Jenny McCarthy is an idiot and a blowhard. So are most in the anti-vaccine world. Yet, by being obtuse and against proper investigation, the broader medical community is guilty of inciting their stupidity.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : a]

10/25/2011 1:37:01 PM

DO SCIENCE.



seriously?

do science.

10/25/2011 1:40:49 PM

^Yes, that is the answer. They don't do science. Control group. Experimental group. Compare.

It's never been done.

10/25/2011 1:45:19 PM