as far back as I remember, never got the shot, never had the flu.

Quote :

"If she told me that she would prefer for me to have the flu shot before I came to visit then I would get the flu shot."

would not see baby

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 10:19 AM. Reason : 4]

10/26/2011 10:18:56 AM

Quote :

"the worst thing that might happen to you is you get the flu."

Not to start the whole argument over again but...YOU CAN'T GET THE FLU FROM THE FLU SHOT!!! FOR FUCKS SAKE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF ARGUMENTS IN THIS THREAD BUT THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM.

^Everyone has different experiences with the flu and flu shot in general. I've had the flu shot every year I can remember except for 3. 2 of those 3 years I skipped the shot I came down with the flu. I'm planning to go get my shot ASAP...but that's just me.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM. Reason : And never once has the flu shot made me feel sick, down, drained, etc]

10/26/2011 10:54:49 AM

you maybe misinterpreting that comment.

I don't know who you're quoting, but that statement doesn't necessarily imply that they got the flu from the shot so much as you can get the shot and still get the flu, given the coverage for given strains are an educated guess each year.

Now if they were implying that you can get the flu from the flu shot, then i fully agree.

10/26/2011 11:54:35 AM

Quote :

"would not see baby"

And that's perfectly fine.

10/26/2011 12:11:54 PM

I never get a flu shot and I haven't had the flu since middle school

of course, now that I say that, I am sure I will get it this year

10/26/2011 12:16:26 PM

Don't go.

10/26/2011 12:16:41 PM

Quote :

"you maybe misinterpreting that comment."

Yeah you're probably right. If that's the case, my bad.

10/26/2011 12:17:48 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/7723/

10/26/2011 12:52:11 PM

Quote :

"They hypothesized that on average, people who get vaccinated are simply healthier than those who don’t, and thus less liable to die over the short term."

That doesn't really say much about the efficacy of the vaccine and more about the populations getting the vaccine. If we were to start actively pushing to vaccinate the "in danger" populations, which apparently aren't getting vaccinated as much as people thought, I wonder what that would say.

10/26/2011 1:07:54 PM

I know we're pretending like no one else can do a comprehensive study that is credible (RE: Tulip's refusing to acknowledge the validity of previous studies on the matter), but this reminds me of a study done in Denmark regarding cell phone radiation. Since Denmark has socialized healthcare, they were able to take a sample size of the entire country, note who did and did not own a cell phone, and look at trends in cancer.

The results found that those who owned cell phones actually reported less cases of cancer than those without them. When this didn't support the hypothesis, the researchers looking to find problems with cell phone radiation simply assumed that there were life-style differences between those with cell phones and those without.

10/26/2011 1:26:31 PM

We see the same problem amongst anthropomorphic global warming theorists.

If the theory is not falsifiable, its not science.

10/26/2011 1:31:24 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't really say much about the efficacy of the vaccine and more about the populations getting the vaccine. If we were to start actively pushing to vaccinate the "in danger" populations, which apparently aren't getting vaccinated as much as people thought, I wonder what that would say."

It does address the efficacy of the vaccine for healthy populations.

From the next paragraph:

Quote :

"Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. "

Namely, there is no effect. The difference in mortality between the populations was the same during and outside of flu season. Healthy folks who got the vaccine saw no relative drop in mortality during flu season.

It would be interesting to see what it would do when applied to the 'in danger' populations, but this is pretty sufficient to say that the vaccine had no benefit for the healthy people.

10/26/2011 2:15:48 PM

The thing is, you develop a long-term immunity if you keep getting these shots every year. When the major flu finally hits, those who have been immunized for decades will stand a much better chance of surviving than those who have never had any exposure to any flu virus.

10/26/2011 3:00:13 PM

^^ I'm not really sure how you get no effect out of that paragraph. It doesn't really seem to be saying much at all about the vaccine and death due to flu complications.

And really, I always thought the flu vaccine was meant more for as risk groups anyway (children, the elderly, those that work with shitloads of people especially if those people are children or elderly, people with immunodeficiency, pregnant women, blah blah blah)

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 3:08 PM. Reason : a]

10/26/2011 3:07:02 PM

Quote :

"And really, I always thought the flu vaccine was meant more for as risk groups anyway "

I guess in this thread's case, for those who are going to be exposed to people of high risk (pre-me babies).

10/26/2011 3:14:25 PM

Quote :

"^^ I'm not really sure how you get no effect out of that paragraph. It doesn't really seem to be saying much at all about the vaccine and death due to flu complications."

If the relative mortality between those with and without the flu vaccine stays constant both inside and outside of flu season, then the vaccine is not doing anything for the vaccinated regarding mortality.

Quote :

"(pre-me babies)"

*Un-shun

lol

*Re-shun

10/26/2011 3:19:39 PM

Wasn't aware "pre-me" was an uncommon abbreviation for "prematurely born infants".

10/26/2011 3:24:05 PM

pre-me = uncommon

premie = common

10/26/2011 7:56:40 PM

i've never seen it written as pre-me. i don't even understand that. like ^ said, premie is what's typically written.

10/26/2011 8:44:03 PM

Thanks. Honestly, I've never seen it written, period.

Dictionary.com says it's premie or preemie, both are slang so... whatever. I'll remember this next time I get into conversations about preemies.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 9:24 PM. Reason : . ]

10/26/2011 9:21:39 PM

Quote :

"*Un-shun lol *Re-shun"

lolololololol that made my day

10/26/2011 9:47:12 PM

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/25/4005040/scandal-exposed-in-major-study.html

Quote :

"Scandal Exposed in Major Study of Autism and Mercury Share By Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD) Published: Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011 - 5:27 am SILVER SPRING, Md., Oct. 25, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD) exposes communications between Centers for Disease Control (CDC) personnel and vaccine researchers revealing U.S. officials apparently colluded in covering-up the decline in Denmark's autism rates following the removal of mercury from vaccines. Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that CDC officials were aware of Danish data indicating a connection between removing Thimerosal (49.55% mercury) and a decline in autism rates. Despite this knowledge, these officials allowed a 2003 article to be published in Pediatrics that excluded this information, misrepresented the decline as an increase, and led to the mistaken conclusion that Thimerosal in vaccines does not cause autism. In Denmark, Thimerosal, a controversial mercury compound used as a preservative in certain vaccines, was removed from all Danish vaccines in 1992. The well-publicized Danish study published in Pediatrics 2003 claimed that autism rates actually increased after Thimerosal was phased out. This study subsequently became a cornerstone for the notion that mercury does not cause autism. However, one of the FOIA documents obtained from CDC clearly indicates that this study omitted large amounts of data showing autism rates actually dropping after mercury was removed from Danish vaccines. One coauthor, from Aarhus University, Denmark, was aware of the omission and alerted CDC officials in a 2002 email, stating "Attached I send you the short and long manuscript about Thimerosal and autism in Denmark … I need to tell you that the figures do not include the latest data from 2001 … but the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001" (emphasis added). We know the article's lead author was aware of the missing autism data because he stated in an email reply, "I am not currently at the university but I will contact you and tomorrow to make up our minds." Nevertheless, in the final draft version of the publication submitted to Pediatrics, the data from 2001 showing a decline in autism was not mentioned. Ignoring this omission, the CDC continued to endorse the article and, in a December 10, 2002 recommendation letter to the editor of Pediatrics, encouraged expedited review and publication of the article. The misleading Danish article was published by Pediatrics in 2003. Dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the co-authors and "scientist in residence" at the CDC 2000-2002, subsequently was terminated by Aarhus University and indicted in Atlanta for embezzlement this year in relation to his $11 million grant from the CDC. CoMeD has demanded that the CDC launch an immediate investigation of the CDC officials involved based on scientific fraud. CoMeD is also calling for the full retraction of the deceptive article which appeared in Pediatrics. "This type of malfeasance should not be tolerated by those who are entrusted with our children's health and well-being," stated Lisa Sykes, President of CoMeD. SOURCE Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD) Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/25/4005040/scandal-exposed-in-major-study.html#ixzz1cZRHsw2e "

11/2/2011 1:45:13 PM

Good thing they haven't used Thimerosal in pediatric vaccines since 2001.

11/2/2011 2:03:51 PM

^Since 1992 in Denmark.


That release is a little one-sided. Austism rates still went up in Denmark from 92 to 2000, they just decreased in 2001 from the 2000 level.

11/2/2011 2:25:40 PM

A report written by the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs is one-sided? NO WAI!

And yeah, the US hasn't used it since 2001. Only vaccines you'll find it in these days are multi-use vials. Thankfully my work uses single-use vials for their flu vaccine campaigns. Don't need to be getting dat 190% staphylococci injected into my arm.

11/2/2011 2:28:08 PM

The old amounts of Thimerosal are still in a number of vaccines regularly given to children. I've seen them at doctors' offices myself.

Plus, it's right there on both the CDC and FDA websites:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1

Go to table 3. Some of the Diptheria/Tetanus, Tetanus, Japanese Encephalitis, and Meningococcal vaccines are unchanged.

Quote :

"Only vaccines you'll find it in these days are multi-use vials."

Fluzone, Fluvirin, and FluLaval are single doses that contain the old amounts of Thimerosal.

I'm not even big on the Thimerosal stuff, and kind of consider it a red herring or unlikely to be the cause of any problems. However, this does show that whatever reporting and press releases y'all have heard certainly gave the wrong impression.

[Edited on November 2, 2011 at 3:21 PM. Reason : a]

11/2/2011 2:56:36 PM

Quote :

"Is thimerosal being used in other vaccines? Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal–free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi–dose formulations of influenza vaccine. The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the argument that thimerosal–containing vaccines are harmful. However, CDC and FDA continually evaluate new scientific information about the safety of vaccines."

-CDC.gov

11/2/2011 3:47:36 PM

^I guess FAQ sections overrule tables of data.

Walk into any pediatrician's office, and I would be shocked if there were no vaccines that contained the old thimerosal amounts.

When the FAQ section for most of the public openly contradicts the data table, which is less likely to be viewed by the public, I think it's obvious which one is more accurate.

11/2/2011 4:15:48 PM

Quote :

"Much progress has been made to date in removing or reducing thimerosal in vaccines. New pediatric formulations of hepatitis B vaccines have been licensed by the FDA, Recombivax-HB (Merck, thimerosal free) in August 1999 and Engerix-B (Glaxo SmithKline, thimerosal free) in January 2007. In March 2001 the FDA approved a second DTaP vaccine formulated without thimerosal as a preservative (Aventis Pasteur's Tripedia, trace thimerosal). Aventis Pasteur, Ltd was also approved to manufacture a thimerosal-free DTaP vaccine, Daptacel, in 2002. In September 2001 Chiron/Evans was approved for manufacturing a preservative-free formulation of their influenza vaccine, Fluvirin, that contained trace thimerosal. In September of 2002, Aventis Pasteur, Inc was approved to manufacture a preservative-free formulation of their influenza vaccine, Fluzone that contained trace thimerosal, and in December 2004, a thimerosal-free formulation of Fluzone was approved. Two Td vaccines are also available in preservative-free formulations, Aventis Pasteur Inc's Decavac, and Aventis Pasteur, Ltd's Td vaccine. Also, Aventis Pasteur Inc's DT vaccine is now available only in a preservative-free formulation. These changes have been accomplished by reformulating products in single dose vials that do not contain a preservative. At present, all routinely recommended vaccines for U.S. infants are available only as thimerosal-free formulations or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal (=1 than micrograms mercury per dose), with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. Inactivated influenza vaccine for pediatric use is available in a thimerosal-preservative containing formulation and in formulations that contain either no thimerosal or only a trace of thimerosal, but the latter is in more limited supply; see Table 1. A more extensive tabulation of vaccines and thimerosal content may be found in Table 3."

From your link. Same info, both are accurate.

11/2/2011 6:03:56 PM

^^ And unless your pediatrician doesn't keep up with the latest CDC recommendations, they're not giving those vaccines to children under 7.

11/2/2011 7:19:13 PM

Quote :

"http://www.pbs.org/now/science/mercuryinfish.html"

Also, the *amount* of mercury even in the "non-trace" vaccines which aren't even used in small children is vastly dwarfed by the amount of mercury in a lot of fish. Unless you're a small child, or a nursing or pregnant woman, you worrying about Thimerosal is ridiculous.

11/3/2011 9:11:20 AM

Exactly. I just don't like multi-use vaccines because I have an irrational fear of contamination from multiple needles being used in the same vial, even though I know the actual rate of contamination is extremely low.

11/3/2011 9:22:22 AM

^You could always try to convince a doctor to use the air-gun that just 'brute-force' pushes the medicine into your skin... but then you'll have other issues.

11/3/2011 9:31:51 AM

Only vaccine you really need to worry about it with is the flu and my work uses the single vial doses so I'm all good

11/3/2011 9:42:09 AM

1/14/2012 4:18:32 PM

I like how it says "OPINION" up at the top...

1/14/2012 4:45:10 PM