-->
Pages: 1

Flu Shot?


(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)




Posted by: Pepper

With all the crap about the flu shots going on, my wife and I were talking about how we have never even considered getting one. I wonder who gets them and do you think it is worth it?



Posted by: BoneCrusher

You've already answered your own question Pepper. If your imune systems have worked well without flu shots than you're in the "Low risk" section of the population. Children and the elderly are in a higer risk category. You sound healthy as a donkey ! I don't take them either and never get sick. Our imune systems don't need it so why sweat the petty stuff?



Posted by: rock4832

No, I don't think people need flu shots. It helps the elderly and young to an extent but IMO they are basically worthless. The flu strain changes year to year and you cannot predict what next years flu will be like. The CDC creates the flu vaccine based off of last years flu.



Posted by: Dale Mabry

I think you are as likely to catch the flu from a flu shot as you are from everyday life.



Posted by: BritChick

I never get flu shots and touch wood get sick rarely! (Hope I didn't just jinx myself!!)
My gf, a nurse basically told me not to bother unless, as stated above, you are someone with a weak immune system. The other thing to note is the shots only immunize you against last seasons flu, with new strains popping up each season chances of being immunized against the 'right' type of flu aren't guaranteed.



Posted by: bulletproof1

i have never gotten 1 but then again im only sick about 1 day every 3 years.



Posted by: BoneCrusher

There is also a developing coreleation between autism and the mercury levels in flu shots. I would do a bunch of research if I was a woman of child bearing age before taking flu shots.



Posted by: bandaidwoman

You can't get the flu from the flu shot since it is a dead , not live attenuated virus. A short flu like illness can occur due to the body mounting a reaction.

It takes 2-3 weeks to work so if you are exposed to the flu during that period after vaccination,you will get the flu.

I can tell you right now it works. There is enough cross reaction that it is still protective. The flu shot does not prevent the flu as much as prevent death from the flu. Remember, almost all the kids or people who died of the flu yearly did not get a flu shot. It kills 35,000 every year and is the number one cause of death in the winter months in this country. Every year I see dozens die of the flu in our hospital and none, and I repeat, none had their flu shots.

I give my husband and daughter the flu vaccine since I am exposed it every year. Soon, we anticipate the drastic antigenic drift that causes the flu to become so deadly it will go from causing an epidemic to the pandemics that kill scores more. (Remember the flu pandemic that killed half a million or 500,000 people in this country alone in 1918; it killed more than the number of those combatants who died in WWI and II.)

however, it should be reserved only for those at high risk of acquiring it or dieing from it.



Posted by: JLB001

I've never had one, nor do I ever plan to have one.

I do think it is good for the elderly and the young.



Posted by: LAM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
There is also a developing coreleation between autism and the mercury levels in flu shots. I would do a bunch of research if I was a woman of child bearing age before taking flu shots.
there have been studies done with over 500,000 people that have completely disproven that...



Posted by: bandaidwoman

To expound further on LAM's response, LAM is right:

the link between mercury and vaccines. What a joke.

Unfortunately, the scare of autism and its association between MMR (containing thiomersol, the mercury component of vaccines) was based on one single study involving 12 children.

Subsequent studies all show no association

Some studies where whole countries or states increased their MMR vaccines showed a decrease or no increase in autism. A study by Gillberg and Heijbel (1998) examined the prevalence of autism in children born in Sweden from 1975-1984. There was no difference in the prevalence of autism among children born before the introduction of the MMR vaccine in Sweden and those born after the vaccine was introduced. Still, they now have thiomersol (mercury) free vaccines (except flu vaccines) and the rate of autism has not diminished.

Quote:
Pediatric Bulletin
MMR and Autism: Suspect or Superstition?


from Infections in Medicine ®
Benjamin Estrada, MD



Concerns about a possible relationship between autism and measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine administration were triggered in 1998 by a report that suggested a possible association between the two (Wakefield AJ et al. Lancet. 1998;28:637-641). This report was based on a case series of 12 children who presented with developmental regression associated with diarrhea, abdominal pain, and ileal-lymphoid nodular hyperplasia. These events were temporally related to administration of the MMR vaccine, and it was hypothesized that this product could trigger an intestinal inflammatory response that could be associated with developmental regression in previously normal children. This hypothesis has not been proved, and a causal association between the administration of this vaccine and the development of autism has not been found in recent studies.
Taylor and collaborators in the United Kingdom reported one of the first epidemiologic studies on this subject in 1999. These investigators included children born since 1979. Although there was an increase in the number of cases of autism, the authors did not find any difference in age at diagnosis between the vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. From the data collected in this study, there was no evidence to support a significant temporal association between the administration of MMR vaccine and the development of this disorder. In addition, no evidence of a change in the trend of cases of autism was found after the introduction of MMR into the United Kingdom immunization program in 1988. The lack of association between autism and MMR vaccine administration has also been demonstrated in other studies performed in Finland and Sweden (Taylor B et al. Lancet. 1999;353:2026-2029).
.......

Here are some more studies http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469129

Here is an even better link by the CDC (center for disease control) summarizing all the studies. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/conc...utism-mmr.htm#2



The litany of lawsuits against vaccine makers such as that sparked by the junk science of mercury and autism has made alot of manufacturers gun shy about the marketing and manufacturing of vaccines of all types, and that includes the flu vaccine. http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001624.html



Posted by: bandaidwoman

Here is more on the study that sparked all the hysteria about mercury and autism:

Quote:

Ten doctors retract MMR link to autism - but Andrew Wakefield stands firm

LONDON, UK: Ten doctors who co-authored the study which sparked health fears over the combined MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) jab have said there was insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.

The study, published in The Lancet in 1998, never proved a link between MMR and autism. However, its findings triggered widespread public concern, and a drop in vaccination rates.

The doctors issued a public retraction on March 3. However, it was not signed by two of the co-authors.

The main thrust of the paper was the discovery of unexpected intestinal problems in children who had autism. The doctors say that "much uncertainty" remains about the nature of these changes, and stress it is important that further research continues.

But they admit that they had not had enough evidence to link the problems to the triple jab - and had under-estimated the storm it would cause.

In a statement, to be published in The Lancet, the doctors say: "We wish to make it clear that, in this paper, no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient.....{snip}...........

We wish to make it clear that, in this paper, no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised," the scientists said in the retraction. "Consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed on these findings in the paper."....{snip}

The Wakefield study, which was conducted on 12 children, was done about eight years after the children had been vaccinated and involved parents remembering whether the autism symptoms occurred around the same time as the vaccination. ...{snip}

Dr Wakefield and Dr Harvey could not be reached immediately for comment. Wakefield has maintained that the suggestion of a link between the vaccine and autism is valid, despite the findings of authoritative groups such as the World Health Organisation and the US Institute of Medicine.


http://www.awares.org/pkgs/news/new...eCode=&section=



Posted by: OceanDude

It seems in the last 5-10 years there has been this developing epidemic and fear of catching colds, flues etc. and everyone is now programmed like robots to run down like good little citizens and get the latest vaccines each year. Who started this madness? IMHO its completely unnecessary. I think it is "normal", necessary and natural to get a flu or cold now and then - at least until the virus is eradicated from the planet (likely never). Perhaps it would be more cost effective to develop a vaccine to immunize people against the fear of thinking we need doctors and drugs for everything in life. One of the reasons the cost of health care is exorbitant is because of the wimpy mindset of the populace on this kind of thing. More drugs more drugs I might catch a cold!! sigh. I suppose for some the only cure and vaccine that would be likely to work would be a shot to the head with a heavy metal (lead) to kill what ails them...

OD



Posted by: dg806

The body is a great machine. It will build it own immune system to prevent sickness. Just like antibacterial soap, it builds up a tolerance to the stuff so it doesn't work. I think you are better off without it. I think there is a lot of scare tactics going on.



Posted by: bandaidwoman

Ocean dude, you talk about the cost of medical care and forget the flu vaccine is preventative medicine, not salvage medicine and saves you and me medical costs.

The good news is that the flu vaccine is extremely effective for seniors. By getting their annual vaccination, seniors half their chances of going to the hospital due to the flu. Annual vaccination lowers by 80% their chance of dying from the flu.

In other high-risk adults (i.e. those with heart disease, lung disease, diabetes), getting vaccinated reduces by half to two-thirds their risk of complicating respiratory illness, a hospital stay and death.

Even otherwise healthy people can decrease by 40% their days of sick leave and visits to their doctor due to respiratory infections.

Flu vaccination does more than rack up impressive numbers of lives saved and serious illnesses prevented. Other, less public, benefits are important to our overall public heath and economy.

* Vaccinated individuals use fewer antibiotics to fight respiratory infections. As more bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, having to use fewer antibiotics is important for everyone.

* Flu vaccinations save money. Getting the flu vaccine saves each patient money as well as saves money for the health care system. Each vaccine saves about $170 for every senior vaccinated and $46 for every otherwise healthy individual. While these numbers seem small at first glance, they become huge when multiplied by the millions of people who should get the flu vaccine.

Consider this: If one million seniors get the flu vaccine each year (a small number, really) the yearly savings are incredible:

1,000,000 X $170 = $170,000,000

Every ER doc will tell you that those who swarm into the emergency room during flu season are those who did not get the flu vaccine. The healthy 66 year old that gets hospitalized at $3,000 a day from the flu could have easily prevented it with a $10.00 vacccine.

I get a flu shot otherwise I will be a vector and give it to the 40 patients a day that I see during the winter months. There have been studies that show that kids who get flu vaccines have less sick days at school Thus, the flu vacccine is very cost effective for socieity in general. (Don't forget that a child under two years old is just as likely to die from the flu as a elderly 80 year old so they are considered high risk.)


The flu, unlike a cold, you never develop an immunity against i! Thus, getting colds is a good thing, since you start to develop an armormentorium of immunity against the hundreds of viruses. When you get the flu.... you get sick, miss work, potentially die if at high risk and are just as susceptible to it next year! And if a pregnant woman gets the flu during her pregnancy, her child is at high risk of developing schizophrenia and or miscarriage! (Big epidemiological data showing that link.)



Posted by: RexStunnahH

For the last couple years I had worked in a hospital and we were required to have flu shots,Wich was cool,because they always run out,and are low,so I never had to worry.I know old people and babies can die if they get the flu.



Posted by: OceanDude

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandaidwoman
Ocean dude, you talk about the cost of medical care and forget the flu vaccine is preventative medicine, not salvage medicine and saves you and me medical costs...
I am no expert on the efficacy of flu vaccines but from what I have heard it’s a roll of the dice. And the cost of the vaccines is now closer to $400 not $10 due to the mass hysteria causing everyone to run in and get them and depleting stocks. If it is only 20-30% effective (guessing at efficacy numbers) because there are so many strains then it seems very wasteful and ineffective to me and it begins to look like a campaign to scare old people into giving their social security checks to the medical community to pacify those fears. A bottle of whisky or a donation to geriatrics medicine would be a more efficacious pacifier IMHO. I just don’t believe that any significant numbers of “old people” legitimately need to be hospitalized because of flu. From what I have observed to be standard practice, if they have insurance coverage and available beds (or rich children who don’t want to deal with cranky and whiny old parents at home) they tuck them out of the way in the hospital. Most others (who can't pay) get sent home to eat chicken soup, lay on the sofa for a week and watch old Dr. Kildare reruns on the TV. By the way, in my opinion the practice of hospitalizing the elderly for every little ailment is more a social responsibility and ethics issue than it is a medical one since families don’t have time or the desire to take care of them at home.

I am however surprised to learn that the body’s immune system’s ability to adapt to flu and cold (which are both viral in nature) are significantly different for each form of exposure. I’d like to hear the technical reason for this but for the moment presume it to be due to the flu’s many mutations and forms.

I still maintain that this country is becoming predisposed toward hypochondriacal behavior and obsessed with the need to “be taken care of”. I think most of the predisposition to seek medical relief for every minor thing is societally unhealthy and more a marker that we as a nation have become conditioned to think we can not get by in life without a huge medical community attending to our every little ache and pain. People need to remember that humans are mortal and sickness is a natural condition integral to certain phases of life and appears to be a necessary and essential element of the life process and the evolution of the species. That may sound insensitive on an individual basis but clearly the human genetic pool is now thoroughly polluted with cross bred rogue genes from those defective humans that nature would have long ago purged had not the medical community found a way to keep them alive long enough to reproduce (e.g. obesity, diabetes, some cancers etc.). I understand that this sounds insensitive but outside the context of academic debate I am really a compassionate person though and would want to help people too. But I guess my real complaint in all of this is that everyone appears to be predisposed to run to the doctor at the first signs of any minor thing . Also, “someone” has succeeded at reprogramming what use to be a noble and ruggedly individual and self sufficient people (us Americans) into being scared silly and in dire need of constant medical attention.

OD



Posted by: bandaidwoman

I think talking about overutlisation of health care and the flu vacciine are two different things. The former, I agree, society is wimpy about. As for flu vaccine being money maker for the medical community, it isn't. Since the average doctor's office gets reimbursed $8 for each flu shot given it is pretty much a community and public service, and there is almost no profit. Thus, the medical community is not taking away their social security checks.

Remember, the hospitalizations of the flu has to do with its complications, not the flu itself. It can cause disseminated intravascular coagulation, pneumonitis, secondary bacterial infections especially with streptococcus pneumonia (which is what most die of ), cardiogenic shock, etc. etc. so these people are not being admitted just to tuck them into bed, especially with the shortage of hospital beds around here.

As for
Quote:
By the way, in my opinion the practice of hospitalizing the elderly for every little ailment is more a social responsibility and ethics issue than it is a medical one since families don’t have time or the desire to take care of them at home
This doesn't happen much at all with the advent of diagnostic related groups (DRGss) where the hospital and the doctors do not get paid unlesss the patient satisfies a diagnosis for critical illness. I have had to turn away patients whose family members wanted their dad to be hospitalized so he could secure a bed in a nursing home or for a weekend off. Hospitals and doctors just don't put up with this anymore and tell them they need to pay 100% (with 50% up front) of the hospitalization if they intend on using it as a baby sitting service.

As for the 30 percent effective rate, once again that is erroneous. It does not prevent the flu (although in at least 30 % of the cases it does), it prevents death and horrific sequeala, prevents longer duration of illness especially in those such as the elderly, those with cystic fibrosis etc etc. Those figures are in the 80-90% range in terms of effectiveness. For most of us healthy folks, the flu is an uncomfortbale 10 days (and loss from work .. the Harvard Economist predicts that this years flu vaccine shortage will cost our industry 20 billion this year in lost productivitity assuming each person takes 1 1 /2 days off work who gets the flu.)


Quote:
I still maintain that this country is becoming predisposed toward hypochondriacal behavior and obsessed with the need to “be taken care of”. I think most of the predisposition to seek medical relief for every minor thing is societally unhealthy and more a marker that we as a nation have become conditioned to think we can not get by in life without a huge medical community attending to our every little ache and pain. People need to remember that humans are mortal and sickness is a natural condition integral to certain phases of life and appears to be a necessary and essential element of the life process and the evolution of the species.
I can't agree more, but once again, associating this in the context of giving flu vaccines to the elderly or high risk (infants up to 23 months) are two different issues.

The flu vaccine is about allocating less resources to prevent overutilisation and usage of medical services that will cost 1000 times more once the high risk population get the flu (hospitalizations, doctor visits, using antibiotics for secondary bacterial infections and miscarriages in pregnant women etc.)



Posted by: Randy

It's funny to hear all the misled comments regarding the flu vaccinations. All I can say is listen to bandaid, she knows what she is talking about.

First off those myths you hear about catching the flu from the flu shot is complete BS.

Second... for healthy people, it is not recommended to begin with.

But as bandaid stated, for those in the specific risk categories like children and elderly people with severe breathing and respiratory disorders, the shot can mean life or death.

Is it guaranteed that the vaccination will prevent ALL the flu strains through the season...No! but they create a vaccination that will put the most dangerous in check in an effort to save numerous lives each year. So for the chance of that, for those in the risk categories, it is a blessing.

What upsets me is seeing how most people payed little attention to even considering getting a flu shot in the past, but now with with the media and the fact that they are in demand, even the healthy people that don't need it are flooding the vaccination clinics... It's a joke. I was glad to see many of these fools that waited for hours were declined.

Reminds me of the biological warfare scare... thousands rushed out and bought gas masks Like they are really going to help. By the time a biological agent was released, you would be dead before you could put on the mask. You would have to be wearing a mask 24 hours a day



Posted by: maniclion

My grandfather got the flu which led to pneumonia and passed away last winter. He was hard headed and thought flu vaccines only helped to create stronger viruses so he refused getting one when his Dr. suggested he get one since his lungs were weak from 30+ years of smoking.



Posted by: Randy

Sorry to hear that Manic... Yes, there are many people that are misinformed, misled, or like you say "hard headed" in regard to the benefits of the flu shot.



Posted by: Randy

Can I give her a flu shot please






Posted by: OceanDude

omg randy - i was not prepared for this picture...
Some things are too beautiful to be believably real. No one can be that pretty in real life...

OD



Posted by: Randy

My thoughts exactly OD...
BUTT it sure would be nice if she was real...
Maybe if we close our eyes and pray hard enough it will come true




(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

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 36 37 38