Vaccine Discussion Master Thread

[Barryg]

How are flu vaccines that much different than other vaccines?

Flu vaccines are known to be a guess in the strain and, therefore, there is less of a chance that the vaccine helps. They are also usually made quicker and have less testing done before available to the public.

[skyguy918]

Flu vaccines change every year and therefore do not have the luxury of being tested by many scientists over a matter of years. Furthermore The other vaccines have a higher success rate, and treat a more deadly disease (except possibly in the very young and elderly).

I still believe it is important to get the flu vaccine if you have any contact with at-risk groups but I can see a stronger argument being made to avoid it as opposed to the others.

+1, I know of at least one pediatrician that does selective vaccination. She heavily researches both the vaccine and the disease it's designed to protect against and makes a determination as to whether it's necessary. That's not to say specifically that she doesn't recommend the flu vaccine (I don't actually know), but the point is that people lump everything together when each vaccine may be at least a slightly different discussion.

[Achas Veachas]

I don't know how you know that their desire to be "open minded" and "thinking for themselves" comes solely from these books but the fact that these people who consider themselves to be open minded and thinking are singing the same tune should at least make you think.

I did not say it comes from reading these books. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

[YankyDoodle]

+1, I know of at least one pediatrician that does selective vaccination. She heavily researches both the vaccine and the disease it's designed to protect against and makes a determination as to whether it's necessary. That's not to say specifically that she doesn't recommend the flu vaccine (I don't actually know), but the point is that people lump everything together when each vaccine may be at least a slightly different discussion.

Yes but MMR, Hepatitis B, tdap and Polio amongst others are crucial life-saving shots that have been tested long enough and shown enough worth to be an accepted part of society today. Ppl who argue against it (yet might even take it themselves) just leave the ignorant masses confused and a danger to themselves and others.

[elikay]

The flu shot has a terrible track record compared to other vaccinations.

[jaywhy]

You use that chart to say that no one became infertile as a result. The chart makes no mention on fertility checks. One possible reason why it does not discuss fertility issues is because many of these studies were done on Orthodox Jewish boys who would be hesitant to participate in such a study.

To paraphrase this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633545/:
Impairment of fertility is estimated to occur in about 13% of patients, while 30%-87% of patients with bilateral mumps orchitis experience infertility. 10%-30% of orchitis is bilateral.
From your chart it seems that about 11.3% of unvaccinated patients had orchitis.

This adds up to (on the high end) .87*.3*.113 = 3% of unvaccinated people afflicted with mumps are infertile (with a much larger # being subfertile and requiring IVF for the hope of having children).

Not sure where you see 2% difference. Regardless you are not reading that chart correctly. If you want to make comparisons between different groups you must use the 95% CI. The difference in orchitis is a statistically significant difference while all the others you mentioned are not (and therefore likely anomalies).

Redo your math using the CI.

[jaywhy]

I don't pretend to know how to read what you posted, but it seems like the testicle issues occur in 11% of non-vaccinated versus 3% of vaccinated.

Did you read the links I posted?

Yes. What point are you trying to prove with the 2nd one?

[Dan]

Yes. What point are you trying to prove with the 2nd one?

No idea didn't even read it

[jaywhy]

Flu vaccines change every year and therefore do not have the luxury of being tested by many scientists over a matter of years. Furthermore The other vaccines have a higher success rate, and treat a more deadly disease (except possibly in the very young and elderly).

I still believe it is important to get the flu vaccine if you have any contact with at-risk groups but I can see a stronger argument being made to avoid it as opposed to the others.

Yes but MMR, Hepatitis B, tdap and Polio amongst others are crucial life-saving shots that have been tested long enough and shown enough worth to be an accepted part of society today. Ppl who argue against it (yet might even take it themselves) just leave the ignorant masses confused and a danger to themselves and others.

You really need to do some more research if you believe that. Start with VAERS

[YankyDoodle]

Redo your math using the CI.

You skipped my entire point bec. you feel I may have made a mistake with the confidence intervals? There is a huge risk of infertility in ppl who contract mumps! Not getting the vaccine puts individuals (and others) at much greater risk of contracting mumps. Unless you don't consider infertility a major concern it behooves you to keep it in the discussion of the risks of not vaccinating with the MMR vaccine.

Regarding the CI, they are only measuring the rate ratio which is a measure used to determine ones risk of getting the condition being studied. I do not believe that this changes the fact that the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is statistically significant. If you'd like to discuss this irrelevant part further, let's do it on PM to not distract from the main point.

[jaywhy]

I did not say it comes from reading these books. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

You sure implied it. Maybe look at it the other way around.
These people are open-minded and think for themselves, maybe that's why they are reading such books.

[YankyDoodle]

:oYou really need to do some more research if you believe that. Start with VAERS

Please be more clear about what you are trying to imply. Linking me to the homepage for AE for vaccines is not very specific. Are you trying to say that flu vaccines are heavily tested?

[Achas Veachas]

You sure implied it. Maybe look at it the other way around.
These people are open-minded and think for themselves, maybe that's why they are reading such books.

I think you missed my point, I was saying that they are being "open minded" in accepting their opinion, but when presented with facts that say otherwise they would snap shut.

[Barryg]

I think you missed my point, I was saying that they are being "open minded" in accepting their opinion, but when presented with facts that say otherwise they would snap shut.

Any why would they do this?

[skyguy918]

Yes but MMR, Hepatitis B, tdap and Polio amongst others are crucial life-saving shots that have been tested long enough and shown enough worth to be an accepted part of society today. Ppl who argue against it (yet might even take it themselves) just leave the ignorant masses confused and a danger to themselves and others.

And I'm fairly certain those are not among the vaccines that she doesn't give. Nothing in my post implies otherwise.

[YankyDoodle]

And I'm fairly certain those are not among the vaccines that she doesn't give. Nothing in my post implies otherwise.

Sorry it wasn't directed towards you at all!

[Galitzyaner]

I think you missed my point, I was saying that they are being "open minded" in accepting their opinion, but when presented with facts that say otherwise they would snap shut.

Having followed this thread from the start, something tells me it occurs the other way around as well

[jaywhy]

You skipped my entire point bec. you feel I may have made a mistake with the confidence intervals? There is a huge risk of infertility in ppl who contract mumps! Not getting the vaccine puts individuals (and others) at much greater risk of contracting mumps. Unless you don't consider infertility a major concern it behooves you to keep it in the discussion of the risks of not vaccinating with the MMR vaccine.

Regarding the CI, they are only measuring the rate ratio which is a measure used to determine ones risk of getting the condition being studied. I do not believe that this changes the fact that the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is statistically significant. If you'd like to discuss this irrelevant part further, let's do it on PM to not distract from the main point.

Agreed. Let's keep the irrelevance out of the discussion.

I agree with your point that contracting mumps puts one at risk of fertility problems and that infertility is a major concern.

The question I hope we can all address civilly is whether getting the MMR vaccine really helps to prevent the disease and if it does, whether the complications that can result from getting the vaccine should preclude one from getting it.

[jaywhy]

No idea didn't even read it

Lol. Because it was about natural recovery from orchitis.

Honest question: Have you ever done any of your own research about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines that you are injecting your children with? Other than what your MD tells you and you can read in the conventional publications.

[jaywhy]

Please be more clear about what you are trying to imply. Linking me to the homepage for AE for vaccines is not very specific. Are you trying to say that flu vaccines are heavily tested?

We both agree that they are not.
Here is a query from the government administrated Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System showing how over 1000 people died as a result of the various flu vaccines administered each year. This is only the people or doctors who went through the laborious process of reporting an adverse event and does not count the many which are not reported.
This query shows over 11,000 cases of serious side effects as a direct result of the aforementioned flu vaccine.