The religious tie to anti-vaccination must be a regional thing. I know there are a lot of other reasons but that just seems to be the big out around where I live.
Still. It is a public health concern
I'll have to dig up the study sometime later, but last I checked genuine religious reasons only accounted for 20% of all vaccine excemptions. The rest were from the natural medicine crowd. Then there was also a very small number of people who were immunocompromised (you know the people herd immunity is required to protect).
Also the flu vaccine is sort of dependant on what form is being used and the season strains of flu present. On the plus side the reaction to crappy flu shots (both societal and medical) is causing flu vaccines to be developed and remade. For instance the flumist formula protects against more strains than traditional injection and has far fewer complications.
From my personal estimation though even if it's only 30% reduction it is worth affecting a few people every year with side effects if it makes us less likely to experience another Spanish Flu. Similar to how it was worth the extinction of black rats in Europe to end the Black Death and it will be worth the extinction of the mosquito to end malaria if anyone bothered to do so.
The apathetic stance that a person’s individual experience is of no consequence because established science and social stigma tell you otherwise is repellent.
I can sort of tell what you're getting at, but not by the way you say it. Anecdotally, Vesna Vulović survived a fall of 33,000 feet without a parachute when her plane was shot down. Established science (not to mention scores if not hundreds of other examples) suggests that falls from that height are most often fatal. Is it "repellent" for airlines to prevent passengers from freely jumping out of planes from that height?
Vulović's experience is amazing, and by that standard it should never be considered "of no consequence." But, that said, it is not the thing to focus on when deciding whether to jump out of a plane, compared to the weight of evidence of other anecdotes, combined with the science backing why they turned out the way they did.
That said, I'm not sure that flu shots are really all that useful, but I'm not an expert on their efficacity and am willing to change my mind either way, based on weight of evidence.
Around here in Chile it's not mandatory (though I believe schools can bar you from attending if you don't get it), but pretty much 100% of the population voluntarily vaccinates.
Religion has never been involved in the matter, and this is a 93% Christian country. The only ones who are against vaccines are a very small group of extreme antsystemic environmentalist that more or less fall in the far-left end of the spectrum (though their stance seems to have more to do with a "screw the government/vaccines are made by evil corporations" idea than anything else) and the occasional "let nature decide" sort of alternative medicines, and even that is a pretty recent development that doesn't even make it into the statistics.
I know two people that have developed neurological disorders due to a flu shot. It's supposed to be extrememly rare, but watching the effect on my uncle barely being able to walk after only a year, no thanks. I'll take the flu.Will you take that chance with polio, child paralysis, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus?
I wouldn't.
Who takes flu shots? Why?
Those things aren't really related. Taking a vaccine to prevent you or others getting a life-ending disease doesn't really compare to risking your life by taking a shot to hopefully prevent the inconvenience of being sick for a few days.
I'm just saying why I would not ever get a flu shot.People take flu shots because they are told it will decrease their chances of catching the flu. Some folks can;t afford getting the flu or being sick for days at a time. My uncle was a small business owner, and couldn't afford to miss that much work. I'm sure if someone had told him that taking the flu shot meant a slight chance of being unable to work for over a year, im sure he would have rather been sick for a few days instead.
Influenza kills more people in the first world then Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Mumps, Measles, or Rubella. Put together.
In 2010 it killed over fifty thousand people in the US. In 2011 it killed over fifty-three thousand.
The tragic anecdote of your uncle does not make your position regarding the flu shot any less superstitious or foolish.
So what?
Real vaccines prevent the illness for life, Thats why the flu has killed more people than those other diseases combined. Becasue they have real vaccines.Taking a flue shot does not 100% prevent you from getting the flu. It only possibly prevents you from getting the flu of the strain the shot is for. There are plenty of other strains to get.
So, it is completely logical to say "If any possible outcome for getting a flu shot is far worse than actually getting the flu, in an attempt to avoid getting the flu, with no guarantee of success, I choose not to take those odds."
How is that superstitious or foolish?
I know two people that have developed neurological disorders due to a flu shot. It's supposed to be extrememly rare, but watching the effect on my uncle barely being able to walk after only a year, no thanks. I'll take the flu.
Actually, over the past 15 years, I've known three people who ended up in the intensive care unit of hospitals due to influenza. All developed viral pneumonia caused by an influenza infection. Two died, and the one that lived was in the hospital for six months-- and left with a hospital bill of $45,000 AFTER insurance. (A bunch of her friends held a fund raiser for her to help her pay her medical bills so she wouldn't lose her house.) All were in good health before they got ill. The two friends that died were in their late sixties/early seventies. The friend who was in the hospital for six months was in her early 30s. None had gotten the flu shot that year.
Influenza is usually mostly harmless, but it CAN and DOES kill people. Flu shots are an effective preventative. I get one every year, and have done so for 20 years.
Statistically, the risk of complications due to the vaccine are much, much, much smaller than the risks of serious negative outcomes of getting influenza. I'll take the shot, thank you very much.
But, honestly, your odds of getting killed each time you ride in a car are significantly higher than dying of an infectious disease or developing innoculation-related complications.
That sucks Haladir, I'm sorry.
But, getting the flu shot does not prevent any of that from happening.
Not getting a flu shot, prevents 100% any complication from getting one.
I have some family that are anti-vaccine folks. Didn't get their two kids vaccinated. While they re religious, their reasoning is more in-line with the whole natural healing/distrust of big pharma issue.
For what it's worth.
But, getting the flu shot does not prevent any of that from happening.
Not getting a flu shot, prevents 100% any complication from getting one.
But not getting the flu shot makes you much more susceptible to an influenza infection... which itself CAN be life-threatening.
No vaccines are 100% effective for all people... not even the DPT, measles, chicken pox, teatnus, or polio vaccines. Back in college in the late '80s, my dorm was put in quarantine when someone came down with measles, even though she was up-to-date on her immunizations. Fortunately, no one else came down with it, and she ended up being just fine. (Her doctors said that her symptoms were particularly mild, mainly due to her being up-to-date on her shots.)
What vaccines do is greatly decrease the susceptibility of the innoculated individual. Once enough individuals in a population have the decreased susceptibility, the incidence rate of infection in the population goes down, and there are far fewer infections. That's what's meant by "herd immunity."
When enough people in a population aren't immunized, then herd immunity fails, and people who can't be immunized aren't protected.
I consider the choice of not immunizing yourself or your kids to be be extremely selfish, almost to the point of reckless endangerment: You are deliberately choosing to put other people at risk so that you can personally benefit. (If being more susceptible to communicable diseases can be called a benefit.)
|
But, getting the flu shot does not prevent any of that from happening.
Actually, yes it can. It doesn't guarantee that you won't get the flu that season, but there is a chance it will. Don't confuse being 30% protected and being 100% protected 30% of the time.
Not getting a flu shot, prevents 100% any complication from getting one.
Correct.
You have to balance the statistical chance of death or serious impairment from flu against the chance from the vaccine. If you wish, you can factor in the beneficial effect on herd immunity that you are having on the survival of those who are unable to be vaccinated.
Also, if I remember right, even if you catch a different version of the flu, having a flu shot tends to make the effect less (i.e. being immune to a related version makes it easier for your body to fight off the infection).
I am vaccinated for MMR, Polio, etc.
So will my children.
I will not, however, take a flu shot.
I don't think selfish plays into not wanting to get Guillain-Barre syndrome.
We can agree to disagree.
Just look at all the politics in this thread! ^_^
Not weighing in. Just stopping by because I'm bored!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is... whatever we do, people ARE going to die of something. At a certain point, you get too old to handle a flu. That's where most of the 53.000 deaths comes from. The rest consists of cancer patients, people with deficient immune systems, and other severely ill people. They are all at "Fortitude save or die", to put it in RPG terms, because general health is so good that you need to be weakened to die from a flu. Thus... it does not in any way follow that we should give EVERY PERSON a flu vaccine every year to provide them with herd immunity, not to mention it's a severely unlikely scenario to EVER reach herd immunity levels of vaccination. There are few countries today that could reach there indeed, if even Sweden can't do so anymore.
Vaccination is a good thing. It protects YOU from various dangerous diseases. To say that it protects the population, well, that's not really true anymore. If you want to get the shots, do so for you, not others.
There is a sharp difference between old, well-tested vaccines taken one to four times during childhood and used for dozens of years, and high-profit yearly flu shots. Every yearly flu vaccine is a new medical drug. Testing is highly accelerated to make sure the vaccine is ready for flu season. Cheap boosters like thiomersal are added to the mix, because the alternatives aren't profitable enough. Most reliable drugs have decades of use and testing behind them. It's not the area you want to take unnecessary risks in. If we MUST use barely-tested fast-track drugs, then the resulting profit should be big enough, wouldn't you agree? A week in bed, is that enough? No. Give it to those who WOULD have serious consequences from getting sick. And please, when discussing vaccines, maintain the distinction between the old children's vaccines and the new flu vaccines. Consider what would happen if something serious followed for, say, 60% of those who took a certain flu shot, only five to ten years later?
And regarding the vaccine=autism crowd: Autism needs to exist befor the age of 3. The vaccine in question is taken at 4, as I understand it. Seriously, these people DON'T NOTICE that their kid doesn't speak, show emotions, interact with others, or is otherwise showing symptoms of autism, FOR AT LEAST A FULL YEAR???????????
I will not, however, take a flu shot.
I don't think selfish plays into not wanting to get Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Well, you can get Guillain-Barre syndrome from any viral infection, including influenza, injected or not. It's extremely rare, but you can get it from sticking yourself with a sewing needle!
There was a swine flu pandemic in the late 1970s, during which a live-virus vaccine was rushed into production. According to two studies I just looked up, the 1976-77 swine flu outbreak was indeed correlated with an increase in Guillain-Barre cases, and the CDC estimated that the risk of Guillain-Barre from that particular vaccine was approximately 1 in 1,000,000.
Today's flu vaccine does not use live virus, and there is no statistical correlation at all between modern flu vaccines and Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Looking at inlfuenza vaccines in the 30-year period 1980-2010.)
So... I think you should be about ten thousand times more worried about driving in a car than you should be about getting a flu vaccine.
But, I think we've both said what we're going to say about this, and I am bowing out of this discussion now.
Oh yeah... One more thing. If any of you think new drugs need a rigorous testing regimen before widespread use, because of the "principle of caution"... realize that the flu vaccines are EXACTLY what you were talking about then.
Cheap boosters like thiomersal are added to the mix, because the alternatives aren't profitable enough.
Actually, thiomersal is a vaccine preservative, not a booster. It was phased out from childhood vaccines, and has not been present since 2007. The phase-out was due to political pressure (read "hysteria over the discreditied autism thing"), not because there is any medical evidence that it's unsafe. It had been in use since the 1930s.
Do you know how mercury compounds are metabolized in the human body, Haladir?
Do you know what mercury does to most living organisms?
"Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N). In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-life of about 18 days in adults. Ethylmercury is eliminated from the brain in about 14 days in infant monkeys. Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury. Methylmercury and ethylmercury distributes to all body tissues, crossing the blood–brain barrier and the placental barrier, and ethylmercury also moves freely throughout the body. Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative. Though inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer half-life in the brain, at least 120 days, it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood."
From Wikipedia. Sounds good, eh? I particularly liked the part about inorganic mercury from the breakdown lasting for 120 days in the brain.
When I was writing about herd immunity, I had gone back to the subject of the childhood vaccines (MMR, DPT, etc). Influenza does mutate fast enough that establishing full herd immunity is a fool's errand.
Speaking from personal experience (and acknowledging that several anecdotes is NOT data), the one year in the last 20 that I didn't get a flu shot, I caught the flu. It REALLY sucked, and I developed severe bronchitis after the flu symptoms passed. I missed two and a half weeks of work, and was coughing like a Dickensian consumptive for two months.
(In game terms, I really felt like I had four points of Con drain!)
And I would rather have something without mercury in it, or even better, simply bottles of vaccine that had been refrigerated, which apparently is an alternative. If, that is, I really wanted a flu vaccine. Don't put up false alternatives, Hama.
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N). In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.
And you do know that you can die of liver failure if you swallow 10 Tylenol at once, right? By the time symptoms show, you need a liver transplant or you're dead.
Sodium fluoride (the active ingredient in toothpaste) is an effective rat poison.
At the levels they use in vaccines, thiomersal is a safe and effective preservative.
You get twenty times more mercury from eating a tuna salad sandwich.
Okay... I'm really done here.
Lucky I don't eat tuna, then. For that specific reason.
Today's flu vaccine does not use live virus, and there is no statistical correlation at all between modern flu vaccines and Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Looking at inlfuenza vaccines in the 30-year period 1980-2010.)
Awesome! I'll call my Uncle and let him know his doctors are all quacks and he couldn't possibly have Guillain-Barre! He'll be so excited.
Statistically, it should be nigh-impossible to get Guillain-Barre from a flu shot, yet I know 2 people, one being my uncle, that have in the last 3 years.
Today's flu vaccine does not use live virus, and there is no statistical correlation at all between modern flu vaccines and Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Looking at inlfuenza vaccines in the 30-year period 1980-2010.)Awesome! I'll call my Uncle and let him know his doctors are all quacks and he couldn't possibly have Guillain-Barre! He'll be so excited.
Statistically, it should be nigh-impossible to get Guillain-Barre from a flu shot, yet I know 2 people, one being my uncle, that have in the last 3 years.
Blatant, illogical rhetoric.
There is a vast difference between "Has Guillain-Barre"... or any other disease, and "Got GUillain-Barre" from a vaccine".
How pray tell do you know that they got the disease from a vaccine? Not that they got the disease, not that they had a vaccine, but that they got the disease from the vaccine.
Blantant? Yes, I said it.
Illogical? I don't see how, pretty straight forward with the whole cause and effect thing.
Rhetoric? That implies a certain level of dishonesty for an agenda, which I don't have. I don't care if other people get flu shots. I won't.
To answer your question:
In both cases, the specialists their doctors sent them to told them that's how they got it.
One lives in Missouri, one lives in Omaha. Not the same doctor or specialist. Lest there be conspiracy theories...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blantant? Yes, I said it.
Illogical? I don't see how, pretty straight forward with the whole cause and effect thing.
Sorry about the grarg. I just hate this one.
First Correlation equaling causation is an outright logical fallacy on its own.
Linky
Secondly he didn't say that your relatives didn't have the disease, he said they didn't come from the vaccine. Those are two different claims and the sarcastic reply to the first is not an answer to the second.
I don't care if other people get flu shots. I won't.
For the flu I can understand that decision.
In both cases, the specialists their doctors sent them to told them that's how they got it.
One lives in Missouri, one lives in Omaha. Not the same doctor or specialist. Lest there be conspiracy theories...
Any idea how they knew the cause?
Hay, hay.
MK ultra.
Have fun trusting the government ever again.
When the government researches and tests mind-control on unsuspecting individuals, and has it on file...
Blantant? Yes, I said it.
Illogical? I don't see how, pretty straight forward with the whole cause and effect thing.
Rhetoric? That implies a certain level of dishonesty for an agenda, which I don't have. I don't care if other people get flu shots. I won't.To answer your question:
In both cases, the specialists their doctors sent them to told them that's how they got it.
One lives in Missouri, one lives in Omaha. Not the same doctor or specialist. Lest there be conspiracy theories...
any other ways to get it? Is their a susceptibility in your family line?
And I would rather have something without mercury in it, or even better, simply bottles of vaccine that had been refrigerated, which apparently is an alternative. If, that is, I really wanted a flu vaccine. Don't put up false alternatives, Hama.
The refrigeration isn't an option without every clinic having refrigeration trucks which for smaller communities is not an option due to obscene costs.
Ethylmercury is eliminated from the human blood stream in under two weeks (slightly depends on metabolism but is mostly the half-life) and has about as much in common with the mercury you're thinking of (and have in your fluorescent lights) as water has with hydrogen peroxide. If vaccine mercury was harmful you'd huge swaths of the population suffering from long term mercury poisoning, which is something we've studied and can observe. Specifically long term mercury poisoning was discovered to be hilariously common among high school and college science professors in outdated lab areas due to broken thermometer mercury pooling under work stations. If their vaccines were causing mercury related harm their degradation in health wouldn't stand out from the general population.
Not a fan of anti vaxers.... Resisting urge to go on a thermonuclear rant and will hide the thread.
Murder is a tricky topic Kirth. There are a wide range of instances where one persons murder is another persons freedom. Abortion, Stand your ground laws, Death Penalty, and even vaccines, Dr. assisted suicide, Persistent vegitative states etc etc.That said, my Texan children and I are are vaccinated against nearly everything the lone exception being influenza. The vaccines effectiveness in preventing influenza respiratory illness can be as low as 30%-40% so nothing gained nothing lost in my opinion.
We have a (usually) higher success rate with the flu shot here in Ontario but - yeah it is never 100% (or even 70% most years :( ).
When it was the H1N1 strain I got my shot. Last 2 years I didn't. Didn't get sick any of those years (but I take all the normal percautions - lots of hand washing, cover my mouth when I sneeze/cough and actively avoid large groups of people whenever possible.). It is the really nasty stuff you gotta gets shots for - smallpox, polio etc. Those are horrific diseases that disabled millions. The vaccines for them were one of the greatest triumphs in medicine, imo.
Sorry about the grarg. I just hate this one.
Apology accepted :)
First Correlation equaling causation is an outright logical fallacy on its own.
Linky
This is true. Like the lack of Caribbean piracy lead to global warming...
However, in this circumstance, all I have to go on is that my Uncle Brad is not a dishonest man, and he believes his doctors. I therefore do not think it fits those terms.For the flu I can understand that decision.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Any idea how they knew the cause?
I have no idea, but I will see if he remembers if they mentioned it to him.
In general, I would like to reiterate that I'm not against child vaccination. I just don't feel the benefits of a flu shot outweigh the possible negatives.
any other ways to get it? Is their a susceptibility in your family line?Blantant? Yes, I said it.
Illogical? I don't see how, pretty straight forward with the whole cause and effect thing.
Rhetoric? That implies a certain level of dishonesty for an agenda, which I don't have. I don't care if other people get flu shots. I won't.To answer your question:
In both cases, the specialists their doctors sent them to told them that's how they got it.
One lives in Missouri, one lives in Omaha. Not the same doctor or specialist. Lest there be conspiracy theories...
Possible, but he's my Uncle through marriage, not blood. The other person that it's happened to is a close friend of my cousin. No relation there at all.
We have no family history of any neurological diseases/problems.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hama I realize everybody's cultural assumptions are transparent to them, but do you seriously not see any problem in the scenario where the government decides that such-and-such medical procedure is "for your own good" and then requires everybody to undergo it, with no opt-out?
'Cause see in the US we had this little thing called the Tuskegee experiment. And you may be familiar with the history of Romania under Ceaucescu?
I have a friend whom I have known since we were kids (mid 70s). She's a rabid anti-vaxxer and is constantly posting to FB about the risks, horrors, and attempts by the government to create "vaccinations" that make children more susceptible to autism and mind-control by the government run "liberal media". Yup. That last part is part of her reasoning. She even posted once about how her 8 year old son had run a fever that regularly hit 104 degrees F for over a week and that it was good for him, helping him to be able to resist fevers in the future. *headdesk*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a friend whom I have known since we were kids (mid 70s). She's a rabid anti-vaxxer ...
If only she weren't an anti-vaxxer she could have been vaccinated for rabies!
She'd just have to take it every ten years or so. The rabies vaccine isn't all that effective, but it does help even if taken after the infection, which is unusual.
|
Hama I realize everybody's cultural assumptions are transparent to them, but do you seriously not see any problem in the scenario where the government decides that such-and-such medical procedure is "for your own good" and then requires everybody to undergo it, with no opt-out?
'Cause see in the US we had this little thing called the Tuskegee experiment. And you may be familiar with the history of Romania under Ceaucescu?
That is one thing. People willfully endangering their and other people's children because they are ignorant is another. And that second thing must not be allowed.
Also, you know that government puts fluoride in the tap water, so that risk of tooth cavities is lowered? I think that is a good thing, but there are some rabid detractors of this practice, because fluoride is on the periodic table and it is dangerous and we are ignorant an just spout BS
I have a friend whom I have known since we were kids (mid 70s). She's a rabid anti-vaxxer ...If only she weren't an anti-vaxxer she could have been vaccinated for rabies!
I got those in africa.
They wouldn't give me the tag :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you know that government puts fluoride in the tap water, so that risk of tooth cavities is lowered? I think that is a good thing, but there are some rabid detractors of this practice, because fluoride is on the periodic table and it is dangerous and we are ignorant an just spout BS
Given some of the screwed up things out government has done and the lies its told people this sort of reaction is kind of a given.
However, in this circumstance, all I have to go on is that my Uncle Brad is not a dishonest man, and he believes his doctors. I therefore do not think it fits those terms.
Your response fit those terms, even if the situation might not.
I have no idea, but I will see if he remembers if they mentioned it to him.
Just remember its not a lack of honesty, but we are playing telephone with the information here. Vaccines could have been listed as a possible cause which in translation wound up being THE cause.
In general, I would like to reiterate that I'm not against child vaccination. I just don't feel the benefits of a flu shot outweigh the possible negatives.
Didn't know that qualified you as an anti vaccinator. I usually don't get a flu shot either.
INterestingly I'm "against" the flu shot because i think it needs more work. Everyone i know who got one even in recent years ended up gEtting the flu. Not just sick for a few as their body adapted, but the flu, full blown. Also, i don't plan on getting inoculated against it until i am at an age where it is a true danger.
Chicken pox? Maybe when i have kids, yeah.
