Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2012 12:41:59 GMT -5
I got a flu shot once. I was pregnant with #2, and that year I got the flu so badly I had to be hospitalized. Not that i think i got it from the shot, just that it was in no way protective. Sometimes I think flu shots are like sunscreen... you use them and somehow think everything is okey dokey now... so you don't take the normal, common sense precautions one should always take. Honestly, I don't think HINI was not as bad as they thought it might be because of vaccine... I think its because we all were vigilant that year about doing exactly what we are supposed to do to keep contagious illness from spreading. Now, we are in a more enviable position, homeschooling, etc. in a way because we don't have to every go around other kids if we are sick, are in much more controlled groups most of the time as far as who might be sick... but a lot of keeping illness at bay is hygeine, cleanliness, (not to mention eating well, rest, etc.)... Now that i've tempted fate by lecturings, i'm sure we'll all get the flu this year ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2012 13:15:40 GMT -5
Since when did getting a flu shot become this almost patriotic thing to do? I am not opposed to vaccines, but it needs to have a proven track record of working....like MMR and polo vaccinations. The flu shot has had very mixed results over the years, and some studies suggest the likelihood of getting sick is not statistically different if you do or don't get a flu shot. In short, you're more likely to be spared from certain strains but also more susceptible to sickness in the short-term while your body attempts to build immunities. The efficacy rate quoted by the CDC is obviously arbitrary to an extent. For decades, they said it was 70-90% effective...after some real research was done and they were called out for making up numbers, they quietly lowered the range to 50-70%. Here's a pretty level-headed explanation on how flu vaccines work and don't work. The conclusion on whether or not people should get vaccinated: "it depends". chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa011604a.htm
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2012 14:05:59 GMT -5
I have never had the flu shot. I think the last time I had the flu was 2006. It was the first year I was in a classroom in Michigan. Those little buggers gave me so many diseases that year! I got strep, flu, pneumonia...I thought I was going to DIE! Best diet ever though! I lost like 12 pounds that month. The pneumonia was the worst! I felt like I had an elephant sitting on my chest for almost 2 months. Anyway...I just never get the flu shot. I rarely get sick other than migraines.
|
|
me4kids
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 20:46:03 GMT -5
Posts: 75
|
Post by me4kids on Sept 29, 2012 14:28:54 GMT -5
My family and I have gotten the flu shot every year for the last 7 years or so, ever since we switched over to the Kaiser HMO. My DH and 3 of my children have asthma.
I work at an elementary school. We get the occasional cold, but it's been awhile since we've had the flu.
ETA: Kaiser members get a free flu shot.
|
|
Sammy
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,335
|
Post by Sammy on Sept 29, 2012 20:12:36 GMT -5
Green Eyed: I am on my 4th day of being home with what was diagnosed as Influenza A. About Tuesday, I thought I was going to die and I didn't care if I did. I don't believe I have ever been this sick. Get your shot and get your kids their shots. I had an appointment to get my shot yesterday. I waited too long.
Green Eyed: I'm on day 6 of the flu. There is no way in hell I would let my children (if I had them) go through this if there was ANYTHING I could do about it. And, to me, a 70% chance is better than nothing. This stuff isn't a bad cold. It is "flat on your back thinking you may die with an elephant sitting on your chest, whole body feeling like you've been beaten" illness. And as someone has said, the secondary stuff you can get because your immune system is down is even worse.
Get your shots!Green Eyed Lady, I was pregnant with my daughter when my husband got sick. Less than 24 hours later I started to feel lousy. Two weeks later both of us were finally on the way to recovery. We had what at the time was called the Hong Kong flu. Your statement of feeling like you were going to die is right on the mark. I've never been so miserably sick before nor since then. We were in our mid 20's and healthy which was a positive factor in recovering. I just can't imagine anyone with a health problem to begin with surviving the stronger strains of the flu. Oh, and we had no contact with school aged kids. Relatives of both our families died during the 1918 flu epidemic and I can recall my grandmother telling me how neighbors would take in children left orphaned because their parents died in the 1918 flu epidemic. I've been getting the shot yearly because I am terrified of getting that sick again. Continue to recover and hopefully real soon.
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Sept 29, 2012 20:21:06 GMT -5
I get the flu shot every year and I get the pneumonia shot every 4 years. I've had and lived through drug resistance pneumonia twice, it's not pretty.
ETA: They don't give out the pneumonia shot now every 4 years. If you got it at least once, maximum twice then your covered according to their new studies. I found out though that your covered for some 23 types and there is something like 90 different types.
|
|
Malarky
Junior Associate
Truth and snark are equal opportunity here.
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 21:00:51 GMT -5
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by Malarky on Sept 29, 2012 20:21:38 GMT -5
Sammy,
Was that back in 1967?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 29, 2012 21:19:39 GMT -5
Welts have you ever wondered why we as a society are now plagued with more autoimmune diseases than ever before in history? ----------------- No, I don't have to wonder. We're getting fatter and fatter, so obese that we need scooters to get around because our legs cannot support us any more. Diabetes and RA are autoimmune disorders. As a society, we pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. We poison the whole environment. Did you know that blood tests reveal that all of us have large amounts of fire-retardant in our systems? There's particulate in our lungs, lead, heavy metals, medications in the water we drink, and don't get me started on the pesticide and preservative crap in our "food". You want to blame the one thing that's keeping us healthier and keeping million of us from dying? Go right ahead.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 29, 2012 21:23:10 GMT -5
Over the past 40 years, a class of chemicals with the tongue-twisting name of halogenated flame retardants has permeated the lives of people throughout the industrialized world. These synthetic chemicals — used in electronics, upholstery, carpets, textiles, insulation, vehicle and airplane parts, children’s clothes and strollers, and many other products — have proven very effective at making petroleum-based materials resist fire. Yet many of these compounds have also turned out to be environmentally mobile and persistent — turning up in food and household dust — and are now so ubiquitous that levels of the chemicals in the blood of North Americans appear to have been doubling every two to five years for the past several decades. Acting on growing evidence that these flame retardants can accumulate in people and cause adverse health effects — interfering with hormones, reproductive systems, thyroid and metabolic function, and neurological development in infants and children — the federal government and various states have limited or banned the use of some of these chemicals, as have other countries. Several are restricted by the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. Many individual companies have voluntarily discontinued production and use of these compounds. Yet despite these restrictions, evidence has emerged in recent months that efforts to curtail the use of such flame retardants — a $4 billion-a-year industry globally — and to limit their impacts on human health may not be succeeding. e360.yale.edu/feature/pbdes_are_flame_retardants_safe_growing_evidence_says_no/2446/
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 29, 2012 21:27:12 GMT -5
Think about it the next time you're slamming a hundred little kids with that crap. You know, the ones who have no say in the matter of what goes into their bodies. ----------------- Sure, slam me for trying to keep them healthier. Who needs protection from flu, hepatitis, tetanus, etc.? I should have them all drink peroxide.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2012 21:34:20 GMT -5
I am not anti vaccination. I've actually been known to ask for some. 1) But I don't see the benefit of flu shots, for us particularly as i've said. 2) I am not having my daughter get the HPV.
and 3).... and I wonder about your thoughts on this welts... I am absolutely NOT a fan of our vaccination SCHEDULE. I think we give too many, too young, without real informed consent and thoughtful, indivdiual consideration.
If i had a baby today, I would probably still give them near all the vaccinations, eventually, but i would NOT do so on the recommended schedule.
Also, what are your thoughts on titers?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 29, 2012 22:18:25 GMT -5
Oped, if I had a daughter, I would most definitely have her get the HPV vaccine. I don't know why the WHO chose the schedule they did. I agree it seems a bit much and it may be a good idea to stagger them a bit more. I don't know how you do it over there, but here we go to the schools to give the vaccinations. Sometimes we have to play "catch up" with new immigrant kids or kids who were absent when we were there to do the Varivax or whatever. Then we have to give three at once and I HATE doing that. I think it's too much for a little body, but we've had no untoward effects. As far as titering, sometimes it may be useful, but most times unnecessary. If we're unsure if a patient is current on tetanus booster, for example, we just give it again. It doesn't hurt them. If they weren't current, then good, now they have it. If they were current, the body recognises the culprit in the vaccine and mounts the appropriate defence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2012 22:28:31 GMT -5
Birth
Hepatitis B #1
2 months
DTaP #1 Polio #1 Hib #1 Hepatitis B #2 Pneumococcus #1 Rotavirus #1
4 months
DTaP #2 Polio #2 Hib #2 Pneumococcus #2 Rotavirus #2
6 months**
DTaP #3 Hib #3 (depending on the type of Hib vaccine used, this dose may be omitted) Pneumococcus #3 Rotavirus #3
6-18 months
MMR#1 Varicella#1 Hepatitis A (2 doses separated by 6 months) Hib #4 Polio #3 Hepatitis B #3 Pneumococcus #4 DTaP #4
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Sept 29, 2012 23:41:18 GMT -5
Oped, I think some of the thinking of the vax schedule is get the vaccines as early as possible (to protect the child sooner), get them while the parent is bringing the kid in for well baby visits anyways (As opposed to waiting until the child is older and doesn't get seen by a med provider as much), and try to group them together so they are more efficiently given.
If you look at the schedule, there are many more diseases that are covered than we had as children. I grew up in the 1980s and as far as I remember, we didn't have Hib, rotavirus, chicken pox, hep A, Hep B, and Pneumonia vaccines. I didn't even get my second MMR until I was in college (and that was only because the third college I went to required it and I pulled my vax records at that time).
I did take an immunology class last year and we covered some info on vaccinations. In present vaccines, the amount of virus/bacteria we receive is substantially lower than the amount that were in vaccines of the past. This means that the immune response is lower. So, even though are having more vaccinations, the overall load on the immune system is lower than what we got as children. That is a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2012 23:58:48 GMT -5
Why do we, in the United States, need to blanket provide Hep B vaccination to infants? ... makes no sense. I had them when I was an adult, when I began working with populations who were more likely to be infected. I can see vaccinating earlier, even fairly young, if a child were likely to come into contact with an infected person, but why for all infants ??
I feel this way about a lot of these. While they might serve a purpose, I feel there is unnecessary danger in the way they are administered.
I see Hep A is now standard as well. I requested that for my kids when they were 7 and 9... when we went to Romania for the first time and there was a greater likeihood of coming into contact with it... when it was needed.
In addition to immune response, there are additives, etc. in these vaccinations.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 30, 2012 0:07:21 GMT -5
I believe that there are 2 reasons why the immunizations are given on this schedule. First, when we immunize animals in order to develop maximum antibody titters in the lab, the schedule is very similar to that that is given to naive populations (babies).
Secondly, and probably most importantly, it is scheduled to go along with well baby check ups. I read a study that immunization series were most likely completed when they are done along with this schedule, so it is largely due to convenience.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Sept 30, 2012 0:07:52 GMT -5
I can understand the concern about stuff like Hep B. I didn't get mine until I entered the military in my 20s. The only thing I can think of for it being that early is so that it can be included with the other ones, when parents are more apt to get the vaccines done. By putting as many diseases into that time, it is more efficient and increases the chances that the person will get it.
As far as Hep A, I can see why children would get it. You can get that from food (I think the first cases that were discovered in the US were in a family of children who got it from eating donuts that were made by a baker who had it and didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom.). Because children have a lower immune system that adults, it is better if they have protection from something like Hep A that is transmitted through food/poor sanitation. Daycares are particular areas where Hep A spreads-this will help protect the children more.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 30, 2012 0:12:03 GMT -5
Why do we, in the United States, need to blanket provide Hep B vaccination to infants? ... makes no sense. I had them when I was an adult, when I began working with populations who were more likely to be infected. I can see vaccinating earlier, even fairly young, if a child were likely to come into contact with an infected person, but why for all infants ?? I feel this way about a lot of these. While they might serve a purpose, I feel there is unnecessary danger in the way they are administered. I see Hep A is now standard as well. I requested that for my kids when they were 7 and 9... when we went to Romania for the first time and there was a greater likeihood of coming into contact with it... when it was needed. In addition to immune response, there are additives, etc. in these vaccinations. Probably because it would not be done otherwise. Hep B is a series and it is more likely to be completed if it is included along with the other series. As far as I know, once you have the series, it confers lifelong protection. I heard a study of those healthcare professionals who were immunized when the vaccine came out....I think it was in the 1980s....have never needed to be reimmunized, that it is still effective 30 years later.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 0:17:36 GMT -5
Ok. The majority of Hep A in the US is contracted by young adults who visit countries with higher incidence, without getting a vac first... why must we ALL vaccinate our infants, just in case they might decide to go to a country in their young adulthood and not realize they need a vac first... wouldn't it be better to just work on improving knowledge and access to necessary vacs for those travelers?
I don't think vaccinating all kids so that a small number avoid infection, is appropriate, particularly when it is rarely fatal and most children who contract it are not even symptomatic.
|
|
daisylu
Junior Associate
Enter your message here...
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 6:04:42 GMT -5
Posts: 6,856
|
Post by daisylu on Sept 30, 2012 5:39:24 GMT -5
DS had the swine flu when he was 7. It was awful, and he still deals with respiratory complications from it 3 years later. We also spend a lot of time with my nephew, 6yo, who has severe asthma so we get the flu shot every year now. The real flu is something I hope to never experience again, and I especially want to spare my kid(s) from having to go through it again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 8:55:15 GMT -5
Secondly, and probably most importantly, it is scheduled to go along with well baby check ups. I read a study that immunization series were most likely completed when they are done along with this schedule, so it is largely due to convenience. I'm glad I'm not making these decisions for a baby right now. I'd sit down instead with the doc and ask what they REALLY need, when. If some aren't needed till age 10 I'd be back then. I'm an adult and I can handle the responsibility of getting my kid medical care when it's necessary. I'm not a medical professional but it just goes against my grain to shoot a tiny baby full of immunizations and whatever other crap is in that needle. Remember when they included a little mercury on the side? I got the Hep A/B (I think it was A and B) series as an adult because I was traveling to India a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 9:56:34 GMT -5
The way my ped explained it is that children are exposed to more germs every day by existing than are introduced by vaccinations. I have no problem with the hep b vaccination being given to babies. Not every kid is going to be responsible enough to get vaccinated before engaging in dangerous behaviors. Most adults will have unprotected sex in their lives. If there is a great likelihood, statistically, that DS will have sex without a condom then why would I think he will get vaccinated before he has sex? I knew kids having sex in the 5th and 6th grade. Some children will be molested. Not to mention that it's a pretty tiny portion of the population that practices safe oral sex. It's the same reason DS will be getting the HPV vax. We mix and mingle with people from all over the world. Diseases don't just stay in their country of origin. A major outbreak of measles in the L.A. area was started by one of Dr. Sears patients that had traveled overseas. Seth Mnookin wrote a great book on why people are afraid of vaccinations. www.amazon.com/Panic-Virus-Story-Medicine-Science/dp/B004WB1AACThis is a great article with a local pediatric intensivist about vaccinations: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/cristofani.html
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 10:53:26 GMT -5
You know what I think is panic driven... the application of 24 shots in the first year of a child's life... What prompts that, besides fear ?? ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 11:35:35 GMT -5
You know what I think is panic driven... the application of 24 shots in the first year of a child's life... What prompts that, besides fear ?? ... Humans fear risk. Unfortunately we are really bad at judging the relative dangers between actions. It's why most people are so bad at investing.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 30, 2012 13:24:54 GMT -5
You know what I think is panic driven... the application of 24 shots in the first year of a child's life... What prompts that, besides fear ?? ... Maybe death? I'm of the generation where some of my cohorts died from measles. My mom's boss's child caught them from me....and he died from them. A post doc from our lab caught chicken pox from her nephew. She spent 3 weeks in ICU and nearly died. A coworker's wife lost all of her fingers and toes from a secondary infection after she caught the flu in medical school. She spent months in the hospital recovering and lst a year of medical school. Childhood diseases are not innocuous for some.
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Sept 30, 2012 13:33:23 GMT -5
I caught one of my drug resistant pneumonia infections from my great nephew. Kids are walking petri dishes. And from that infection I got Adult onset Asthma.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 13:38:52 GMT -5
So, i'm not sure how your statement contradicts mine? Fear of death, disease, panic at the idea of children being sick... that's what prompts 24 inoculations in the first year...
I also agree with anne wholeheartedly, that people aren't always good at judging relative dangers between actions.
What I DON'T agree with is the idea that, if someone points to questionable practices in the vaccination protocol... THEY are the ones panicking and unable to clearly judge relative danger...
If I had a baby now, I would not give most vaccines in the first year. I would probably choose to vaccinate against most at some point, the MMR you are discussing earlier due to the nature of kids getting those illnesses, but barring a specific threat (ie. living with an infected person, traveling to another country) I would NOT give Hep vaccines until they were significantly older... because there the risk of them contracting one of those, and of it being an issue if they did, is very low... so there is no purpose, nor point in introducing even remote risk to a newborn in my opinion in order to 'protect' against them. Just like I would not, given the choice today, circumcise a boy infant.
There are too many things we do 'just because'... and they are sold through fear. I think its better to be informed and make decisions based on judgment, rather than just 'cause' the medical establishment... which makes $$ off of my care... suggests it is prudent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 15:06:26 GMT -5
but barring a specific threat (ie. living with an infected person, traveling to another country) I would NOT give Hep vaccines until they were significantly older... because there the risk of them contracting one of those, and of it being an issue if they did, is very low... so there is no purpose, nor point in introducing even remote risk to a newborn in my opinion in order to 'protect' against them. But how do you know their risk is low? A good chunk of people who are infected aren't aware of it. The vaccine was introduced in the 80's. Newborns are more at risk than older children because they are more likely to develop the chronic form. Something like 90% of babies that are exposed will develop it while 90% of adults that are exposed will fight it off. Also the rate of severe complication for vaccinating against it is about 1 in 100,000, while the incidence rate of getting hep b is about 3,000-4,000 per 100,000. That's what I mean about judging risk.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 15:39:17 GMT -5
Rates of ALL people getting hep b. The rate of hep b in children 19 and younger was 3.03 in 100,000 in 1990, the year before the vaccination became recommended. And that includes ALL ages 0-19... the rate among 15-19 year olds was 8.69 per 100,000... meaning the rate of contraction among 0-14 year olds was almost non-existant. So, if you want to give 12 year olds this vaccine... fine... but there is NO REASON that ALL infants should be innoculated.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:20:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 16:38:01 GMT -5
I'm not understanding your argument - the chart shows falling rates of Hep B amongst all age groups due to vaccination. Isn't that an argument for vaccinating? It also doesn't show the rate of infection amongst unvaccinated kids.
In addition it's a chart that shows acute hepatitis. Most adults with acute hepatitis will shake it off and get rid of the virus entirely. 90% of infants who contract acute hepatitis will develop chronic hepatitis, which can have long term negative effects on health. 30% of people who are infected with hepatitis have no known risk factors. (this is all on the CDC and hep b foundation websites). Chronic hep b is the cause of 80% of liver cancers. By giving it only to adults or older children you are missing the chance to protect the most vulnerable population - infants.
|
|