The flu vaccine & GBS

elkpark · Sep 23, 2014

But the problem is that the conspiracy theorists and paranoiacs don't care about the numbers and don't believe anything the CDC says. If one person ever got GBS after receiving a flu shot, that means the flu shot is too dangerous to take and anyone who says otherwise is part of the conspiracy ... :sarcastic:

classicdame, MSN, EdD · Sep 23, 2014

Dynamed reports that most GBS is secondary to campylobacter jejuni infection, mycoplasma pneumoniae, non-polio enterovirus or absense of antiganglioside antibodies. It is associated with autoimmune disorders and, really, no one knows what triggers it in some cases. The above conditions are rated higher risk factors that the flu vaccine.

classicdame, MSN, EdD · Sep 23, 2014

In case you are not familiar, Dynamed is a subscription service directed to MD's and provides links to juried periodicals and research.

Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN · Sep 23, 2014

Just for argument sake...the flu vaccine back in the late 70's early 80's did cause an increase of Guillian Barre. THey finally admitted it in 2003. Some of us have trust issues. I had 3 co-workers struck ill with GB after the Swine flu vaccine. My memory is very clear from caring for them......vented.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.

Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program - Volume 12, Number 1â€”January 2006 - Emerging Infectious Disease journal - CDC

poppycat, ADN, BSN · Sep 24, 2014

I guess I worked NICU too long because when I saw GBS in this headline, my brain went to group B strep!

duskyjewel · Sep 24, 2014

I guess I worked NICU too long because when I saw GBS in this headline, my brain went to group B strep!

You weren't the only one. :)

allnurses Guide · Sep 24, 2014

I guess I worked NICU too long because when I saw GBS in this headline, my brain went to group B strep!

Mine too (L&D nurse for 9 years).

It is very frustrating for me because I have a daughter-in-law whose mother and aunt were raised by a Christian Science mom and they are very skeptical about just about everything. They spread misinformation about vaccines all the time and flu vaccine is #1 right now.

Fortunately, my daughter-in-law got her flu shot when she was preggers and my granddaughter got her shot this year due to being in day care (don't even get me started on putting a baby in day care :banghead: ).

But my dil won't be getting another flu shot . . . "It hurt and I felt kind of sick for a few days".

Yeah, well . . .the flu will kick your butt honey . . way worse than your immune system kicking in.

Oh - and ESME . . .1976 was a long long time ago. I had just gotten out of high school!

Mommy&RN, BSN, RN · Sep 24, 2014

My mother had GBS in 1986, (had not had flu vax) as she got "older" (she died in 2/14 at the age of 53.) she never received any flu vax after GBS. Just didn't seem wise...

As for me, I still get it every year, and I'm really not too worried about GBS

allnurses Guide · Sep 24, 2014

Just for argument sake...the flu vaccine back in the late 70's early 80's did cause an increase of Guillian Barre. THey finally admitted it in 2003. Some of us have trust issues. I had 3 co-workers struck ill with GB after the Swine flu vaccine. My memory is very clear from caring for them......vented.Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program - Volume 12, Number 1â€”January 2006 - Emerging Infectious Disease journal - CDC

Actually, no they never came out and said it was linked together. What was stated was there seemed to be an increase incidence around vaccine recipients.

[h=5]"Guillain-Barré Syndrome[/h]What NIIP did not and could not survive, however, was the second blow, finding cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) among persons receiving swine flu immunizations. As of 1976, >50 "antecedent events" had been identified in temporal relationship to GBS, events that were considered as possible factors in its cause. The list included viral infections, injections, and "being struck by lightning." Whether or not any of the antecedents had a causal relationship to GBS was, and remains, unclear. When cases of GBS were identified among recipients of the swine flu vaccines, they were, of course, well covered by the press. Because GBS cases are always present in the population, the necessary public health questions concerning the cases among vaccine recipients were "Is the number of cases of GBS among vaccine recipients higher than would be expected? And if so, are the increased cases the result of increased surveillance or a true increase?" Leading epidemiologists debated these points, but the consensus, based on the intensified surveillance for GBS (and other conditions) in recipients of the vaccines, was that the number of cases of GBS appeared to be an excess.

Had H1N1 influenza been transmitted at that time, the small apparent risk of GBS from immunization would have been eclipsed by the obvious immediate benefit of vaccine-induced protection against swine flu. However, in December 1976, with >40 million persons immunized and no evidence of H1N1 transmission, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization, at least until the issue could be explored. A moratorium on the use of the influenza vaccines was announced on December 16; it effectively ended NIIP of 1976. Four days later the New York Times published an op-ed article that began by asserting, "Misunderstandings and misconceptions... have marked Government ... during the last eight years," attributing NIIP and its consequences to "political expediency" and "the self interest of government health bureaucracy" (7). These simple and sinister innuendos had traction, as did 2 epithets used in the article to describe the program, "debacle" in the text and "Swine Flu Fiasco" in the title." http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1007_article

This is interpretation bias. This is similar to people claiming that since an Italian court gave damages to parents with autistic child who had had the MMR vaccine then MMR vaccine must cause autism.

It goes back to the same thing vaccines are the most tested and surveyed medication that we give.

At some point you have to say you believe in the overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific evidence or you just have to state that no matter what the evidence is I still don't believe in X. There really isn't a middle ground on safety of vaccines.

Nurseworks, ASN, RN · Sep 24, 2014

This is interpretation bias. This is similar to people claiming that since an Italian court gave damages to parents with autistic child who had had the MMR vaccine then MMR vaccine must cause autism.
It goes back to the same thing vaccines are the most tested and surveyed medication that we give.
At some point you have to say you believe in the overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific evidence or you just have to state that no matter what the evidence is I still don't believe in X. There really isn't a middle ground on safety of vaccines.

That's a very closed-minded and unscientific thing to say. The whole point of understanding X is to continually study. That includes both implications as well as outcomes.

I get the flu vaccine every year as part of my employment and schooling. I insist on the single-dose vaccine as it always results in less administration site soreness and erythema, presumably due to significantly fewer preservatives/adjuvants. I'll definitely read up on the GBS/flu information when I have the time. That the CDC recommends avoiding the flu vaccine given "moderate to severe illness with or without fever...or...history of Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks of receipt of influenza vaccine" is significant as it speaks to administration of attenuated viruses and/or preservative-adjuvant combinations that can adversely affect compromised immune systems, presumably virally infected. Pretty sure some virologist guy somewhere said that's not a problem, though. :sarcastic:

As for the conspiracy/tinfoil hat arguments put forth in this thread; how much of a nutter would I have been if a few months ago I had said a touchstone research paper on vaccines referenced countless times in the media as well as scientific papers was suppressing unfavorable findings? Honestly, how many times have you yourself quoted that particular paper? Will you demand that the APA retract it? Or will you give it a pass, despite its now apparently dubious methodology and forthrightness? In many ways, it's now just as bad as the Wakefield paper.

My point is these things do happen (albeit rarely), so to offhandedly dismiss such concerns does a disservice to not only our patients, but to medicine and research as well. Strive for excellence or accept the status quo, but always demand veracity.

allnurses Guide · Sep 24, 2014

That's a very closed-minded and unscientific thing to say. The whole point of understanding X is to continually study. That includes both implications as well as outcomes.
I get the flu vaccine every year as part of my employment and schooling. I insist on the single-dose vaccine as it always results in less administration site soreness and erythema, presumably due to significantly fewer preservatives/adjuvants. I'll definitely read up on the GBS/flu information when I have the time. That the CDC recommends avoiding the flu vaccine given "moderate to severe illness with or without fever...or...history of Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks of receipt of influenza vaccine" is significant as it speaks to administration of attenuated viruses and/or preservative-adjuvant combinations that can adversely affect compromised immune systems, presumably virally infected. Pretty sure some virologist guy somewhere said that's not a problem, though.
As for the conspiracy/tinfoil hat arguments put forth in this thread; how much of a nutter would I have been if a few months ago I had said a touchstone research paper on vaccines referenced countless times in the media as well as scientific papers was suppressing unfavorable findings? Honestly, how many times have you yourself quoted that particular paper? Will you demand that the APA retract it? Or will you give it a pass, despite its now apparently dubious methodology and forthrightness? In many ways, it's now just as bad as the Wakefield paper.
My point is these things do happen (albeit rarely), so to offhandedly dismiss such concerns does a disservice to not only our patients, but to medicine and research as well. Strive for excellence or accept the status quo, but always demand veracity.

I cannot see anything more scientific to state that you either accept the overall consensus of scientific literature, or you dismiss it based on personal beliefs. It is important to know where our personal biases are, so that we can try to objectively look at a subject. When you try to take scientific literature and distort a portion of the discussion/research to meet your bias it is completely unscientific. Everything has to be taking in context.

I have mentioned this over and over that vaccines are the most researched medication that we utilize. Vaccines undergo continual research/phase IV trials. There is no other medication that are trialed on larger populations or that have continual government funded phase IV clinical research.

No one is advocating dismissing adverse reactions caused by the flu vaccines or vaccines in general, but these reactions are well researched areas that have ongoing continued research. It is biased to dismiss that literature research out of hand based on anecdotal evidence.