Flu Vaccine, enough already!

wooh, BSN, RN · Feb 7, 2012

Can we please try to stick to discussing the subject, not attacking the poster?

MN-Nurse, ASN, RN · Feb 9, 2012

End of story and I think I'm done with this thread.

If only you were done....

You obviously have zero grasp of "basic science." Or accounting for that matter, since you continually make vague remarks about "paying for the healthcare bills" of others who somehow racked them up by getting vaccinated against diseases.

Worse, you (and others in your camp) have absolutely no idea how to assess information or determine whether a source is reliable or not.

I understand we don't want posters attacking each other. However, people who purport themselves to be looking out for the well being of others while making absolutely crackpot statements deserve to be marginalized.

If I made a statement like, "The Holocaust never happened" I deserve to pay a price for having that view during the conversation. I may be a nice person, but I am clearly a horrible source about factual information concerning WWII history.

And it is perfectly OK to point that out.

Columnist · Feb 9, 2012

admin reminder

please debate the topic of the thread......mandatory flu shots. you are welcome to express your opinion on any topic as long as you do so respectfully, without name-calling or making derogatory remarks about other members.

if this type of bickering continues, the thread will be closed.

tnbutterfly

co-administrator

whichone'spink, BSN, RN · Mar 11, 2012

I've had the flu shot twice now, but I don't think I'll get it again. Is there a way to find out the ingredients in vaccines? I don't trust that the authorities are being truthful about thimerosol no longer being used.

MN-Nurse, ASN, RN · Mar 12, 2012

Well you all know that manufacturers of any vaccination is protected by the US government...meaning, you can not take a law-suit against these companies. They will keep producing and pushing for these vaccines as long as they are liability protected and try to squeeze out as much dollars as they can from the government, meanwhile the government will keep on pushing these vaccines on the people. I for one, have only taken the vaccination once about a few years ago at work. It was the Flu/H1N1 combo, and I got very sick and it had to be the swine flu. Never again will I take that vaccination. What protects patients is calling out sick when you are sick, not injecting yourself with some virus that was manufactured in China and is protected by the US government.

The old "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy strikes again.

tshores · May 31, 2012

A study published in the October 2008 issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu had no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.

The researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.

A 2008 study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people.

This supports an earlier study, published in

The New England Journal of Medicine

.

Research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine also confirms that there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now.
In 2007, researchers with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious

Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health published this conclusion in the

Lancet Infectious Diseases

: “

We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality,have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits

.”

A large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under 2. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

morte, LPN, LVN · May 31, 2012

THANK YOU!

A study published in the October 2008 issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicinefound that vaccinating young children against the flu had no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.
The researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.
A 2008 study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people.
This supports an earlier study, published in
The New England Journal of Medicine
.
Research published in the AND 527
also confirms that there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now.
In 2007, researchers with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health published this conclusion in the
Lancet Infectious Diseases
: “
We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality,have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits
.”
A large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under 2. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

AND 2008[pdat]"]American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Bklyn_RN · Jun 1, 2012

Its nice to see that people are still contributing to this post. Thank you Morte.

Laidback Al · Jun 4, 2012

More anti-vaccination agendas

It is somewhat disconcerting that there are still allnurses members that are cutting and pasting slanted and sensationalistic attacks on the influenza vaccinations to further the anti-vaccination agenda. Tshores’ post above (#149) is another example. The post purports to be an original authoritative summary of peer-reviewed articles ostensibly demonstrating the overall failure of influenza vaccinations. Below I discuss each of the links in tshore’s post and the actual conclusions in those articles.

A study published in the October 2008 issue of the %20AND%202008%2F10[pdat]%20AND%20Szilagyi[author]"]Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu had no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.
The researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.

The researchers actual formal conclusions from the abstract of the linked article are as follows:

“In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine match.”

The failure to find vaccine effectiveness could be result of the poor match between circulating influenza strains and the strains used in that season’s vaccination. More research is recommended.

A 2008 study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people.
This supports an earlier study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The actual quote from the Lancet article abstract is as follows:

“The effect of influenza vaccination on the risk of pneumonia in elderly people during influenza seasons might be less than previously estimated.”

The authors of the Lancet article do not conclude that influenza vaccination was useless for elderly people, only that it's efficacy may not be as high as reported.

The second link provided by tshores in this quote does not lead to a peer reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine --- but rather to one of Mercola.com’s web pages.

Research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine also confirms that there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now.

The referenced article does not discuss vaccine uptake rates, but is a study of mortality rates. The actual conclusions of the researchers in this article is as follows:

“The 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed in patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination.”

The article does not confirm that increased vaccine uptake has failed to decrease elderly deaths from influenza and pneumonia, only that there seems to be fewer mortality benefits from vaccinations among the elderly.

In 2007, researchers with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health published this conclusion in the Lancet Infectious Diseases: “We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality,have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits.”

While this is a direct quote, the conclusions are not fully accepted in the scientific community. Conveniently, the original author of this material fails to cite the rejoinder comments about this article by several authors in The Lancet Infectious Diseases : Volume 8, Number 8, 1 August 2008

A large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under 2. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

The strident interpretation of the effectiveness of vaccines compared to a placebo for children under 2 years is not supported by a reading of the authors’ actual conclusions which are as follows:

“Influenza vaccines are efficacious in children older than two years but little evidence is available for children under two. . . If immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.”

People need to do their own research and come to their own reasoned opinions.

The post by tshores demonstrates the perils of cutting and pasting information from the internet and passing it off as original effort in an attempt to further an anti-vaccination agenda.

morte, LPN, LVN · Jun 4, 2012

LOL, I just worked a double, and the brain is in idle mode. But some one did try to do research and get it published but catch 22, because the vacine JUST HAS TO WORK they couldn't get their refutation published. You know, "pot has no medicinal value, there for you can't do any research that it does."

More anti-vaccination agendas
It is somewhat disconcerting that there are still allnurses members that are cutting and pasting slanted and sensationalistic attacks on the influenza vaccinations to further the anti-vaccination agenda. Tshores’ post above (#149) is another example. The post purports to be an original authoritative summary of peer-reviewed articles ostensibly demonstrating the overall failure of influenza vaccinations. Below I discuss each of the links in tshore’s post and the actual conclusions in those articles.
The researchers actual formal conclusions from the abstract of the linked article are as follows:
“In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine match.”
The failure to find vaccine effectiveness could be result of the poor match between circulating influenza strains and the strains used in that season’s vaccination. More research is recommended.
The actual quote from the Lancet article abstract is as follows:
“The effect of influenza vaccination on the risk of pneumonia in elderly people during influenza seasons might be less than previously estimated.”
The authors of the Lancet article do not conclude that influenza vaccination was useless for elderly people, only that it's efficacy may not be as high as reported.
The second link provided by tshores in this quote does not lead to a peer reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine --- but rather to one of Mercola.com’s web pages.
The referenced article does not discuss vaccine uptake rates, but is a study of mortality rates. The actual conclusions of the researchers in this article is as follows:
“The 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed in patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination.”
The article does not confirm that increased vaccine uptake has failed to decrease elderly deaths from influenza and pneumonia, only that there seems to be fewer mortality benefits from vaccinations among the elderly.
While this is a direct quote, the conclusions are not fully accepted in the scientific community. Conveniently, the original author of this material fails to cite the rejoinder comments about this article by several authors in The Lancet Infectious Diseases : Volume 8, Number 8, 1 August 2008
The strident interpretation of the effectiveness of vaccines compared to a placebo for children under 2 years is not supported by a reading of the authors’ actual conclusions which are as follows:
“Influenza vaccines are efficacious in children older than two years but little evidence is available for children under two. . . If immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.”
People need to do their own research and come to their own reasoned opinions.
The post by tshores demonstrates the perils of cutting and pasting information from the internet and passing it off as original effort in an attempt to further an anti-vaccination agenda.

tshores · Jun 4, 2012

To Laidback Al:

Then why are you including only the sugarcoated Conclusions/Interpretations instead of the Results and Findings in those studies?

Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine

Results:

During the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons, 165 and 80 inpatient/ED and 74 and 95 outpatient influenza cases were enrolled, while more than 4500 inpatient/ED and more than 600 outpatient subcohorts were evaluated, respectively. In bivariate analyses, cases had lower vaccination rates than subcohorts. However, significant influenza VE could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting after adjusting for county, sex, insurance, chronic conditions recommended for influenza vaccination, and timing of influenza vaccination (VE estimates ranged from 7%-52% across settings and seasons for fully vaccinated 6- to 59-month-olds).

I agree that much more study is needed--but by independent researchers with no financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies. They just proved that you were not "protecting" your patients for at least 2 years in a row.

2008 Lancet article:

FINDINGS:

1173 cases and 2346 controls were included in the study. After we adjusted for the presence and severity of comorbidities, as defined by chart review, influenza vaccination was not associated with a reduced risk of community-acquired pneumonia (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.77-1.10) during the influenza season.

[h=4]INTERPRETATION:[/h]The effect of influenza vaccination on the risk of pneumonia in elderly people during influenza seasons might be less than previously estimated.

Interpretation that you quoted is kind of watered down, wouldn't you say? I do realize they have to state 'may' and 'might' because they are interpreting only one study, but I think the whole study should be read.

In the Lancet Infectious Diseases--of course, scientists are not all in agreement on vaccinations or on a lot of things, for that matter. Doesn't mean we shouldn't hear them.

And in the Cochrane Database under the Main Results:

"In children under two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo."

I am not anti-vaccination. I've been vaccinated for several things. I am against flu vaccinations being a condition of employment when I personally do not feel it is protecting anyone much of the time and is not harmless. I agree with you that people should do their own research, but they don't have to agree with me to have a "reasoned opinion."

[h=4][/h]

GitanoRN, BSN, MSN, RN · Jun 16, 2012

enlightening to say the least~