The flu vaccine & GBS

[emtb2rn]

This was brought up in another thread, so I figured I'd address it here as opposed to derailing the other thread.

Per the CDC, get the flu vaccine and don't worry about GBS.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

"How common is GBS, and how common is it among people who have been vaccinated against seasonal influenza?

GBS is rare. Medical events occur regardless of vaccination, and background rates are used to assess vaccine safety by comparing the expected rate of disease or death to the actual or observed rate in any given timeframe. The background rate for GBS in the U.S. is about 80 to 160 cases of GBS each week, regardless of vaccination."

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

Results..suggest that the epidemiologic association between GBS and influenza vaccinated documented in 1976 was unique and that the causative “trigger agent” in the swine influenza vaccine has not been present in subsequent vaccine preparations

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/ImmunizationSafety/Chen.ashx

Don't get me wrong...I believe vaccinations are safe..for the most part. I just don't believe everything the government has to say.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

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 ).

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!

I was in nursing school and working as a "nurse extern" student in the ICU

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/ImmunizationSafety/Chen.ashx

Don't get me wrong...I believe vaccinations are safe..for the most part. I just don't believe everything the government has to say.

[h=3]"What happened in 1976 with GBS and the swine flu vaccine?[/h]In 1976 there was a small increased risk of GBS following vaccination with an influenza vaccine made to protect against a swine flu virus. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. 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.

It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with influenza, and vaccination is the best way to prevent influenza infection and its complications." Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

Referring to the increased incidence in 1976: "In most studies, no association was found, but two studies suggested that approximately 1 additional person out of 1 million vaccinated people may be at risk for GBS associated with the seasonal influenza vaccine. " http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/gbs_qa.htm

This phenomenon has been well studied, but still no definitive correlation could be found. This goes back to the main point that vaccines are the most studied medication.

I am glad you posted the study though it is one I had not seen. It was interesting to look up information on Campylobacter jejuni and the correlation to GBS.

[Nurseworks, ASN, RN]

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.

You can't? I think challenging "consensus science" is about as scientific as one can get. Want to accept consensus of something like mathematics, be my guest. But to not question research, especially research built upon other research, is silly. It's akin to discontinuing Phase IV trial monitoring of common and rare s/e. "Meh, we did this science stuff already. Look, even the Canadians and Italians agree with our awesome research. Nothing more to see here, the science has spoken."

I don't think I distorted anything, but maybe you were talking in generalities? Point is, the CDC is telling people the influenza vaccine is very, very safe with regard to GBS. But it's incumbent upon the person receiving the vaccine to dig deeper to find and read the table they provide about this season's various manufacturer formulations, thereby showing them that precautions (I wrongly identified them as contraindications earlier) need to be observed if moderately to severely sick OR history of GBS within 6 weeks post vaccination previously. Again, that speaks to not only a link to vaccine/vaccine ingredients leading to adverse reactions in immune compromised individuals (something Paul Offit refutes vehemently) as well as a causal association with GBS. Now, don't you think the responsible thing for the CDC to do in that case is to make that info easily accessible and require it be disseminated by HCPs such as yourself? Or are you okay with trusting HCPs in staying current with literature beyond the splash page in the OPs link? Because I'm not. In order to have context, you need all the information, that much we can agree on. But you seem to be willing to overlook when that content, and thereby the context, is out of whack. Again, I'm not. If that makes me biased, so be it.

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.

Yes, you have. And yet, here we have a circumstance wherein that system did nothing to protect the population it was created to serve, all because of some shoddy paper that was written and endorsed by unethical scientists tasked with nothing less than the public health.

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.

No, but what some individuals ARE dismissing are the possible adverse reactions caused by vaccines because it doesn't line up with what they know, not because of what's been proven/researched. Again, the paper I referenced carried enormous sway/weight in many of the arguments put forth by those who insist that "science has spoke". Well, science lied. Wasn't wrong, it flat-out lied. That's a problem. The bigger problem is that no one who wants science to be right is bothering to talk about it. Like you.

[mariebailey, MSN, RN]

The background rate for GBS in the U.S. is about 80 to 160 cases of GBS each week, regardless of vaccination."

These cases are mostly due to Campylobacter jejuni, NOT the flu vaccine. I was NOT worried about getting GBS from the flu vaccine because there is a 1 in a million (literally) chance of that happening. I would have to be anxious to the point of insanity to worry about odds that small. Some studies concluded there was an association between the flu illness itself & GBS; I guess people who worry about it are darned if they do & darned if they don't! Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

You can't? I think challenging "consensus science" is about as scientific as one can get. Want to accept consensus of something like mathematics, be my guest. But to not question research, especially research built upon other research, is silly. It's akin to discontinuing Phase IV trial monitoring of common and rare s/e. "Meh, we did this science stuff already. Look, even the Canadians and Italians agree with our awesome research. Nothing more to see here, the science has spoken."

I don't think I distorted anything, but maybe you were talking in generalities? Point is, the CDC is telling people the influenza vaccine is very, very safe with regard to GBS. But it's incumbent upon the person receiving the vaccine to dig deeper to find and read the table they provide about this season's various manufacturer formulations, thereby showing them that precautions (I wrongly identified them as contraindications earlier) need to be observed if moderately to severely sick OR history of GBS within 6 weeks post vaccination previously. Again, that speaks to not only a link to vaccine/vaccine ingredients leading to adverse reactions in immune compromised individuals (something Paul Offit refutes vehemently) as well as a causal association with GBS. Now, don't you think the responsible thing for the CDC to do in that case is to make that info easily accessible and require it be disseminated by HCPs such as yourself? Or are you okay with trusting HCPs in staying current with literature beyond the splash page in the OPs link? Because I'm not. In order to have context, you need all the information, that much we can agree on. But you seem to be willing to overlook when that content, and thereby the context, is out of whack. Again, I'm not. If that makes me biased, so be it.

Yes, you have. And yet, here we have a circumstance wherein that system did nothing to protect the population it was created to serve, all because of some shoddy paper that was written and endorsed by unethical scientists tasked with nothing less than the public health.

No, but what some individuals ARE dismissing are the possible adverse reactions caused by vaccines because it doesn't line up with what they know, not because of what's been proven/researched. Again, the paper I referenced carried enormous sway/weight in many of the arguments put forth by those who insist that "science has spoke". Well, science lied. Wasn't wrong, it flat-out lied. That's a problem. The bigger problem is that no one who wants science to be right is bothering to talk about it. Like you.

The way you debate a scientific issue that has multitudes of research is by producing research that supports X point of view.What you do not do is take an article out of context and say this proves X i.e. taking an article that was a review of the flu vaccine from 1978 and saying this shows a 1:1,000,000 increased likelihood of having GBS with the 1978 flu vaccine and generalizing that to all flu vaccines shows nothing and takes an article out of context of the proven safety of flu vaccines.

You cannot compare vaccines safety to any other medication, because no other medicine has as much scrutiny or ongoing post-marketing/phase IV research not done by pharmaceutical companies as vaccines do.

The only paper that I know of on vaccines safety that endangered the public is when the researcher tried to present anecdotal evidence that the MMR vaccine caused autism. I would like to see any peer-reviewed scientific literature on vaccine safety that has been shown to have been fabricated.

No one is dismissing the adverse effects of vaccines. That is what the VAERS system is for, and why we continue to have ongoing post-marketing surveillance conducted by researchers outside of pharmaceutical companies.

I again challenge someone to find some piece of peer-reviewed scientific literature showing where "scientists have lied" about vaccines in their published research.

Vaccines: Resdev/Vaccine Testing and Approval Process

[Nurseworks, ASN, RN]

Loopy-de-loo, loopy-de-loo, that's what your circular way of debate makes me do.

The guy (Thompson), confirmed statistically significant data was purposefully omitted. No amount of dancing by Snopes, the CDC, LBRB or yourself will ever, ever change that fact. Therefore, the veracity of the study conclusions are in doubt, same as Wakefield's. Can't have it both ways, sorry. If you don't mind, I'll spare myself the agita of arguing the finer points of the "common sense" methodology that was ignored on the basis that it wasn't "scientific enough".

The researcher (Wakefield, presumably), presented a theory that stated he observed a novel bowel disease associated with children with an autism diagnosis who had received the MMR vaccination, which he suggested warranted further investigation. No where did he say MMR=autism, that's a canard. But Thompson DID say they rigged the dataset. That's true.

Please, in the future, respond to my points as I make them, just as I do for you (this post notwithstanding), not as repetitive talking points. You're certainly more than intelligent enough to proffer opinions, not simply parrot what I can hear on CNN.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Loopy-de-loo, loopy-de-loo, that's what your circular way of debate makes me do.

The guy (Thompson), confirmed statistically significant data was purposefully omitted. No amount of dancing by Snopes, the CDC, LBRB or yourself will ever, ever change that fact. Therefore, the veracity of the study conclusions are in doubt, same as Wakefield's. Can't have it both ways, sorry. If you don't mind, I'll spare myself the agita of arguing the finer points of the "common sense" methodology that was ignored on the basis that it wasn't "scientific enough".

The researcher (Wakefield, presumably), presented a theory that stated he observed a novel bowel disease associated with children with an autism diagnosis who had received the MMR vaccination, which he suggested warranted further investigation. No where did he say MMR=autism, that's a canard. But Thompson DID say they rigged the dataset. That's true.

Please, in the future, respond to my points as I make them, just as I do for you (this post notwithstanding), not as repetitive talking points. You're certainly more than intelligent enough to proffer opinions, not simply parrot what I can hear on CNN.

Wakefield did state that the MMR vaccine caused autism. Andrew Wakefield’s many statements that MMR causes autism | Left Brain Right Brain He did not do so in his paper, but he did so on more than one occasion afterwards.

snopes.com: Fraud at the CDC Uncovered?

You know the thing about conspiracy theories is if you look hard enough you can always find something to back up your pre-determined conclusions.

A bad day for antivaccinationists: A possible retraction, and the “CDC whistleblower” William W. Thompson issues a statement – Respectful Insolence This guy didn't include some small statistical data that at the time he didn't feel was significant d/t the small subset of population. Oh my, that is really damning evidence that there is some giant cover up at the CDC...

I think you will have to keep searching for that red herring.

Now out tens of thousands vaccine articles no one can still provide one peer-reviewed article to support some research that shows some kind of evidence that is vastly different than what is published on CDC website.

I will post what I see fit based on the thread not based on how you think I should or should not respond.

[mariebailey, MSN, RN]

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.

No, it is not significant because I can say from experience as a former immunization nurse that each patient is screened for contraindications & precautions prior to administering the flu shot. Example: if someone wanted the attenuated (live)vaccine, they would undoubtedly be asked whether they have an immune system problem, such as HIV, leukemia, systemic steroid or anti-cancer drug use, or radiation. Also "preservative-adjuvant combinations" are NOT contraindicated for immunocompromised individuals. Along those lines, did you know that babies receive more thimerosal from breast milk than the flu vaccine? Another fact: YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE STRUCK BY LIGHTENING (1 in 700,000) IN A GIVEN YEAR THAN DEVELOP GBS (1 in 1,000,000) FROM THE FLU VACCINE.

http://www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients.pdf

Flash Facts About Lightning

While it's not wrong to question scientific research, it is also important to use reason for the sake of protecting your patients & the health of the community. The benefits of the flu vaccine far outweigh the risks, & our patients need to be privy to that information.

[Spangle Brown]

Same here. And I think it needs to be noted that Government did not come by this reputation by accident. We would be stupid to show blind faith.

[mariebailey, MSN, RN]

You know the thing about conspiracy theories is if you look hard enough you can always find something to back up your pre-determined conclusions.

Well said!!!

[0.adamantite]

Hmm I think the chances of me dying from the flu are much higher than dying from getting the vaccine, even though I'm sure there's things about the vaccine science probably doesn't know yet. Therefore, I always get my flu shot.