"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."
Interesting to note the caveat after every formulation with regards to "moderate to severe illness, with or without fever" for precautions, along with a history of GBS. Such a precaution advisement would seem to fly in the face of their recommendation for ALLpersons who have immunosuppression to receive the vaccination, unless I'm missing something there.
You are definitely missing something. I don't think you understand the definition of immunosuppression because people with a history of GBS or people w/moderate to severe illness at the time of the visit do not, as a result, have weakened immune systems unless they happen to have a co-occurring condition that causes immunosuppression. Again, people are screened for contraindications & precautions prior to receiving the flu shot; I would argue the screening for a flu shot is more rigorous than it is for many prescriptions medications, despite the fact that prescription meds can have dangerous side effects.
Not trying to be snarky, but it's anecdotal report like this that's usually looked down upon when presented in debates such as this.
There is nothing anecdotal about what I'm saying; I'm providing you with a well-informed opinion based on years of training & study. I use reliable sources of information.
Moderate could include something as a bad day of seasonal allergies.
Nope, it does not include seasonal allergies.
[TABLE=width: 100%]
[TR]
[TD]We frequently see patients who are febrile or have an acute illness and are due for vaccinations. We are uncertain if we should withhold the vaccines or not. What do you advise?[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]A "moderate or severe acute illness" is a precaution for administering any vaccine. A mild acute illness (e.g., diarrhea or mild upper-respiratory tract infection) with or without fever is not a precaution, and vaccines may be given. The concern in vaccinating someone with moderate or severe illness is that a fever following the vaccine could complicate management of the concurrent illness - it could be difficult to determine if the fever was from the vaccine or due to the concurrent illness. In deciding whether to vaccinate a patient with moderate or severe illness, the clinician needs to determine if deferring vaccination will increase the patient's risk of vaccine-preventable diseases, as is the case if the patient is unlikely to return for vaccination or to seek vaccination elsewhere. -From the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at CDC[/TD]
My argument is that the program as a whole needs more transparency and should be looked at to identify vulnerable populations. You obviously disagree as you've stated that the research says they are safe. You also know what's been looked at as well as what hasn't been looked at. For whatever reason, you want me to somehow produce peer-review studies to either prove a negative outcome or that show what HASN'T been studied. AFAIK, none of that exists. If that's the case, how can your position be correct?
That's not the point, you just want it to be so. Again, what people like you claim he said in the paper (which he never did) was what initially what caused all the trouble. Now that he shares his personal views, it's a problem. Like I said, it was a canard.
Thanks for confirming to me that you have no problem with unethical behavior so long as it lines up with your ideology. And this wasn't "one scientist", it was all the authors, including the lead (Destefano), and possibly the director of the CDC at the time (Gerberding). The data set was found to be more than statistically significant. Your analogy would make more sense if the other nurses were omitting medications because they saw one omitting them and accepted it as practice, but even then it's a stretch.
Really? Cherry-picking quotes? The guy admitted he lied, albeit in legalese. Why not quote that, because that's the talking point. Even more laughable, that IOM study references the Destefano et al study we are debating that Thompson was a co-author on, to say nothing of the somewhat conflicted Verstraeten-Destefano (there's that name again!) study. Nothing to see here, move along now. Got it.
Then why continue to respond? Obviously as far as you're concerned I'm just spewing daft nonsense. Yet you continually have trouble refuting what I'm saying.
Wow, you have concluded what the scientific literature states without even looking in the literature. That is amazing.
The point is out of tens of thousands of articles whatever your concern about vaccines is/are it probably has been addressed multiple times, but you will never know if you do not actually look at the scientific literature. Should you disagree with the technique or outcomes of a study contact the author(s). These people are usually very open to honest correspondence asking about their studies.
The Wakefield controversy is over how he misrepresented his paper afterward and the conclusion that he falsified his results. His paper was a complete lie, and Wakefield continues providing conspiracy theories on vaccines. Andrew Wakefield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Show me these statistical significant results that were omitted from the Thomson study not some opinion editorial but how this is statistically significant.
The IOM concluded that this omission was not statistically significant. Again trying to generalize that the majority/significant portion of vaccine researchers must be corrupt based on one example doesn't work. One study doesn't demonstrate anything. It takes multiple studies having similar results before we change practice/guidelines.
I have no trouble refuting anything you are saying about vaccines. You just show lack of understanding of research is or how it is conducted/utilized, so to you it may seem that your points are not being addressed but for someone that understands how to utilize and review literature you just seem obtuse.
I will argue with any and every anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist on here, because they are a danger to the public. Our lack of push back against anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists are what has led us to recent vaccine preventable disease outbreaks in the United States and Europe.
1) Please, show me how I can easily find both the precautions/contraindications for flu vaccines in the link provided in the OP's post? Maybe easily is the wrong word. Basically, what I mean is those are things that should be in the OP's link to begin with. That, imo, is a lack of transparency.
2) Well, you go right ahead believing that then, I'll reserve myself from stating what I am beginning to believe about you. There are also plenty of articles on PubMed on autism and vaccine injuries, but it doesn't prove much, now does it? I already have made suggestions about what should be studied; vulnerable populations, vaccinated versus unvaccinated cohorts, Hep B vaccine, schedule as a whole, etc. All the argument ever comes back to is MMR>thimerosal>autism. Like anything else, there's a lot more to it.
And in supporting a thesis I would expect that makes complete, utter, logical sense.
Lack of transparency would be having a closed adverse reaction data-base or confidentially agreements on claims against vaccine reactions. Just because someone doesn't take the time to do simple google search does not mean there is a lack of transparency.
Then link the articles and we can debate the merits of the articles. There are not any scientific articles that come to the conclusion that autism is caused by vaccines.
Everything you suggested has already been studied, but you just apparently refuse to look in the scientific literature for the results.
My bold. Thanks for taking the time to post all of that, but in the interest in saving some space I stopped bolding about halfway through. Anyway, I take it you remember nursing school and what you were taught about 'all' in any question? Because it's sure as hell been beaten into my skull.
Basically, that's kind of what I'm getting at here. The vaccine program is, understandably, about doing the most good for the greatest amount of people. Unfortunately, a one-size-fits-all approach leaves a rather large window open when it comes to adverse events/side effects. Why the first do no harm mantra is cast aside and vaccines assume some moral high ground in the interest of the greater good is where I have a problem. Some people don't share that problem, insisting the vaccines are abundantly safe. Again, I disagree and there appears to be an increasing reason to feel that way. And once again, some people think that's unwarranted.
Here's a link to what I've been referring back to in this thread:
That wasn't particularly hard to find, but it wasn't exactly screaming "hey, look at me before you get a flu shot" either, which to me is a lack of transparency. It's forcing the end-user to do research when it comes to receiving or providing healthcare. While the latter should be requisite amongst HCP, the public shouldn't. And as I also stated earlier, HCPs aren't always as up to date or forthright about vaccinations, leaning on the "just a shot" mantra. That's problematic. But I don't have peer-reviewed papers to back that up. So it must not ever happen. Right?
Interesting to note the caveat after every formulation with regards to "moderate to severe illness, with or without fever" for precautions, along with a history of GBS. Such a precaution advisement would seem to fly in the face of their recommendation for ALL persons who have immunosuppression to receive the vaccination, unless I'm missing something there.
You are so wrong, and completely refuse to look at anything in the literature. Immunosuppressed people can get vaccines/flu vaccines but they do not get the live form of the vaccine. Every place that I have seen has patient literature sitting out about vaccines that gives vaccines.
So you think that people should be fully informed about every possible reaction to vaccines, but not every other medication. Do you sit and tell your patients every possible 1:1,000,000 reactions to every medication that you give?
Care to guess which common medication this is, and it is important to note that the rare reactions to this medicine is more common that GBS and flu vaccines 0f 1976.
Rare
Bloody or black, tarry stools
bloody or cloudy urine
fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
pinpoint red spots on the skin
skin rash, hives, or itching
sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
sudden decrease in the amount of urine
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
yellow eyes or skin
Get emergency help immediately if any of the following symptoms of overdose occur:
Symptoms of overdose
Diarrhea
increased sweating
loss of appetite
nausea or vomiting
stomach cramps or pain
swelling, pain, or tenderness in the upper abdomen or stomach area
You are definitely missing something. I don't think you understand the definition of immunosuppression because people with a history of GBS or people w/moderate to severe illness at the time of the visit do not, as a result, have weakened immune systems unless they happen to have a co-occurring condition that causes immunosuppression. Again, people are screened for contraindications & precautions prior to receiving the flu shot; I would argue the screening for a flu shot is more rigorous than it is for many prescriptions medications, despite the fact that prescription meds can have dangerous side effects.
Quite. Would an immune-suppressed patient profile present similarly to an immune-compromised one? How about immune-deficient? Or immune dysfunction? If not, how does one screen for such things prior to administration of a vaccine? Like, at the bedside. Or a health clinic? Or at a CVS by a pharmacist?
There is nothing anecdotal about what I'm saying; I'm providing you with a well-informed opinion based on years of training & study. I use reliable sources of information.
Hmmm. So they're saying it isn't a big deal if someone's immune system is already being challenged, give them the vaccination and challenge it some more? Based on my rudimentary understanding of the immune system, I would say that's just unnecessarily risky. Why not come back in a few days? Or why not tell the client to come back in a few days? I can assure you from personal experience, febrile events following vaccination whilst mild-moderately ill do occur, with devastating effects. Oh, I forgot, only people who have letters at the end of their names are allowed to report their anecdotal observations as facts. Well, I'll break ranks and again share anyway; I saw my daughter go to her former HCP for a well-baby visit and a mild cough. Per the CDC schedule she received a MMR as well as a Hib and HepB catch-up. That night she went febrile (104) and screamed her lungs out. "Give baby Tylenol." Two days later, all her words were gone, eye contact shot. But yea, parent self report and all relegated us to the "correlation doesn't equal causation" crap heap of broken kiddos. And guess what? My youngest still got his vaccinations and I get mine. And it gets harder and harder to maintain that moderate stance everyday, especially when I have the likes of this telling me how much of a danger I am, cause, well, science has spoken, so there can never, ever be debate or doubt about it ever again.
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Wow, you have concluded what the scientific literature states without even looking in the literature. That is amazing.
The point is out of tens of thousands of articles whatever your concern about vaccines is/are it probably has been addressed multiple times, but you will never know if you do not actually look at the scientific literature. Should you disagree with the technique or outcomes of a study contact the author(s). These people are usually very open to honest correspondence asking about their studies.
The Wakefield controversy is over how he misrepresented his paper afterward and the conclusion that he falsified his results. His paper was a complete lie, and Wakefield continues providing conspiracy theories on vaccines. Andrew Wakefield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Show me these statistical significant results that were omitted from the Thomson study not some opinion editorial but how this is statistically significant.
The IOM concluded that this omission was not statistically significant. Again trying to generalize that the majority/significant portion of vaccine researchers must be corrupt based on one example doesn't work. One study doesn't demonstrate anything. It takes multiple studies having similar results before we change practice/guidelines.
I have no trouble refuting anything you are saying about vaccines. You just show lack of understanding of research is or how it is conducted/utilized, so to you it may seem that your points are not being addressed but for someone that understands how to utilize and review literature you just seem obtuse.
I will argue with any and every anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist on here, because they are a danger to the public. Our lack of push back against anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists are what has led us to recent vaccine preventable disease outbreaks in the United States and Europe.
You are so wrong, and completely refuse to look at anything in the literature. Immunosuppressed people can get vaccines/flu vaccines but they do not get the live form of the vaccine. Every place that I have seen has patient literature sitting out about vaccines that gives vaccines.
So you think that people should be fully informed about every possible reaction to vaccines, but not every other medication. Do you sit and tell your patients every possible 1:1,000,000 reactions to every medication that you give?
Care to guess which common medication this is, and it is important to note that the rare reactions to this medicine is more common that GBS and flu vaccines 0f 1976.
Rare
Bloody or black, tarry stools
bloody or cloudy urine
fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
pinpoint red spots on the skin
skin rash, hives, or itching
sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
sudden decrease in the amount of urine
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
yellow eyes or skin
Get emergency help immediately if any of the following symptoms of overdose occur:
Symptoms of overdose
Diarrhea
increased sweating
loss of appetite
nausea or vomiting
stomach cramps or pain
swelling, pain, or tenderness in the upper abdomen or stomach area
I'm gonna guess aspirin? And I don't give medication as I am still a student. I've made that clear before, just wanted to put it out there for those who may not know.
As for the rest of it; in the case of vaccinations, yes, people should be FULLY informed as ALL vaccinations are REQUIRED as children, or urged to get them later as adults. That's an all-important point. If they don't, they're browbeaten or cajoled about their reservations.
I'm calling it a night as I am getting annoyed (and able to admit that). I wish I could say it's been fun debating, but I'd be lying.
I already have made suggestions about what should be studied; vulnerable populations, vaccinated versus unvaccinated cohorts, Hep B vaccine, schedule as a whole, etc. All the argument ever comes back to is MMR>thimerosal>autism. Like anything else, there's a lot more to it.
An exhausting amount of research has gone into studying vulnerable populations. ALL vaccines get FDA-approved through randomized controlled trials, or, as you phrase it, "vaccinated vs unvaccinated cohorts" & non-inferiority studies. The ACIP meets 3 times a year to evaluate the schedules/recommendations & make changes based on research/data from post-marketing surveillance, newly licensed vaccines, etc.. All of this is easily accessible @ Vaccines: HOME page for Vaccines and Immunizations site
Quite. Would an immune-suppressed patient profile present similarly to an immune-compromised one? How about immune-deficient? Or immune dysfunction? If not, how does one screen for such things prior to administration of a vaccine? Like, at the bedside. Or a health clinic? Or at a CVS by a pharmacist?
I'm gonna guess aspirin? And I don't give medication as I am still a student. I've made that clear before, just wanted to put it out there for those who may not know.
As for the rest of it; in the case of vaccinations, yes, people should be FULLY informed as ALL vaccinations are REQUIRED as children, or urged to get them later as adults. That's an all-important point. If they don't, they're browbeaten or cajoled about their reservations.
I'm calling it a night as I am getting annoyed (and able to admit that). I wish I could say it's been fun debating, but I'd be lying.
NO ALL VACCINATIONS are not REQUIRED as children. Some vaccines are optional and it depends mostly on the state which you live in, and if since all of our children and ourselves depend on everyone being vaccinated I see nothing wrong with requiring vaccines.
The medication I mentioned was tylenol. Have you ever been FULLY informed of these reactions before getting tylenol, because tylenol statistically is more dangerous than majority of vaccines that are commonly used. No one is ever fully informed of the medications that they get unless it is a research study. You tell the patients the most pertinent information and then offer them resources on how to find out more information.
Here is a primer on reviewing and grading scientific literature. It isn't fair to ask for someone to critically evaluate the literature if you haven't been at least minimally introduced to this subject as a student.
mariebailey, MSN, RN
948 Posts
You are definitely missing something. I don't think you understand the definition of immunosuppression because people with a history of GBS or people w/moderate to severe illness at the time of the visit do not, as a result, have weakened immune systems unless they happen to have a co-occurring condition that causes immunosuppression. Again, people are screened for contraindications & precautions prior to receiving the flu shot; I would argue the screening for a flu shot is more rigorous than it is for many prescriptions medications, despite the fact that prescription meds can have dangerous side effects.