Flu shots and immunizations in general.

[wintergreen48]

Skippy's point about a supposed relationship between flu shots and Alzheimer's disease is based upon 'research' by Hugh Fudenberg, one of those guys who goes around claiming that everything that goes wrong in the world is due to vaccinations-- he is one of the folks who has claimed that mercury in vaccines is what has led to the increase in autism (although I do not know what he has to say now that mercury has been removed from vaccines... and the rate of diagnosed autism has gone up even more than it was when vaccines actually had mercury in them). There are a lot of blogs and citations across the internet that identify Fudenberg as the most quoted/most published doctor, yadda yadda yadda, but most of those blogs neglect to mention that Fudenberg lost his license to practice medicine, and has not been able to regain it.

If Fudenberg were a baseball fan, he would no doubt be arguing that mercury in vaccines is what caused the Red Sox curse: after all, the Red Sox never won a World Series while mercury was used in vaccines, but during the 21st Century, since mercury has been removed from vaccines, the Red Sox have won more World Series than any other team in major league baseball. Obvious cause and effect-- to the Fudenbergs of the world, anyway.

When the Fudenbergians are not claiming that the flu vaccine causes Alzheimer's, they argue that the vaccine itself is worthless, because some people get sick even after they have been vaccinated. As it happens, each flu vaccine is specific to a specific flu virus, and because the flu virus mutates rapidly and often, there is a possibility that you could be vaccinated against 'the flu' and still come down with 'the flu,' simply because you got hit by a 'new' strain of flu against which the vaccine is not effective (also, the vaccine takes a couple weeks to take effect, so you could get infected during that latency period).

People who know what they are talking about recommend that old folks get the vaccine because they are at greater risk for getting influenza, and because of their age they face a higher mortality risk if they are infected; Fudenberg et al. dismiss the 'high risk' factor as to the elderly by saying what amounts to 'well, their old and they're going to die anyway.'

The people who know what they are talking about are recommending the flu vaccine even for people who are not in the high risk groups: the rationale is that even if you are young and strong and the flu is not likely to kill you, if you become infected you present a greater risk to people around you who may not be quite so young and strong, so that, as a courtesy to the people who are at real risk, those who are at lesser risk should get the vaccine to reduce the likelihood that they will get an infection that will then be passed on to someone who is at higher risk.

[Ritterskoop]

Skoop wondered whether I wanted to get into the suggestions that immunizations might be associated with autism. I do.

I'm also wondering what anyone here knows about the suggestion that if somebody gets a flu shot five years in a row their chances of ending up with Alzheirmer's is ten times higher than it would have been if they'd gotten it only a couple of times during that five-year period.

d

Never heard the one about Alzheimer's, though I don't doubt someone has proposed it. But here's the thing. We get stuff now we didn't used to, because we live longer. That's it. Used to be, we died before some of this stuff got to us.

See if this argument helps. We give kids immunizations for deadly diseases because we think the tradeoff is worth it. For every 100,000 kids protected from nasty diseases, some small percentage maybe gets a byproduct disease we wish they didn't. For all we know those kids were predisposed anyway, and the shot was the trigger. But we still think it is way smart in a risk-reward picture. Lots of kids don't die from preventable conditions. Most of them, in fact.

It would be different if you were sure your kid was the one who got sick because of a DPT shot. Then you would rather risk diphtheria and measeles and whatall, than have them be autisitic or whatever condition you think the shot caused. Since they have removed the preservative in immunizations that everyone said was causing the autism spike, and the autism diagnoses are still going up, that can't be what caused it.

So the corollary is the adults and flu shots. If indeed we believe some few people get Alzheimer's at a higher rate due to flu shots (which I'm not immediately persuaded), then we have to decide if the public health is better off with a few more people getting Alzheimer's or a whole lot of people getting the flu, which can indeed kill you. More people died of Spanish influenza in 1918 than in WWI, though some were weak from having been soldiers or whatever.

Again, I am sure it is different if it's your family member that you think got Alzheimer's because they got some flu shots. But my original point stands. We are all getting stuff we didn't used to get, because we live longer. It's the swap we make for not dying at 30 like we used to. Most people are content with that tradeoff.

Autism and Alzheimer's and all those conditions just suck. There is no point in trying to assign blame (except when it's obvious, like it is with some conditions). Evil exists.

I think it would be nice if we reached a place where we are content to die, right now, having lived a worthwhile life, than spend any energy avoiding death. That means making our lives worthwhile.

Yeah. You knew I would preachify a little. I have been saving it up.

[Ritterskoop]

That's not how I read skippy's response at all. I don't think he's looking for locked in expertise (although we do have enough M.D.s on the Bored that a fairly authoritative analysis wouldn't surprise me), merely for help doing his own research. Both the tone and content of his post seemed entirely appropriate to me. --Bob

Reasonable people can agree to disagree about the interpretation of other people's written words. I have reread his post. I would be pleased to learn I'm mistaken in this case, but I still read his response as dismissive and rather rude.

SC, I agree the concluding sentence or bit can be read a couple of ways, one of which is how you read it. But the rest of it sounds to me like someone who is worried. Sometimes people say stuff a little funny when they are scared.

Except for the times when he throws stuff out just to start a fight, and I guess the skippy stuff which is an alter ego, wb is a good guy. He didn't mean it dismissive and rude. It did sound that way, a little, but I am willing to forgive him.

I am all into forgiveness and gratitude, of a sudden. Wonder how long it will last.

[wbtravis007]

Congratulations, wb. You ask a vague, general question, then answer the responses along the lines of "I don't want to hear from any of you. I only care what the real experts say." Guess what? There's not a single medical researcher with expertise in the manufacture of flu vaccines on this board, and there isn't one anywhere with the additional psychic ability to guarantee the future of long-term effects of any drugs for any single individual into the far distant future. If this was your "first stop," then you'd best start looking for your second.

That's not how I read skippy's response at all. I don't think he's looking for locked in expertise (although we do have enough M.D.s on the Bored that a fairly authoritative analysis wouldn't surprise me), merely for help doing his own research. Both the tone and content of his post seemed entirely appropriate to me. --Bob

Bob got it right. I don't get where sc's idea that I was being dismissive comes from. As for the rudeness ... well, I won't say that this thread is rudity-free, that's for sure.

Skoop's also right, except for the part about being scared. It's not fear that makes me want to learn more about this.

I'm always amazed by the collective knowledge of this board. I also find that it's easier for me, if I'm trying to get to the bottom of something, to hear people expressing to each other opposing views.

Going off on my own to read stuff that's written by people whom I don't know and who often have a reason to present a case that's not objective is a much less effecient and effective way for me to try to learn things.

I appreciate everybody's responses here and hope that there will be more.

[silvercamaro]

Bob got it right. I don't get where sc's idea that I was being dismissive comes from.

Well.... For me, it came from the very words you used. Since Bob and Skoop apparently interpreted them far differently than I did, however, I apologize for my misunderstanding and subsequent jumping all over you.

Alas, I cannot necessarily guarantee that I won't feel the need at some point in the distant future to thunk you in the forehead with my knuckle when I think you've gone too far, but you probably expect that from me -- and like it.

[SportsFan68]

.


I don't know if I've had the flu or not. How do you tell if it's the flu or a bad cold?

You do not barf with a cold.

My test goes like this: If you have a fever, and you can't lift your head without getting dizzy, and you can't breathe, and you want to throw up, whether you actually do, and you can't breathe so very well, either, . . .

Then I guess I haven't had the flu.

I've had a couple of sore throats so painful I was sure they must be strep, but I had them checked and the doc said no.

[SportsFan68]

. . .
As it happens, each flu vaccine is specific to a specific flu virus, and because the flu virus mutates rapidly and often, there is a possibility that you could be vaccinated against 'the flu' and still come down with 'the flu,' simply because you got hit by a 'new' strain of flu against which the vaccine is not effective (also, the vaccine takes a couple weeks to take effect, so you could get infected during that latency period).

The people who know what they are talking about are recommending the flu vaccine even for people who are not in the high risk groups: the rationale is that even if you are young and strong and the flu is not likely to kill you, if you become infected you present a greater risk to people around you who may not be quite so young and strong, so that, as a courtesy to the people who are at real risk, those who are at lesser risk should get the vaccine to reduce the likelihood that they will get an infection that will then be passed on to someone who is at higher risk.

So even if I get a flu shot, it's possible that I'm not safe against the latest strain that's been incubating 6,000 miles from here. Same with the high-risk folks.

Very discouraging.

[silvercamaro]

So even if I get a flu shot, it's possible that I'm not safe against the latest strain that's been incubating 6,000 miles from here. Same with the high-risk folks.

Very discouraging.

The odds are in your favor, though. The flu vaccine is reformulated every year to include the most common flu viruses and those considered most likely to spread. What the manufacturers cannot do is protect against every possible genetic mutation of the known viruses.

[Bob78164]

I don't get where sc's idea that I was being dismissive comes from.

I think the last sentence of the post that triggered shinycar's comment can be read to imply that no one with the requisite qualifications (in your view) had yet appeared. I was fairly sure, from the tone of the rest of your post, that you hadn't meant it that way, but if you had, it would indeed qualify as dismissive.

It's hard to communicate solely by using the written word without misunderstandings. --Bob

[MarleysGh0st]

This is the thread that caught silvercamaro's velcro, huh?

Going off on my own to read stuff that's written by people whom I don't know and who often have a reason to present a case that's not objective is a much less effecient and effective way for me to try to learn things.

If you had specific concerns and questions, it might have helped in the efficiency and effectiveness department if you had stated those in your first post.

In regard to those specifics, I think wintergreen and skoop have addressed them very well, and I can't add anything to that.

[kayrharris]

As far as flu shots and Alheizmer's, my mom is 90 and her mind is sharp as a tack. She has been getting an annual flu shot for at least 35 years, maybe longer. I don't remember her ever having the flu.

So that's an unofficial, very unscientific piece of data.

[Ritterskoop]

As far as flu shots and Alheizmer's, my mom is 90 and her mind is sharp as a tack. She has been getting an annual flu shot for at least 35 years, maybe longer. I don't remember her ever having the flu.

So that's an unofficial, very unscientific piece of data.

Anecdotal evidence is very helpful. Not statistically significant, but definitely useful in the real world. Thanks.

[gsabc]

I've gotten one every year, because both HS and GW are both in the high-risk category. If they get the flu, it's a lot worse than if I do, but I don't want to get it for fear of giving it to them. Now that BD is working regularly with germy little kids, we're still getting them.

[ne1410s]

Anecdotal evidence is very helpful. Not statistically significant, but definitely useful in the real world.

I have had 2 flu shots in my life. Both times, within 24 hours, I became sick as the proverbial dog. Chills, fever, etc. That was about 17 years ago and I have never had the flu (nor a shot) since. My father had flu shots for over 20 years without the least bit of a side effect.

Who knows?

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

When I got my flu shot, Jeff told me that my arm would feel as though somebody punched it.

It was a little sore, but not as sore as I expected it to be from his description.

[wbtravis007]

Bob got it right. I don't get where sc's idea that I was being dismissive comes from.

Well.... For me, it came from the very words you used. Since Bob and Skoop apparently interpreted them far differently than I did, however, I apologize for my misunderstanding and subsequent jumping all over you.

Alas, I cannot necessarily guarantee that I won't feel the need at some point in the distant future to thunk you in the forehead with my knuckle when I think you've gone too far, but you probably expect that from me -- and like it.

ICM!

Well, of course I expect it. As to whether I like it or not, a gentleman never tells.

This board is something else.

[wbtravis007]

I guess I might not get a response to the old "Let's you and him fight" thing, but that's fine.

I invited all comments related to the subjects and apologize to anyone who thought that I later indicated that I wasn't satisfied with the responses.

I can kind of see now how some of you might have thought that.

Do any of y'all have any info about how the wookus of a 54 year-old guy might be affected one way or the other by a flu shot?

[Bob Juch]

Does anybody have any info about how the wookus of a 54 year-old guy might be affected one way or the other by a flu shot?

I strongly suggest you get it in some other part of your body.

[Ritterskoop]

Does anybody have any info about how the wookus of a 54 year-old guy might be affected one way or the other by a flu shot?

Anyone can get an infection from any shot. It is rare, I think, but someone has to be the one. If this is the case, you should check how current your tetanus shot is.

If it's just sore, read on.

I get a shot every three months and am sore for a day. Lifting weights helps. When it's a shot in the arm I do biceps curls and shoulder presses. When the shot is in the butt, I do those kicks where you get on the floor on hands and knees, and kick your leg out to the side and back. Do 30 or 40 of those. It will feel better after some sleep.

If you have a problem beyond a day or two after the shot, I would see about a follow-up with a real doc.

[Ritterskoop]

I guess I might not get a response to the old "Let's you and him fight" thing, but that's fine.

I'm not sure what it is you are looking for here. Moonie would be our resident anti-immunization guy, I imagine, but he's not been around.

Most of the rest of us have expressed varying perspectives. Isn't that as helpful as a polarized fight? If not, why not?

[wbtravis007]

I guess I might not get a response to the old "Let's you and him fight" thing, but that's fine.

I'm not sure what it is you are looking for here. Moonie would be our resident anti-immunization guy, I imagine, but he's not been around.

Most of the rest of us have expressed varying perspectives. Isn't that as helpful as a polarized fight? If not, why not?

Just because it would be more helpful to me to know what someone who I consider to be intelligent might have to say on behalf of the other side. That's all.

The social responsibility stuff is something that I think I'm pretty well-equiped to sort out, although I'm always glad to hear those issues discussed.

Marley's point -- that I should have been more specific in my question -- would be valid if I had not wanted to stimulate a discussion about all aspects of this.

When you asked me, Skoop, whether I was interested in the autism stuff and what not, I said that I was, and added that what most interested me about all of this was that area.

I was wondering about the science and the data.

I didn't mean to say, though, that my initial question should have been interpreted to be cofined to comments about that.

[Ritterskoop]

I guess I might not get a response to the old "Let's you and him fight" thing, but that's fine.

I'm not sure what it is you are looking for here. Moonie would be our resident anti-immunization guy, I imagine, but he's not been around.

Most of the rest of us have expressed varying perspectives. Isn't that as helpful as a polarized fight? If not, why not?

Just because it would be more helpful to me to know what someone who I consider to be intelligent might have to say on behalf of the other side. That's all.

.....

I was wondering about the science and the data.

I am not understanding by what you mean about the other side. We have provided several sides.

I will find some links about the autism research.

[Ritterskoop]

This is the cdc site, which has additional links. I had no idea the original study in 1998 that caused so much fuss included only 12 children. All of us know that's not statistically significant.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/conce ... tsheet.htm

I googled "immunization" and "autism" and got plenty of links, which you can follow up on. Many of them explain that parents believe the shots lead to the autism because the shots are given at 12-15 months, and this is also when autism is often diagnosed. So it is coincidence rather than causative.

[5LD]

Having two little ones I did the research on vaccines. Thimerosol was the ingredient that had everyone freaked out. It's gone now from the vaccines and I think most have calmed down about it.

The autism shot is generally considered now to be the MMR (Measles Mumps Rubella) given around 12 months of age. My son was a large, exceedingly heathy guy and we went ahead and gave him the vaccine on schedule with no incident (other than me holding my breath for a couple of months cause I worried anyway). My daughter however has Down Syndrome and is small for her age. We will be delaying her MMR for a while. Pediatricians work with you most of the time to schedule the immunizations. My one issue with the shots is the number given at any one time and the fact that the shots are one size fits all. I don't imagine that a 16 lb. 12 month old can process a shot the same way a 23 lb. 12 month old can. I don't understand much about autism but lots of Moms with autistic kids say they don't have any doubt that the MMR at least triggered the autism in some way. If so many Moms believe it, I think there must be something to it. Moms are very intuity when it comes to their kidlets.

[AnnieCamaro]

Miss 5, I don't know anything about vaccines. My sister Tigger told me about Down Syndrome, though. She said the very best part of her job was working with people with that syndrome, because she said they were so very brilliant at giving love. It looks to me like you've got a lovely loved lovie girl, too. It makes me happy to look at her smile.

/:P\