Wellness

[olive59]

Some really intelligent and thoughtful posts here - thanks to those of you who have respectfully shared your view points. In the past, every single time I have had the flu shot I have gotten sick. Maybe not with the actual flu - but sick. I have since stopped getting them. I can't even remember the last time I had any kind of flu. Just colds to varying degrees. This is JUST ME - I'm not inferring any blanket observation on everyone. But that's kind of the whole point in my mind - that I and I ALONE should be the one to ultimately decide what goes in my body. I agree with Jersey (well said!) that I would never want to relinquish my right to decide anything about my health and body to my employer.

[ChynnaBlue]

On 9/25/2014 Jersey Born said:

Considering the science is very clear that flu shots are nowhere near 100% efficacious, and their efficacy drops precipitously when they are taken two years in a row, I am glad the Boston nurses are claiming their right to make their own informed medical consent decisions regarding annual flu shots. Good for them.

Nothing is 100% effective, including the birth control pill. It's still better than going without.

I've never heard the claim that the efficacy drops when taken 2 years in a row. What's your source on that?

[ChynnaBlue]

On 9/25/2014 NC Bandwagon said:

Hello, ladies.

I usually don't post in these threads. More times than not, they turn sour. Differing opinions usually lead to hard feelings. Does it really have to be that way? Is there really no way to have a differing view without it turning bad? I can understand if someone doesn't agree with the other person's view, but perhaps it's not necessary to, you know....demean people, call them names and try to put them down because people don't agree. Even if the OP or someone posts something that may sound different or off the wall or something, that really doesn't seem like a good reason to try to put them down or anything. Perhaps things would get better if people would try to agree to disagree. It might make the threads and discussions more friendlier.

Anyway, that's just my opinion on it. Happy posting.

I'm good with that idea in many cases, but not when it comes to vaccines, which can literally mean the difference between life and death. When an opinion is not backed up by science and the ignorance of that opinion causes people to suffer and die, as is the case with people who do not believe in vaccinating, then no, I don't believe in the idea that I need to respect that kind of ignorance.

Don't like the shoes I'm wearing? Cool. Don't share the same religion I do? I don't mind one bit. Decide that your factually incorrect opinion is somehow equal to science, even though it's been proven to be untrue? Nope, that's not okay. That's harmful.

Ignorance is literally killing people and that's not something I can say we should all just get along with.

[ChynnaBlue]

On 9/26/2014 Ms X said:

On 9/25/2014 Jersey Born said:

Ms. X, while it may be true that the flu shot provides some protection for some who take it, taking this vaccine has not been proven in either a long term care setting or in a hospital to prevent the transmission of influenza. A person can be vaccinated, yet still be a silent, asymptomatic carrier of the disease they were vaccinated against, and still spread it to others.

I wanted to convey that taking a flu shot will not make a person magically antiseptic and incapable of transmitting influenza to others. A person can take a flu shot, and then touch an influenza contaminated door knob, or telephone, or shopping cart, and then touch another person. Transmission complete. If the flu vaccine works for a person, it works only for that person. The world around us doesn't become any less germy due to our vaccination status. We live in a very dirty world. Even the air we breathe with each and every breath is full of microbes.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/01/microbes-survive-and-maybe-thrive-high-atmosphere

I hadn't thought of that, JerseyBorn. I still favor the shot because it will prevent some transmissions.

And that's the goal. Nothing is going to be 100% effective, but precautions are important, especially in an environment where people are getting exposed more often. Look at the number of healthcare workers getting Ebola in Africa right now. I don't think they would turn down a vaccine, were one available.

I've gotten the flu even after having had a flu shot, but I was much less miserable and had a much faster recovery than I did when I got the flu without having had the vaccine.

[CrazyDaisy]

On 9/26/2014 ChynnaBlue said:

On 9/25/2014 NC Bandwagon said:

Hello, ladies.

I usually don't post in these threads. More times than not, they turn sour. Differing opinions usually lead to hard feelings. Does it really have to be that way? Is there really no way to have a differing view without it turning bad? I can understand if someone doesn't agree with the other person's view, but perhaps it's not necessary to, you know....demean people, call them names and try to put them down because people don't agree. Even if the OP or someone posts something that may sound different or off the wall or something, that really doesn't seem like a good reason to try to put them down or anything. Perhaps things would get better if people would try to agree to disagree. It might make the threads and discussions more friendlier.

Anyway, that's just my opinion on it. Happy posting.

I'm good with that idea in many cases, but not when it comes to vaccines, which can literally mean the difference between life and death. When an opinion is not backed up by science and the ignorance of that opinion causes people to suffer and die, as is the case with people who do not believe in vaccinating, then no, I don't believe in the idea that I need to respect that kind of ignorance.

Don't like the shoes I'm wearing? Cool. Don't share the same religion I do? I don't mind one bit. Decide that your factually incorrect opinion is somehow equal to science, even though it's been proven to be untrue? Nope, that's not okay. That's harmful.

Ignorance is literally killing people and that's not something I can say we should all just get along with.

With all due respect, an opinion is not based in science it is a preference based on individuals circumstances. There have been and number of drugs or surgical procedures, that in doctors opinions, were the best that have been pulled and discontinued. Just because you feel one way does not mean someone else has to believe the same way when their health is concerned.

[Jersey Born]

On 9/26/2014 ChynnaBlue said:

On 9/25/2014 Jersey Born said:

Considering the science is very clear that flu shots are nowhere near 100% efficacious, and their efficacy drops precipitously when they are taken two years in a row, I am glad the Boston nurses are claiming their right to make their own informed medical consent decisions regarding annual flu shots. Good for them.

Nothing is 100% effective, including the birth control pill. It's still better than going without.

I've never heard the claim that the efficacy drops when taken 2 years in a row. What's your source on that?

My source is the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy out of Minnesota.

[poregirl]

There are 400,000 Iatrogenic (physician caused) deaths each year- you can't be too careful.

[poregirl]

Flu Vaccine Shown to have Shockingly Low Effectiveness Rate

Propaganda scare tactics still do work, as demonstrated by the 25 percent uptick in 2012-2013 seasonal flu vaccine sales reported by Novartis.1 This despite the fact that not just one, but three recent studies published in the journal Eurosurveillance2, 3, 4 strongly challenge the claim that the influenza vaccine will protect you against the flu.

According to CIDRAP:5

"All three studies suggest that during the 2011-12 flu season, the vaccine provided modest protection at first, but its effectiveness dropped sharply after 3 or 4 months.

A multicenter study by researchers in eight European countries indicated that overall vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza A/H3N2 in the first months of the season was 38%, but after mid-February it dropped to -1%.

'The concept that vaccine protection can be so short-lived provides a challenge for public health policy,' says the British report."

Similarly, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently admitted that this year's flu vaccine is doing a "startlingly dismal job of protecting senior citizens," to quote the San Francisco Chronicle.6

While not at a negative percentage rate, as reported by CIDRAP for the European community, the US flu vaccine is only nine percent effective against this season's type A (H3N2) influenza strain in people 65 and older.

[poregirl]

Personally, I would never accept the potential side effects associated with the influenza vaccine—such as permanent paralysis from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) —for such odds.

[lavendar]

Forty years ago there was a question re the vaccine given that year re a very small percentage of people who got symptoms reminiscent of GB. It happened to a friend of mine who was not diagnosed with GB but had fleeting symptoms. We both got the injections the same day at the school where we taught. No one was paralyzed or died. Check your literature. I worked as a medical editor and writer for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation. I wrote for lay people but worked from the literature.

I have Crohn's disease and Sjogren's syndrome, two serious autoimmune diseases. I got the flu thirty years ago. I ran a 104 degree fever, lost my Crohn's remission and was out of work for over a month. My doctor said if I hadn't had the vaccine (he sent labs to the CDC) I could have died.

The vaccines have a lot more science behind them now. I now get a stronger vaccine for those over sixty five. I wear a mask during the height of the season when going to a doctor's appointment.

Massachusetts allows a waiver for medical reasons.

The nurses at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston have a 99% vaccination rate. What do they know that the nurses at the Brigham don't?