Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Flu Jab Mandatory For Some Medical Staff in NSW
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic

Flu Jab Mandatory For Some Medical Staff in NSW

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 44985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 18 2018 at 4:26am
I thought those results were the basis of the % effecxtiveness published for each years vaccine.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Online
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 18 2018 at 9:58pm
Originally posted by Technophobe Technophobe wrote:

I thought those results were the basis of the % effecxtiveness published for each years vaccine.


I think you would find it fascinating to actually look at the research that the cdc does.    It is strange complex statistical analysis that really doesn't show what I would like.   I will repeat it again... we have virtually NO research to show that the flu vaccine reduces sick days/hospitalizations/mortality.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 44985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 19 2018 at 3:21am
I did as you suggested.  I often visit CDC information and education sites/publivations but this was my first flu vaccine search.  You are right - it is fascinating.  After a few minutes surfing, several interesting points were obvious,  The first and most relevant is that randomised trials are not usually undertaken. 

"What!"  I cried:  "That is nuts!"  But, there was a good reason.  The vast body of other types of research and the historical records of actual randomised trials long ago* make  research of that type unethical.  They know it prevents deaths, hospitaizations and a host of permanent damage so witholding the vaccine deliberately is not morally an option.  Meta analysis is common though.

This little essay is pretty informative, even more for the links it contains than for itself:   https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm  It shows where the CDC gets its information and lists a samples of its sources at https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/benefit-publications.html ,   https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/publications.htm and https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm.

There appear to be slightly more statistics available on the deaths of young children.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-flu-cdc/u-s-cdc-director-urges-flu-vaccinations-as-pediatric-deaths-mount-idUSKBN1FB36O is not a study, but the results of several; put into action, as is this CDC leaflet which quotes the statistics  https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/general/why-get-flu-vaccine.pdf.  Sadly, it does not list its scientific sources.  So this one I found is a bit more specific:  https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0403-flu-vaccine.html

The reason for the difference in statiscs may have something to do with the age of the very imune systems under study.  The young ones are fairly blank waiting to "be written on", while the old are both "Written all over" and failing overall, as this Oxford study found:  https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/170/5/650/102527 .  (They had the same morality issues, but found a way round them.)  Although they concluded a drop in mortality came from vaccination of the subject, as the age of patient rose, the effectiveness dropped.  Herd immunity still applied of course.

The whole area of this type of research appears to be a minefield.  Meta analysis of everything from death certificates to doctor's appointments clearly show the flu jab saves lives and many of them and a great deal of associated mysery too, but randomised trials and peer reviewed stuff are conspicuous by their absence, as are precise figures. 

Long term repeated vaccine use seems to be even more controversial - with different studies making diametrically opposed claims!  To be honest on this last point, it appears that accumulated flu vaccinations increase overall immunity, but not by enough to take the figures outside the "margain for error" range.

I am afraid, for now, we will have to settle for meta analysis.  At least the figures behind that are colossal and so may be reasonably relied upon; even if they fail to satisfy the hunger for cosy, scientific randomised trialling.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Long ago in flu research, not permian or triassic.

I include one more essay here.  Once again it is not a peer reviewed journal entry.  I put it in simply because I liked it:   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/upshot/flu-shot-deaths-herd-immunity.html
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Online
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 22 2018 at 2:22am
Many of the studies show higher mortality among the vaccinated.   They explain it away as "selection bias".    Those more likely to die are also more likely to get the vaccine... one doesn't cause the other.   I remember seeing another showing childhood asthmatics did worse after receiving the jab... it was also explained away.   Also famous Canadian study showed those that got the swine flu shot did worse than those who didn't.    To show a benefit to the shot  you have to resort to very convoluted complex statistical mathematics.   I just hope you understand why a common  man like myself might be skeptical.

"But it would be unethical to study it because we know it works"   Don't you see circular reasoning in that argument?   Particularly in light of the fact that most of the research out there isn't great.   Look I don't currently take the shot but in the name of science I would volunteer for a double blind study....    Does this solve the ethical dilemma?

First do no harm...   to me that means NOT giving something unless you are certain it is in the patients best interest.  
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 44985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 22 2018 at 7:28am
Originally posted by DeepThinker DeepThinker wrote:

Many of the studies show higher mortality among the vaccinated.   They explain it away as "selection bias".    Those more likely to die are also more likely to get the vaccine... one doesn't cause the other.   I remember seeing another showing childhood asthmatics did worse after receiving the jab... it was also explained away.   Also famous Canadian study showed those that got the swine flu shot did worse than those who didn't.    To show a benefit to the shot  you have to resort to very convoluted complex statistical mathematics.

Have you got a link to any of this?  It completely contradicts all of the stuff I have learned.
Originally posted by DeepThinker DeepThinker wrote:

"But it would be unethical to study it because we know it works"   Don't you see circular reasoning in that argument?   Particularly in light of the fact that most of the research out there isn't great.   Look I don't currently take the shot but in the name of science I would volunteer for a double blind study....    Does this solve the ethical dilemma?
Yes, that would definitely be a circular argument, if the information were correct.  Once again, do you have a link to any of that?

Finally:
Originally posted by DeepThinker DeepThinker wrote:

"First do no harm"
This is out of the context in which it was originally quoted and intended.  Vaccinating healthcare workers (or making them keep a mask on) clearly prevents serious and obvious risk of harm to the patient.   I appologise for failing to make that clear.

I personally believe that vaccinating the patient is also proveably  in their best interest, although that was not my original argument and I concede it to be more controversial, hence all the quotes from the CDC.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
FluMom View Drop Down
Senior Admin Group
Senior Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: February 11 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FluMom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 22 2018 at 4:57pm
Look just do your best. My doc's nurse last week said she had the shot and just got back from 3 weeks from having the flu. I get the shot and I feel like I have done my best. If I get the flu well I still I believe I did my best.

You all argue about stuff that does not matter. Do what you want and others do the same. No one is right or wrong!
Always Be Prepared
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 44985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 22 2018 at 5:36pm
I hear you FluMom.  Embarrassed
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 23061
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 24 2018 at 2:51pm
its easy ,if you dont thinK getting vaccinated does not work,

 then dont get vaccinated, and take the risk,

i had a flu at christmas 2016, 3 people at work also got it ,

it was the 3rd time in my life i had a "REAL FLU" not just a "bad cold",

i dont want it again i was flat out for a week ,could not open a can of beans,

took me 3+ weeks to recover,

i had my first flu shot in 2017 ,because at 60yrs i dont want it again 

so get the shot even if it is on 20% effective.............

when i was born vaccination was a very new thing , not flu ,( for measels, dipthiria etc.....)

my MOM was first in line.......

                                               THANKS MOM!!!!! ..........................


12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 44985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 24 2018 at 3:48pm
My conclusion is identical for the opposite reasons.................

My Mum was an anti-vaxer*    As such she actually had TB and had to undergo months and months of treatment.  Still she would not have vaccinated me, social services intervened in the end. 

Well, I escaped TB, but I have vivid memories of having chicken pox, post-flu-severe-bronchitis and, most especially, measles.  I would not wish that on my greatest enemy.






Alongside other strange ideas like teaching me to smoke - I was 8.  I finally gave up in my 30s just before my first pregnancy, or feeding me oranges for about 6 months - JUST ORANGES - nothing else.  I could go on........ and on.............  and on..............  and on............
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 23061
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 24 2018 at 5:07pm
My father in law had TB and was in a sanaterium for months,his family,could only visit once a month and see him from outside the wire....
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 44985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 24 2018 at 6:18pm
The weird thing about TB (st least the old strains) is how many people DON'T get it.  Only about 10% of those who catch it go on to develop it.  Without genetic succeptability, malnutrition, co-infection or co-morbidities it goes nowhere.  The rise of HIV has been very instrumental in its massive return.

Before antibiotic multitherapy, about a third of sufferers recovered - if well fed, exposed to lots of sunshine and fresh air and given sufficient rest.  For the poor, who had no such luxuries of course, there was absolutely no hope.

The "sunsine" bit makes me think that deficiency of vitamin D was one of the big factors in those who recovered.  That and a tendency to scarring - which aids in the development of fibroses - which themselves walled of the infection.

We were never poor throughout my childhood, but my mother almost never went outside and ate a very restricted diet: all by her own choice.  I on the other hand, almost lived outside and frequently ate at my best friends house.  My mum and I were probably exposed at the same time, visiting her relatives in Ireland; trips which my father never came on.  I suspect that was why only she became ill.


Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Quick Reply
Name:

Message:
   NoFollow is applied to all links from this forum
 Enable BBcodes
Security Code:
Code Image - Please contact webmaster if you have problems seeing this image code  Refresh Refresh Image
Powered by Web Wiz CAPTCHA version 4.04 wwf
Copyright ©2005-2013 Web Wiz
Please enter the Security Code exactly as shown in image format.
Cookies must be enabled on your web browser.

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down