Flu Vaccine
Options
Replies
-
CharlieBeansmom wrote: »nope. since I stopped getting the flu shot I havent been sick.you can prevent the flu in many ways without the vaccine.my kids only had the flu vaccine one time each and they had the flu that year and havent had it since.same way with hubby. some people do have natural immunity to a lot of viruses.
my sentiments exactly!
0 -
digginDeep wrote: »shifterbrainz wrote: »It is so fun to read smart people claim science proves anything. True scientific research seeks to prove a hypothesis wrong. The only legitimate claim true science can make is that a theory can not be proven wrong. Impossible to conduct any legitimate scientific research starting with the premise of proving something is true because of the inherent and unavoidable bias. If you want to prove something true, you will conveniently (albeit unconsciously perhaps) avoid that which fails to prove. Conversely, if you are setting out to prove something false, no stone will get left unturned. I know, I know. Too much logic.
I think it actually depends on who is funding your research.
If that's the case, that is not SCIENTIFIC research. Not that it is wrong, it is just not science and claims of such are dishonest. But since when has honesty had anything to do with "scientific" claims. C'mon surely you can dig deeper than that.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Sorry, that was my way of saying that reading stuff on the internet doesn't count as research. In order to actually research vaccines, you need years and years (often a decade plus) of training in biology, immunology, bio-chemistry, laboratory procedures, etc. What we're doing is reading.
You don't follow the logic of burden of proof? Then why are you participating in a conversation? That's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying LALALALALALALA when someone asks you a follow-up question. If you can't support your stance, just say so.
I can support my stance but you refuse to hear the other side. You only want to hear what supports your side. And yes, I'm basically sticking my fingers in my ear because I genuinely don't care if you get vaccinated. YOU can feel free to look around and find scientific evidence that vaccines don't work, it's out there. You just refuse to accept it because you already agree with the vaccination crowd. I say, good for you! You've taken a side and you're sticking with it.
Just don't get all high and mighty and tell people that they are irresponsible for not getting vaccincinations. It's a personal choice, whether you base it on science or JK Rowling novels it doesn't matter.
Go get your vaccinations, I wish you the best of luck. I'm not getting any and I don't care if it's "socially immoral".
<fingers in ears> LALALALALALALALALALA
Sure you can support it. Absolutely you can! Give me a pubmed article that supports your stance. Show me an unbiased source. Again, I'll read it, just like I did with other claptrap you posted.
I hear your side: it's filled with pseudoscience and illogical nonsense, but that doesn't mean I won't humor you. I'm asking you for a rational source, actual evidence, not the ramblings of a non-qualified quack. I'm sorry you don't have a basic understanding of science to see the difference between a blog espousing an opinion and actual medical research/reporting.
And yes, not-sorry if it offends you, but you are irresponsible for not vaccinating. When you needlessly put others at risk because you don't understand something, you are acting irresponsibly.
I love this entire statement and I agree. I definitely had a giggle at the bolded.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/03/03/cid.cit064.full0 -
Already got my flu shot, b/c I hadn't had the flu since 6th grade (maybe '91)...got the flu the year before last...it was worse than I remembered. I got a flu shot last year...no flu.
I did pick-up some crazy GI virus last year, and my 6 year old and I spent an entire day puking out our guts (while my husband was out-of-town)...that was pretty horrible too.
I have 2 young kids and a husband that travels for work for 2-3 weeks out of the month. I seriously do not want to get sick.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.0 -
shifterbrainz wrote: »It is so fun to read smart people claim science proves anything. True scientific research seeks to prove a hypothesis wrong. The only legitimate claim true science can make is that a theory can not be proven wrong. Impossible to conduct any legitimate scientific research starting with the premise of proving something is true because of the inherent and unavoidable bias. If you want to prove something true, you will conveniently (albeit unconsciously perhaps) avoid that which fails to prove. Conversely, if you are setting out to prove something false, no stone will get left unturned. I know, I know. Too much logic.
If I used the word "proved," it was a misstatement and I apologize. I try to use the terms scientifically-based or scientifically-supported.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.
Oh dear, indeed! Weren't you the one trying to tell us there's a difference between naturally occurring formaldehyde and that which is found in vaccines? I'd asked for clarification on that. Anything?
Anyway, if you can comprehend peer-reviewed studies, why would you cite one that doesn't actually establish what you're trying to say (or is inconclusive at best), i.e. there is a controversy over the how vaccines are becoming less effective and that is a sufficient reason to not get one? I'm reading the Oxford Journals article and am about to start reading the citations on there, but it's clear that this your position is not that of the authors.
Why wouldn't you just link me to the study itself instead of going to an NVIC page first? It's almost as if you read the NVIC page and cited it without actually having read the study. Are you personally anti-vaxx?0 -
Yes I will. I don' t get it every year but I should because I work with vulnerable infants. I don't notice a significant difference to my health on years that I do or don't get it. I rarely get sick.0
-
No, because the flu vaccine only protects you from the 3 types of flu that scientists GUESS (albeit an educated guess) will be prevalent this year. Also, waiting on long-term studies on the pros/cons of the flu vaccine... AND I hate needles. I see no reason to get jabbed when there's no guarantee it'll actually keep me from getting the flu (if scientists guessed wrong).
However if I DO get sick, I stay home so as not to infect others. Haven't had the flu since I got out of the military 14 years ago. When in the military, I was required to have the flu shot, but managed to get the flu anyway. Twice.
Those professionals certainly make a much better educated 'guess' than most do about cars, clothing or partners.
How long of range studies are you waiting for? The influenza immunization has been around since at least there 1970's.
FYI, there is also the nasal spray type that does not require a needle at all.
Glad you stay home if you are ill, many don't, or are unable to do so.0 -
Yes, I received mine 3 weeks ago. Have gotten one annually since 1985.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.
Oh dear, indeed! Weren't you the one trying to tell us there's a difference between naturally occurring formaldehyde and that which is found in vaccines? I'd asked for clarification on that. Anything?
Anyway, if you can comprehend peer-reviewed studies, why would you cite one that doesn't actually establish what you're trying to say (or is inconclusive at best), i.e. there is a controversy over the how vaccines are becoming less effective and that is a sufficient reason to not get one? I'm reading the Oxford Journals article and am about to start reading the citations on there, but it's clear that this your position is not that of the authors.
Why wouldn't you just link me to the study itself instead of going to an NVIC page first? It's almost as if you read the NVIC page and cited it without actually having read the study. Are you personally anti-vaxx?
I'm not anti-vaxx. I'm just anti-flu vaxx.
0 -
But I don't want to catch autism.0
-
Yes I got a flu shot. A few years ago, my brother in law died from the flu. Living in the 21st century does no one any good unless they take advantage of the medicines available.0
-
-
-
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.
Oh dear, indeed! Weren't you the one trying to tell us there's a difference between naturally occurring formaldehyde and that which is found in vaccines? I'd asked for clarification on that. Anything?
Anyway, if you can comprehend peer-reviewed studies, why would you cite one that doesn't actually establish what you're trying to say (or is inconclusive at best), i.e. there is a controversy over the how vaccines are becoming less effective and that is a sufficient reason to not get one? I'm reading the Oxford Journals article and am about to start reading the citations on there, but it's clear that this your position is not that of the authors.
Why wouldn't you just link me to the study itself instead of going to an NVIC page first? It's almost as if you read the NVIC page and cited it without actually having read the study. Are you personally anti-vaxx?
I'm not anti-vaxx. I'm just anti-flu vaxx.
Well great, then! That's awesome. I'm still having trouble as to why you're against the flu vaccination, though. Yes, it's not 100% effective, but some protection is much better than none and it even when it doesn't prevent sickness, the science does seem to support that the symptoms are lessened greatly. There's no more significant risk of adverse side effects that I've been able to find. I just don't see the rationality behind not getting vaccinated for the flu if you are able. Every reason I'm presented is based on emotion, misunderstanding, or general anti-vaxx lunacy, a la NVIC.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »shifterbrainz wrote: »It is so fun to read smart people claim science proves anything. True scientific research seeks to prove a hypothesis wrong. The only legitimate claim true science can make is that a theory can not be proven wrong. Impossible to conduct any legitimate scientific research starting with the premise of proving something is true because of the inherent and unavoidable bias. If you want to prove something true, you will conveniently (albeit unconsciously perhaps) avoid that which fails to prove. Conversely, if you are setting out to prove something false, no stone will get left unturned. I know, I know. Too much logic.
If I used the word "proved," it was a misstatement and I apologize. I try to use the terms scientifically-based or scientifically-supported.
tincan - earlier, you admit you have neither the education nor the experience "to explain the study", yet here you try to gain credibility by using terms "scientifically-based" or "scientifically-supported"? I assume you did so with a straight face? Perhaps some scientifically-based or scientifically-supported education and/or experience might be in order? I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm sure you are a fine upstanding individual I'd enjoy having a brew or two with, I really do. I'm only suggesting some forethought before attempting scientific argumentation. I am so very weary
(Crawling back under my rock) 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions