Two issues at stake. Are they effective and what are the side effects?
Vaccines are good against a known thing, such as Hepatitis B or Polio. So you would want your kids to be vaccinated against things like that. However the flu vaccine is not really effective.
Side effects? If you take a Flu vaccine shot or Whooping cough shot you get a different one from that given to pregnant women and babies. Think about that. One contains mercury, the other doesn't. So why doesn't everybody get the safer one? Manufacturer cost.
Which leads to a third issue which I didn't mention - money. Corporations abuse whenever they can, why wouldn't it be the same in the pharma industry? Take the flu vaccine, the effectiveness is not proven, yet we are bombarded everyday with marketing/propaganda that flu shots are available and they only cost 60 bucks.
The Andrew Wakefield MMR-Autism paper has been discredited but it did make a lot of people ask questions. Why are kids today getting so many more vaccinations than before? Why are more kids getting diagnosed with autism? Is there a causal link? Why instead of single shots are different shots getting combined into one super cocktail - to save money, cut corners?
If you read Ben Goldacre's books on the pharma and health industry, you will quickly understand that most big pharma medical trials are poorly controlled experiements and mainly used as marketing tools for new products. They will sponsor/allow dozens of tests confirming a positive result, to crowd out one or two better controlled tests which produce a negative result.
Obviously citations needed, but this is from memory.
At the end of the day, parents have tough decisions, use common sense and understand that medicine evolves.
The last few years, doctors recommended kids take Tylenol before vaccinations to help pain management. Now doctors say take Advil, because Tylenol in young infants and children may be linked to asthma and exczema - and some research indicates Tylenol reduces the effectiveness of the vaccine shot itself!
The flu vaccine certainly is effective. It is not 100% effective, but it is still effective. Getting it makes you much less likely to catch the flu than not getting it. For vulnerable people, this greatly improves their chance of survival. For the rest of us, this greatly improves our chances of not spending a week in bed. Plus, if a significant proportion of the population gets the vaccine, that reduces the chance of it getting transmitted, making it even more effective.
Speaking of cost, my HMO gives my family flu vaccines for free. The only reason they would do this is if they think it's cheaper for them overall, because the campaign reduces doctor visits. They may be motivated solely by profit, but in this case, their desire for profit lines up with my desire for health.
I can't believe you seriously ask why kids are getting so many more vaccinations than before. You might as well ask why kids are getting so many more surgeries than before. Kids get more vaccines today because more vaccines are available. Obviously, kids weren't getting flu vaccines before the flu vaccine was actually developed.
It's not effective. If brakes only operated 9% of the time, would they be effective?
"The current flu shot is only 9% effective for the elderly and only 56% effective in general, according to CDC figures. CDC officials are baffled why the vaccine is so ineffective in the elderly." NYT
And from the Lancet:
"Background: No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.
Findings (Interpretation): Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years)."
> It's not effective. If brakes only operated 9% of the time, would they be effective?
That's a shitty analogy.
If an aftermarket add-on made old people 9% less likely to get in a car accident, and the general public 56% less likely to, I'd consider that pretty awesome.
Brake failure sends you into the car in front of you. Flu shot failure means you might wind up with the flu - but if everyone else around you got their shot, you're going to be better off.
Flu vaccines are 60% effective, so you're 60% less like to get sick after getting vaccinated. In layman terms, someone who normally gets sick 6 yeas out of 10 would now get sick only 2 years in the same period.
The problem is not your ignorance (we're all ignoran of many things), it's the combination of ignorance, willingness to hold a strong opinion on the subject, and simultaneous lack of curiosity to explore the subject.
Are you describing yourself in that last sentence?
"The current flu shot is only 9% effective for the elderly and only 56% effective in general, according to CDC figures. CDC officials are baffled why the vaccine is so ineffective in the elderly." NYT
And from the Lancet:
"Background: No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.
Findings (Interpretation): Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years)."
> CDC officials are baffled why the vaccine is so ineffective in the elderly.
The elderly having a weaker immune system is hardly new knowledge. It's one of the reasons the people they come into contact need vaccinations, so the elderly and young children benefit from herd immunity.
> Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons.
Hardly surprising or new info. They put a couple strains in the vaccine based on what they think will crop up that flu season. Sometimes it's wrong and the vaccine doesn't do much good. Sometimes a new threat like H1N1 come up mid-season and they make an additional one.
> Heck, if the flu vaccine is so good for you why is it that health-care workers and doctors can't be bothered to get it?
Because there are just as many idiot doctors and nurses as in the general population? You'll find people who don't believe in evolution as doctors and nurses, too. Hell, my wife's nursing textbook had analyzing auras as a possible care component.
Look, 9% is a far cry from 60%... is 9% effective?
The 9% represents elderly people, a target group for the vaccine. I think what's more important is that anyone considering the vaccine should be told that they still need to take precautions with basic hygiene.
The marketing/sales pitch implies too much that getting the shot means they're going to be immune ("be covered this Winter!"). It might result in them getting careless, not washing hands after being on public transport, touching their nose, etc. and getting sick.
> Speak to your OB and ask if the vaccines given to pregnant women are the same as the ones from Walgreens or Safeway... and ask about the mercury.
See, you can't even get that right. Setting aside for a moment the fact that autism rates have continued to increase despite the removal of thimerosal from nearly all vaccines (and that you get a lot more mercury from coal power plant emissions)...
The version of the flu shot that's contraindicated for pregnancy is the nasal spray, which lacks thimerosal because it's a single-dose variant. People at Walgreens/Safeway love the nasal spray.
Flu shot by injection does contain thimerosal, unless you get the special version which doesn't. Walgreens and Safeway have a limited supply of it and people have to call ahead to get this special version.
Given that an OB confirmed the above to me and I watched the OB's nurse administer a single shot without thimerosal, I think I'm more right than you on these matters.
> Walgreens says about the nasal spray "It should not be used in pregnant women" which implies it is harmful in some way, does it not?
Not at all. Sometimes medicines are contraindicated simply because there isn't enough study in the population at question. If the flu shot is known to be safe and the nasal, while believed to be safe, still needs more study in pregnant women, they'll recommend the shot.
> Flu shot by injection does contain thimerosal, unless you get the special version which doesn't.
Some of it does, some of it doesn't. It's a red herring - the safety of thimerosal is long since stablished, attempts from fraudsters like Wakefield notwithstanding.
> Given that an OB confirmed the above to me
Many OBs will spout the American theory that a single glass of red wine is bad for a baby, too. I'll trust the CDC over anecdotes from individual OBs.
The nasal spray is contraindicated for anyone with a weakened immune system because it's an attenuated virus vaccine. That doesn't mean that it's dangerous for the rest of us.
And just how do "the rest of us" know if we have a weakened immune system?
If the objective is to do good and save lives, why not give everybody the same "safer" flu shot as given to pregnant women?
Why not eliminate the risk that a few people wander into Walgreens, not knowing they have a weakened immune system, and then get seriously ill or worse, drop dead?
A weakened immune system is not a condition you can really have without realizing it.
But if you don't want to take the risk, by all means, go for the injection. In fact, my provider has never offered the nasal spray. It's only there because people find it to be more convenient or don't like needles.
Actually, how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not? As an adult, we may know our medical history and immunity, either through testing or anecdotal evidence. However, we are talking here about newborns and infants between birth and six, who don't have 20 years of medical history that would indicate strength/weakness of an immune system.
First, I'm not a doctor, and people should consult doctors for medical advice.
Do I get to pose random questions without research? I can only assume you were referring to my question "how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not?" That seems like a pretty legitimate question, does it not? Do I need a medical degree to pose a question regarding how much medical history we have about your average newborn baby?
Am I crossing some line into medical 'research' by asking that question? When babies are born, do they have clear documented medical histories that I'm unaware of?
You also asked if there were "any vaccines given to newborns that are contraindicated for immune-compromised people".
First we need to define newborns. Wikipedia says hours days or a few weeks old. I couldn't find how the CDC defines newborns.
In the first couple days, the only scheduled vaccine per the CDC is usually Hep B. Whether others are given in the first couple days probably depends on doctors, the baby's health, the parents, the country we're in, etc.
From the CDC:
"Hepatitis B vaccination is contraindicated for persons with a history of hypersensitivity to yeast or to any vaccine component (92,189--191). Despite a theoretic risk for allergic reaction to vaccination in persons with allergy to Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast), no evidence exists that documents adverse reactions after vaccination of persons with a history of yeast allergy."
So assuming you consider an allergy to be compromising to the immune system (which, by definition, an allergy is), it appears your answer is "yes, there is a vaccine given (or at least recommended) to newborns that is contraindicated for certain immune-compromised people".
Hopefully those contraindicated infants are not given that vaccine, but as I posed earlier, how much do we know about an individual infant's immune system within hours of birth? This probably depends on a lot of things as well - doctors, hospital (or home birth), availability of testing and results, etc.
The RV vaccine is usually given in the first couple months, where the 'newborn' label could still apply depending on how you use the word. RV is contraindicated for SCID.
Below is a full list of contraindications for several vaccines, listed on the CDC website.
An allergic reaction is an overreaction of the immune system to a normally harmless material. "Immune compromise" is a weakening of the immune system. These are, you might note, almost exact opposites. People with weak immune systems won't generally suffer allergic reactions, because an allergic reaction requires the immune system to overreact, and "weak" generally precludes an overreaction. At worst, they wouldn't suffer anything worse than a normal person.
Now, this does raise an interesting question, namely: are newborns ever allergic to this stuff? Could it cause a problem? The answer to the second would seem to be "no" given your CDC quote that there's no evidence for adverse reactions, and that would render the first moot. However, it's still an interesting question, but you'll notice that it's a completely different question from what you asked.
Is your question legitimate? Of course. My point is that mine was legitimate too, but when I posed it, I got a stupid "GIYF" response from you. Apparently you think you have the right to ask questions without research, but I don't. That double standard annoys me.
Worse, you don't even know what you don't know. You get the relationship between allergies and weakened immune systems completely wrong, yet you state that wrongness as fact, so obvious that you call it "by definition".
And then, when I call you out on this bad behavior, I imagine you'll call me a "fascist" and say that I'm "suppressing dissenting views" or some such crap. The reality is, I welcome dissent, but only intelligent dissent. You're not providing it.
I won't call you a fascist. We're nitpicking here. An allergic reaction is obviously not a good reaction to a vaccine, not a desired outcome. Whether an allergy is a result of a compromised immune system (the immune system isn't compromised, but the allergic person is worse off for it) an over active immune system isn't relevant to the argument. I'd also read the CDC quote again. My interpretation was a bit different, as they specified in the second sentence.
Edit - I'm not sure how far you got in my last post, but if we're going to pick about allergies not being a compromised immune system, SCID is the reason for contraindication for RV.
I don't see how it could possibly be "nitpicking" to discuss this stuff in detail. The conversation started out with the question of why some vaccines are not given to certain people, and why that does not mean that these vaccines are dangerous to other people. We then diverted to the question of dangers in infants, but understanding exactly what the dangers are and why certain vaccines have certain dangers is hardly "nitpicking".
And to be honest, no, I did not read the end of your post. I stopped at the moment I got to that completely ludicrous statement that an allergic reaction qualifies as an immune system compromise. This is not some obscure detail, this is an extremely basic fact about how the immune system works.
I wrote a longer reply that you may not have read yet (just posted a few minutes ago). I thought the spirit of the question was more to an irregular immune system and not just specifically a weakened one. Allergies are not indicative of a weakened immune system - whether or not 'compromised' is a term worth using for a system that is irregular is probably not a debate worth having, but the individual clearly is compromised.
Agreed that it's not nitpicking to know why vaccines cause a potential danger - overactive or underactive immune systems obviously react (or don't) in different ways, but I understood the nature of the question to be much less specific (are vaccines contraindicated in the sick, instead of are vaccines contraindicated in this specific group of sick people).
What you point out is not an obscure detail, but if the spirit of the conversation were how I had interpreted it, the detail wouldn't be relevant. I focused more on the vaccine being recommended to sick people and not people sick with x.
I was on mobile for my first response, but I do want to address your comments.
This whole thing got started when I replied to a comment you made stating "A weakened immune system is not a condition you can really have without realizing it."
My response was a rhetorical question about how we don't know about a newborn's immune system. If it wasn't clear that "how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not" was a rhetorical question, I apologize for not making that more clear, but I think the question has an obvious answer and I didn't ask it to get your opinion. If you feel that question has an answer other than "very little", feel free to elaborate.
The reason I asked that question is that your statement that one cannot have a weakened immune system without knowing only applies to adults, as baby in the first moments does not have a medical history. So yes, someone can have a weakened immune system without anyone knowing it, but likely that would be at birth and in the earliest days of lives - when some vaccinations take place. As one gets older, weakened immune systems might become more evident, but they would be least evident at birth. I'm not sure we can debate that as anything but fact, but I'm certainly willing to listen to dissenting views on that.
So I ask a rhetorical question, and your response is to pose a question to me - "Are there any vaccines given to newborns that are contraindicated for immune-compromised people? That strikes me as rather unlikely."
Your question clearly wasn't a rhetorical question, and was something that someone could just look up (thus, the Google comment). I could have said 'I believe there are but don't care to look them up', but I figured you'd just look them up yourself and that would be the end of it. I was aware that there were some vaccines that were contraindicated for certain allergies and other conditions, mainly because I wasn't able to get certain vaccines as a child.
I'm honestly not sure why you didn't just look it up, unless you were more interested in my response than what you would have found on your own. But I did answer it, yet you chose to pick apart the one answer
Your response to that was "So you get to pose random questions without research, but I don't? How's that work?" I wasn't posing a random question, and my rhetorical question really shouldn't require research. Again, I think the answer was pretty obvious - if someone has a very brief lifespan, the person would likely have little medical history. There is a double standard about being expected to answer rhetorical question vs answering a factual question that you could also look up.
The answer to your question was clearly something you could have found on your own, but you asked me instead. Were you looking for an answer, or just looking to see how I'd answer it?
So I write out a longer reply, which you find some flaws with. You don't reference the part about RV/SCID in your reply, which seems to be the most relevant part of my response. That was the question you asked, yet you didn't even acknowledge the answer.
An allergy is not indicative of a weakened immune system, and I could have worded that a bit better. The person with allergies is 'compromised', and having an overactive immune system does compromise an individual. Having incredibly low blood pressure is dangerous, and having incredibly high blood pressure is dangerous too. Both indicate a compromised system that is not in balance, just as severe allergy and a condition such as SCID are impairments.
Whether or not an immune system is overactive (allergy) or weakened, I think using the term 'compromised' might have been the issue. Instead of "assuming you consider an allergy to be compromising to the immune system ", I could have left off at 'compromising'.
I did reference RV and SCID in the post as well, but you didn't reference those in your reply. I think your question, as asked literally, would be answered by RV being contraindicated in SCID cases. I answered the question as if you'd asked if vaccines were contraindicated in people with 'immune system irregularities' instead of 'immune system deficiencies'. The difference is, in my opinion, splitting hairs for the purpose of our dialogue, but that was what you chose to go with.
So yes, RV is contraindicated in SCID patients, and RV is recommended for newborns if you use the term newborns to indicate weeks instead of days. Hep B is not contraindicated for infants with weakened immune systems, but is contraindicated for infants with irregular immune systems that might be overreactive to yeast.
Regarding the calling out on bad behavior, I don't think I've behaved badly unless you somehow feel that my failure to clarify the difference between a weakened immune system and an overreactive one is a sin. What we are discussing here are mostly facts, not really opinions, and there really isn't much room for actual dissent. I have not problem with your opinions, as you haven't really provided any other than your opinions on my comments. I don't think you're suppressing any views. I'm not really providing opinions here, just facts for the most part (with the obvious clarification necessary to define allergy as irregular immune system instead of weakened).
> And just how do "the rest of us" know if we have a weakened immune system?
You generally know if you're undergoing chemo, have AIDS, are pregnant, are over 50, etc. The provider administering will jog your memory, too.
> If the objective is to do good and save lives, why not give everybody the same "safer" flu shot as given to pregnant women?
According to Wikipedia, there's evidence it's more effective in young children. As with most medical treatments, there are risks and benefits that must be considered. The fact that it doesn't require a needle also has significant benefits, as fear of needles can be a barrier to vaccination.
By all means, continue the argument from ignorance and personal incredulity, though.
Yes, I do find it quite incredible that questioning the efficacy of vaccines is like a red flag to a bull for some people.
Even though the Lancet has published research examining the flu vaccine's effectiveness, it appears any kind of discussion is strictly forbidden.
I don't want to use the word "fascist" but this discussion has clearly shown that the people who are truly ignorant are those who fail to consider dissenting viewpoints.
> I don't want to use the word "fascist" but this discussion has clearly shown that the people who are truly ignorant are those who fail to consider dissenting viewpoints.
I have little patience for the "explain this... oh... well, explain THIS! oh... well..." game vaccine doubters play.
"If this gravity stuff worked like you said, then cars would all be stuck to the ground."
"Well actually, they are."
"Sure, usually, but I saw a picture of a car that landed on top of another car. Clearly there are some flaws in this gravity thing."
"It's true that there are ways to get cars off the ground, but they don't stay off the ground for long, and their behavior still fits entirely within the theory of gravity. This is pretty basic stuff and you should really research it."
And then they call you a "fascist" for "not tolerating dissenting views".
Vaccines are good against a known thing, such as Hepatitis B or Polio. So you would want your kids to be vaccinated against things like that. However the flu vaccine is not really effective.
Side effects? If you take a Flu vaccine shot or Whooping cough shot you get a different one from that given to pregnant women and babies. Think about that. One contains mercury, the other doesn't. So why doesn't everybody get the safer one? Manufacturer cost.
Which leads to a third issue which I didn't mention - money. Corporations abuse whenever they can, why wouldn't it be the same in the pharma industry? Take the flu vaccine, the effectiveness is not proven, yet we are bombarded everyday with marketing/propaganda that flu shots are available and they only cost 60 bucks.
The Andrew Wakefield MMR-Autism paper has been discredited but it did make a lot of people ask questions. Why are kids today getting so many more vaccinations than before? Why are more kids getting diagnosed with autism? Is there a causal link? Why instead of single shots are different shots getting combined into one super cocktail - to save money, cut corners?
If you read Ben Goldacre's books on the pharma and health industry, you will quickly understand that most big pharma medical trials are poorly controlled experiements and mainly used as marketing tools for new products. They will sponsor/allow dozens of tests confirming a positive result, to crowd out one or two better controlled tests which produce a negative result.
Obviously citations needed, but this is from memory.
At the end of the day, parents have tough decisions, use common sense and understand that medicine evolves.
The last few years, doctors recommended kids take Tylenol before vaccinations to help pain management. Now doctors say take Advil, because Tylenol in young infants and children may be linked to asthma and exczema - and some research indicates Tylenol reduces the effectiveness of the vaccine shot itself!