login
Flu shot question (Page 6)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-11-28 9:38 AM in reply to: #4513098 |
Pro  4824    Houston |  Subject: RE: Flu shot questionjmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-28 9:16 AMThe entire thrust of the article is, “science is inherently motivated by profit, and is therefore inherently bad/wrong”. Her thesis is basically not that different from KeriKadi’s: “I feel strongly in my opinions, and therefore, they should be given equal weight as science”. No one is saying that anecdotal evidence is useless, but it’s highly subjective and not always accurate, which is why it’s been overridden by the scientific method as a diagnostic tool. Further, there’s a big difference between a patient saying, “This medication gives me a headache” and the doctor choosing to discontinue the prescription versus someone saying “I think that vaccines are ineffective and might even be harmful” when there is significant scientific data that strongly suggests the contrary. The former is analogous to “My favorite color is red”, while the latter is like saying “flamingoes are green”. Lastly it’s entirely relevant to consider the context in which the article is written and published. That article does not exist in a vacuum—rather it’s just one of many similar manifestos on the corruption of the medical and pharmaceutical field that is all over the website on which it appears. On the one hand, you, and others are discounting the validity of studies showing the effectiveness of vaccines because they are sponsored by drug companies who are seeking to profit from the results. But on the other hand, you are more than willing to accept the openly unscientific claims of someone who clearly has strong prejudicial feelings about conventional medicine in general, as evidenced by her various articles and the overall tone of her website. You aren’t entirely wrong about the proliferation of drug use by our culture, but I don’t think immunizations and vaccinations should be lumped in with ED drugs, and other drugs that may be overprescribed. But believing some opinion piece you read on a random website just because it happens to support your own subjective belief makes no more sense than trusting absolutely in the promises of “Big Pharma”. If you’re going to seek your own answers, and you should, at least look for more legitimate sources of information than some lady who clearly has an axe to grind. Once AGAIN my OPINION should NOT and was never given "equal weight of science". What bothers me is being berated rather than having an open dialog where questions could be answered rather than shot down. Really tired of the 'shut up and take your medicine' Seems to me I should be 100% comfortable with something before injecting it in my body or my child's body. I don't feel the doctors and pharma companies are doing a good job at this in general. We get the same attitude I am getting here. Doctors know all, I know nothing and I should do what they say. I am looked at as some irresponsible idiot because I have questions and concerns. Thankfully I have a great ped who sat down and answered my questions without being defensive and without judging me. Most are not so lucky. When making a choice regarding ones health it is important to look at risk vs benefit. I am entitled to make what I feel are the best decisions for me and my family. And lots more people are making similar choices in Texas you only need a philosophical exemption to enroll your unvaccinated child in school. |
| 2012-11-28 10:22 AM in reply to: #4513098 |
Champion 10157  Alabama | Subject: RE: Flu shot question jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-28 9:16 AM The entire thrust of the article is, “science is inherently motivated by profit, and is therefore inherently bad/wrong”. Her thesis is basically not that different from KeriKadi’s: “I feel strongly in my opinions, and therefore, they should be given equal weight as science”. No one is saying that anecdotal evidence is useless, but it’s highly subjective and not always accurate, which is why it’s been overridden by the scientific method as a diagnostic tool. Further, there’s a big difference between a patient saying, “This medication gives me a headache” and the doctor choosing to discontinue the prescription versus someone saying “I think that vaccines are ineffective and might even be harmful” when there is significant scientific data that strongly suggests the contrary. The former is analogous to “My favorite color is red”, while the latter is like saying “flamingoes are green”. Lastly it’s entirely relevant to consider the context in which the article is written and published. That article does not exist in a vacuum—rather it’s just one of many similar manifestos on the corruption of the medical and pharmaceutical field that is all over the website on which it appears. On the one hand, you, and others are discounting the validity of studies showing the effectiveness of vaccines because they are sponsored by drug companies who are seeking to profit from the results. But on the other hand, you are more than willing to accept the openly unscientific claims of someone who clearly has strong prejudicial feelings about conventional medicine in general, as evidenced by her various articles and the overall tone of her website. You aren’t entirely wrong about the proliferation of drug use by our culture, but I don’t think immunizations and vaccinations should be lumped in with ED drugs, and other drugs that may be overprescribed. But believing some opinion piece you read on a random website just because it happens to support your own subjective belief makes no more sense than trusting absolutely in the promises of “Big Pharma”. If you’re going to seek your own answers, and you should, at least look for more legitimate sources of information than some lady who clearly has an axe to grind. Well you put way more time and study into that article than I did. I just did a google search on actedotal evidence and scientic method and that popped up. I then scanned it, copy/pasted it in. I never ever realy read the thing. LOL Sorry, I'll research my sources better in the future. I am glad that I am not 'entirely wrong' although that happens some times. More often though, I am partiallly right. But the world is not black and white and what works for one person may be the wrong solution for others. Fundamentally I believe that drugs are overused. People get congested and so they take a pill to eliminate the congestion. That is just dumb IMO. You are fighting your body's own immune system! The drug companies brag about how many 'symtoms' they can eliminate - runny eye, congestion, aches, pains, coughing, etc. Get a runny nose, take a pill, coughing a lot, take some drugs. And many have done this their entire life! And then they wonder why they get sick so darn much?! Have a sore muscle, take a pill. BP a little high, take a pill to lower it and/or thin you blood. Cholesterol too high, take a pill. And of course, winter coming on, inject your body with a dead virus so you won't get sick! Who has done the studies to research the long term effects of taking the flu vaccines every year? If I get the flu and live, might my immume system be stronger the next time? What does not kill me makes me stronger?! I dunno if this is true or not but I can't find anyone studying the long term effects of flu vaccinations on individuals. I don't really care about the 'herd' because I have always stood alone in a crowd. ;-) |
| 2012-11-28 10:42 AM in reply to: #4507831 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Flu shot question So little Johnny has a cold. What to do? Take him to the doctor. But medicine have NEVER cured a virus. No matter, you will get cough syrup, a decongestant and maybe some antibiotics...just in case there is an infection in the sinus or ears or as a proplactic measure or cya medicine. You never go to the docs with getting some drug! Least that is MY experience. So spend you life teating symptoms of you own immune system and see what happens. |
| 2012-11-28 10:50 AM in reply to: #4507831 |
| Oakville | Subject: RE: Flu shot question I'm reluctant to add to this thread because it is one of those topics that can be debated forever. However, I chose to get a flu shot this year and have done so over the past several years. I have not had the flu since getting the shot and believe that it does work. Living in Canada, the flu shot was free to me. Actually, it was sponsored by the landlord of the building I work in and so I don't know if it was funded by them or the federal government. Either way, my reasons are simply (i) to avoid potentially spreading the flu to those who have suppressed immune systems, and (ii) to avoid getting the flu myself. I have read the science and believe the benefit of the shot outweighs the cost. I don't think that I am naive in believing these studies or believing the advice from the medical community generally. For those who choose not to get the shot, it seems to me that they fall into two categories: #1 - those who have read the science but believe the risks associated with the shot are too high #2 - those who have a general fear of "big brother" and are skeptical (whether reasonable or not) against anything sponsored/advocated by the government or pharamceutical companies I don't expect that anyone posting on this thread can change the minds of those who fall under #2, but I believe that there is a real chance that those who fall under #1 above can be convinced that the risks of the shot are very low and potential cost of not getting the shot is quite high. At the end of the day, everyone is going to do what they feel is right. But make an informed decision - there is some really good information in the posts and links above. |
| 2012-11-28 10:50 AM in reply to: #4513237 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 12:22 PM Well you put way more time and study into that article than I did. I just did a google search on actedotal evidence and scientic method and that popped up. I then scanned it, copy/pasted it in. I never ever realy read the thing. LOL Sorry, I'll research my sources better in the future. IMO this is part of the problem with this debate; someone does a Google search, finds something that supports their position and feels as though their beliefs have been validated because someone else has the same beliefs. Just because I can find a website (or even a scientific article) that claims something, for example that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned, does not mean that there is actually a foundation for that belief. Further, since we live in a society that is mostly scientifically illiterate, encouraging people to do their own research and make their own decision will often lead to them making a decision that is not founded upon scientific principles. Most people are unable to decipher scientific literature so they will turn to media and/or websites in order to make their decision; unfortunately, scientists tend to do a poor job of communicating their work to lay people. The end result is that the websites that are most accessible to the lay person are those that are not founded upon scientific inquiry and research but since they often appear to be well designed and written, the lay person is swayed by the argument. In addition, typically media involvement doesn't help as the media is trained to tell both sides of the story; so, find a scientist to present their findings, find a scientist to present an opposing point of view and let the viewer decide. Not only is the viewer likely ill equipped to make a decision based on a thirty second newsclip, but this presentation creates the appearance that both points of view are scientifically valid. We have seen this approach through much of the second half of the twenieth century and into the twenty first; from automobile manufactures, from tobacco companies, from anti-AGW groups, from anti-nuclear power groups, from ID advocates, etc. By creating a controversy in the mind of the public where there really is no scientific controversy, they are able to harbour distrust and skepticism of science which leads to things like evolution not being taught in some public schools. I would like to believe that the general public could educate themselves to the point that they could make informed decisions based upon scientific evidence but I'm not sure that this is actually the case. However, until such time that we get to that point, we will continue to have people make decisions based upon their opinions as they feel their opinions have the same weight as scientific theory. Shane |
| 2012-11-28 10:56 AM in reply to: #4513315 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Scott71 - 2012-11-28 10:50 AM Nice post. It really is ok for people to read the same information and draw different conclusions based on their own experience and comfort levels. No bashing necessary. I'm reluctant to add to this thread because it is one of those topics that can be debated forever. However, I chose to get a flu shot this year and have done so over the past several years. I have not had the flu since getting the shot and believe that it does work. Living in Canada, the flu shot was free to me. Actually, it was sponsored by the landlord of the building I work in and so I don't know if it was funded by them or the federal government. Either way, my reasons are simply (i) to avoid potentially spreading the flu to those who have suppressed immune systems, and (ii) to avoid getting the flu myself. I have read the science and believe the benefit of the shot outweighs the cost. I don't think that I am naive in believing these studies or believing the advice from the medical community generally. For those who choose not to get the shot, it seems to me that they fall into two categories: #1 - those who have read the science but believe the risks associated with the shot are too high #2 - those who have a general fear of "big brother" and are skeptical (whether reasonable or not) against anything sponsored/advocated by the government or pharamceutical companies I don't expect that anyone posting on this thread can change the minds of those who fall under #2, but I believe that there is a real chance that those who fall under #1 above can be convinced that the risks of the shot are very low and potential cost of not getting the shot is quite high. At the end of the day, everyone is going to do what they feel is right. But make an informed decision - there is some really good information in the posts and links above. |
| 2012-11-28 11:07 AM in reply to: #4513316 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Flu shot question gsmacleod - 2012-11-28 10:50 AM Rogillio - 2012-11-28 12:22 PM Well you put way more time and study into that article than I did. I just did a google search on actedotal evidence and scientic method and that popped up. I then scanned it, copy/pasted it in. I never ever realy read the thing. LOL Sorry, I'll research my sources better in the future. IMO this is part of the problem with this debate; someone does a Google search, finds something that supports their position and feels as though their beliefs have been validated because someone else has the same beliefs. Just because I can find a website (or even a scientific article) that claims something, for example that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned, does not mean that there is actually a foundation for that belief. Further, since we live in a society that is mostly scientifically illiterate, encouraging people to do their own research and make their own decision will often lead to them making a decision that is not founded upon scientific principles. Most people are unable to decipher scientific literature so they will turn to media and/or websites in order to make their decision; unfortunately, scientists tend to do a poor job of communicating their work to lay people. The end result is that the websites that are most accessible to the lay person are those that are not founded upon scientific inquiry and research but since they often appear to be well designed and written, the lay person is swayed by the argument. In addition, typically media involvement doesn't help as the media is trained to tell both sides of the story; so, find a scientist to present their findings, find a scientist to present an opposing point of view and let the viewer decide. Not only is the viewer likely ill equipped to make a decision based on a thirty second newsclip, but this presentation creates the appearance that both points of view are scientifically valid. We have seen this approach through much of the second half of the twenieth century and into the twenty first; from automobile manufactures, from tobacco companies, from anti-AGW groups, from anti-nuclear power groups, from ID advocates, etc. By creating a controversy in the mind of the public where there really is no scientific controversy, they are able to harbour distrust and skepticism of science which leads to things like evolution not being taught in some public schools. I would like to believe that the general public could educate themselves to the point that they could make informed decisions based upon scientific evidence but I'm not sure that this is actually the case. However, until such time that we get to that point, we will continue to have people make decisions based upon their opinions as they feel their opinions have the same weight as scientific theory. Shane Read the whole thread and don't cherry pick. I posted earliet that one should consult their doctor before getting the vaccine. You otoh said everyone should get the vaccine without regard to their medical history or risks. I have more faith in people than you obviously do. |
| 2012-11-28 11:14 AM in reply to: #4513364 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 1:07 PM Read the whole thread and don't cherry pick. I posted earliet that one should consult their doctor before getting the vaccine. I never said you didn't say that; however, the articles that you've posted on this thread have been less than scientifically rigourous. I was simply using your statement as a jumping off point for a larger issue that I see in society. You otoh said everyone should get the vaccine without regard to their medical history or risks. Really? I have more faith in people than you obviously do. Perhaps you do. Shane |
| 2012-11-28 11:19 AM in reply to: #4513057 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 9:58 AM TriToy - 2012-11-28 8:15 AM Did you reply to the right thread? Who said doctors were evil? Or were you just wanting to brag that you are a doctor and went to Yale?! Rogillio - 2012-11-28 8:05 AM Kermat89 - 2012-11-28 5:43 AM I agree. I think the same is true for lots of drugs....including cholesterol drugs, ADD drugs, antibacterial soaps, etc. Its unbelievable the number of drugs some people take daily. We are a drug addicted society and if you don't drink the kool-aid you are written off as a goofball and your opines laughable. Well no matter, those of us strong enough to live our life according to our own paradigm will do so regardless of what the rest of the herd does. Here's the problem...these facts are only produced from "studies." The majority of "sstudies" being done are those FOR vaccinations (which makes sense because the pharmaceutical complanies have all the money in the world to do whatever studies they want). If one study doesn't get the results they want, they can just do another one, etc. How much money and effort is going into studying the harmful effects of vaccines?????
there are mandated reporting methods for both vaccine adverse effects and drugs. CONSTANTLY being studied. FDA HAS pulled drugs and vaccines from market.
to sit there and just say "big bad pharmaceutical companies" and medical machine is bad in hot helpful.
Do you really think I spent my 4 years at Yale and then 3 years of residency (not to mention my 20 years of practice) learning how to harm people???? Is that what you think doctors do? that we are just a bunch of evil doers???
smh
read what you wrote - oh medicine is bad, vaccines are bad all the studies are done by big pharma yadda yadda so tired of the doctor and medicine bashing. brag??? I am being lynched in this thread.
take a look at history - people lived very short lives due to illnesses - including the flu - we have had MAJOR pandemics and are due for another one. 35,000 deaths per year due to influenza in the USA - that number would be much higher without immunization. Immunizations protect you AND the people around you. It is also a public health issue - to help protect the weaker amongst us. Rather than modern medicine making people weaker it has allowed those who are weaker to survive. |
| 2012-11-28 11:23 AM in reply to: #4507831 |
Regular 110 SE Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Flu shot question To the OP's question, I have gotten flu shots for several years and never had any reaction other than the occasional sore deltoid. Doesn't happen every year, and when it does, it goes away in a day or so. I'd just like to say "thank you" to those of you who do get flu shots every year. My son is 5 and has been on chemo for the past 2 of those years fighting leukemia. He's one of the kids with a weakened immune system that could die from the flu. I've seen a few numbers tossed around as to the vaccine's effectiveness, but even if it were only 5% effective, hell 1% effective, I would still get one because that's another 1% chance that my son will not get sick. To the nurse who won't get vaccinated, I'd love to know what hospital you work at so that I can make sure to avoid ever going there. My 5 year old's reaction to getting the flu shot? "It kind of tickled". HTFU.
|
| 2012-11-28 11:24 AM in reply to: #4513298 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 11:42 AM So little Johnny has a cold. What to do? Take him to the doctor. But medicine have NEVER cured a virus. No matter, you will get cough syrup, a decongestant and maybe some antibiotics...just in case there is an infection in the sinus or ears or as a proplactic measure or cya medicine. You never go to the docs with getting some drug! Least that is MY experience. So spend you life teating symptoms of you own immune system and see what happens.
could be the doctors you are going to. no we cannot cure viral infections but we CAN prevent some of them - ie influenza people come to me wanting relief of symptoms and I can tell them which otc meds to take, or see if they need something more - but I do NOT write for antibiotics for cya or prophylactically. In fact I have many patients angry that I won't write them for an antibiotic
so I cannot win - patients get mad if I don't prescribe the unnecessary med, then I come here an am accused of being a drug pusher, with $$ for eyes. |
| 2012-11-28 11:28 AM in reply to: #4507831 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: Flu shot question My Mother is 72, she has smoked for 60 years, eats a poor diet, has had 2 heart attacks, a stroke and has COPD. If she got the flu and died I wonder if it would be concluded she died from the flu? When in reality it was the 60 years of smoking and lifestyle that wreaked havoc on her immune system. Nobody is attacking you TT and I don't see the quotes where Mike said what you are saying he said. All we are saying is we don't feel the flu shot is right for us. We are not suggesting what anybody else should do. Nobody ever said ALL medicine is bad or ALL doctors are bad. I think you are reading things into our posts that are not there. |
| 2012-11-28 11:29 AM in reply to: #4513298 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 9:42 AM So little Johnny has a cold. What to do? Take him to the doctor. But medicine have NEVER cured a virus. No matter, you will get cough syrup, a decongestant and maybe some antibiotics...just in case there is an infection in the sinus or ears or as a proplactic measure or cya medicine. You never go to the docs with getting some drug! Least that is MY experience. So spend you life teating symptoms of you own immune system and see what happens. You can't imagine how difficult it is to convince parents that Johnny does NOT need any medications, especially when the pediatrician's office isn't open, urgent care has 'incompetent' doctors (according to the parents) and they come to the ER at 10pm at night. Yet I persist in educating the sometimes uneducatable. This is a societal problem in which patients & parents (which includes doctors & nurses) have been trained to come to the doctor, and if their doctor is not available, come to the ER for evaluation. When Johnny comes in...his vaccination status is a significant piece of history we have to try and obtain as unvaccinated children are much more likely to get HiB infections including epiglottitis & meningitis and we have to be aware of those things. If the parents take offense to that question, it makes my job that much more frustrating...unvaccinated children sometimes require different types of antibiotics, different levels of monitoring in in some cases be admitted wheras a fully vaccinated child would not. This causes friction for some people. For me it's just information I have to get from the parents to inform my recommendations (which they can then choose to follow or not). Edited by AdventureBear 2012-11-28 11:42 AM |
| 2012-11-28 11:34 AM in reply to: #4513408 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Flu shot question KeriKadi - 2012-11-28 10:28 AM My Mother is 72, she has smoked for 60 years, eats a poor diet, has had 2 heart attacks, a stroke and has COPD. If she got the flu and died I wonder if it would be concluded she died from the flu? When in reality it was the 60 years of smoking and lifestyle that wreaked havoc on her immune system. Nobody is attacking you TT and I don't see the quotes where Mike said what you are saying he said. All we are saying is we don't feel the flu shot is right for us. We are not suggesting what anybody else should do. Nobody ever said ALL medicine is bad or ALL doctors are bad. I think you are reading things into our posts that are not there. If she was at her usual state of health, and then got true influenza, with or without the secondary bacterial pneumonia that COPDers are more likely to develop with influeza...and then passed way, then I'd say influenza was the cause of death complicated by COPD, and possibly the stroke as well if that inhibits her ability to strongly cough and clear mucus & secretions. It's not so much the immune system that isn't working, but that the lung disease creates a smaller reserve for her to get ill. If she's a current smoker, her mucocilliary defense is weakened (the little hairs that clear bacteria, dust & crap from the airways), and that makes secondary infection much more likely as well. You could blame it on her, but that's on in the past. What you can do NOW is protect her from what's out of her control...your exposure to someone else's pathogens. They may not make you sick, but they can kill her. I'd have the whole family, yourself the kids and your mother get the vaccine for your mother's sake. That's just my opinion as someone who sees & treats this exact scenario on a daily basis in the winter (including the occasional death certificate). Edited by AdventureBear 2012-11-28 11:45 AM |
| 2012-11-28 11:49 AM in reply to: #4513399 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Flu shot question TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:24 AM then I come here an am accused of being a drug pusher, with $$ for eyes. LOL Only if the shoe fits. No one accused YOU pushing drugs....or having $$ for eyes....but I'm guessing Yale ain't cheap and there are those student loans. :-) OTOH, since you represent your profession.....I'll tell you my opinion on one of the reasons medical costs are so high. The AMA is the most powerful union in the country. They set the bar for MDs very high to limit the number of people willing and able to become an MD. So the supply of MDs is low and the demand is high. Basic econ 101 right. There is no reason a MD needs a 4 year undergraduate degree before starting medical school! There are many brillant HS students who would be great MDs but don't want to spend 12 years of time and money becoming an MD. If the AMA lowered the bar and allowed people to enter medical school after maybe a year of college level, medicine related or life sciences classes, they would have a lot more people willing to spend 9 years of schooling/training before starting their practice. But don't take this personally.....I'll say the same about law school. If you can pass the entry tests, why do you need some random undergraduate degree before you start law school. My son is an electrical engineering major and plans to go to law school. I doubt his calculus and thermodynamics classes are going to help him understand the principles of law... Edited by Rogillio 2012-11-28 11:49 AM |
| 2012-11-28 11:57 AM in reply to: #4513448 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 10:49 AM TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:24 AM then I come here an am accused of being a drug pusher, with $$ for eyes. LOL Only if the shoe fits. No one accused YOU pushing drugs....or having $$ for eyes....but I'm guessing Yale ain't cheap and there are those student loans. :-) OTOH, since you represent your profession.....I'll tell you my opinion on one of the reasons medical costs are so high. The AMA is the most powerful union in the country. They set the bar for MDs very high to limit the number of people willing and able to become an MD. So the supply of MDs is low and the demand is high. Basic econ 101 right. There is no reason a MD needs a 4 year undergraduate degree before starting medical school! There are many brillant HS students who would be great MDs but don't want to spend 12 years of time and money becoming an MD. If the AMA lowered the bar and allowed people to enter medical school after maybe a year of college level, medicine related or life sciences classes, they would have a lot more people willing to spend 9 years of schooling/training before starting their practice. But don't take this personally.....I'll say the same about law school. If you can pass the entry tests, why do you need some random undergraduate degree before you start law school. My son is an electrical engineering major and plans to go to law school. I doubt his calculus and thermodynamics classes are going to help him understand the principles of law... Med school is only one part of it. the other part is residency training. This is funded by the federal government which is a restricter on how many physicians can actually go into clinical practice and in what field. I do take issue however with the idea of med students having only 1 year of post high school education. The volume of information to assimilate is so massive that # of years of schooling is only one part. Do you think a 21 year old seeing pateints is really going to understand the concerns like the ones raised on this thread? I started med school at the age of 30 after getting a degree in an unrelated field and working in skills teaching, outdoor adventures and retail sales...it really helped form the way I relate to people in and patients. Bedside manner is ranked as one of hte most important aspects of patient satisfaction...those extra years of "life" prior to med school are where many great physicians aquire those skills...med school and residency allow little time for personal development and social interaction. |
| 2012-11-28 11:59 AM in reply to: #4513391 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Flu shot question TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:19 AM 35,000 deaths per year due to influenza in the USA > From the CDC website: "CDC believes that the range of deaths over the past 31 years (~3,000 to ~49,000) is a more accurate representation of the unpredictability and variability of flu-associated deaths." That range, 3k to 49k is ridiculous. They might as well say, "We have no freaking idea!" They can't even estimate within the an order of magnitude! And yet they want 'everyone' to get vaccinated?! |
| 2012-11-28 12:06 PM in reply to: #4513463 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Flu shot question AdventureBear - 2012-11-28 11:57 AM Rogillio - 2012-11-28 10:49 AM TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:24 AM then I come here an am accused of being a drug pusher, with $$ for eyes. LOL Only if the shoe fits. No one accused YOU pushing drugs....or having $$ for eyes....but I'm guessing Yale ain't cheap and there are those student loans. :-) OTOH, since you represent your profession.....I'll tell you my opinion on one of the reasons medical costs are so high. The AMA is the most powerful union in the country. They set the bar for MDs very high to limit the number of people willing and able to become an MD. So the supply of MDs is low and the demand is high. Basic econ 101 right. There is no reason a MD needs a 4 year undergraduate degree before starting medical school! There are many brillant HS students who would be great MDs but don't want to spend 12 years of time and money becoming an MD. If the AMA lowered the bar and allowed people to enter medical school after maybe a year of college level, medicine related or life sciences classes, they would have a lot more people willing to spend 9 years of schooling/training before starting their practice. But don't take this personally.....I'll say the same about law school. If you can pass the entry tests, why do you need some random undergraduate degree before you start law school. My son is an electrical engineering major and plans to go to law school. I doubt his calculus and thermodynamics classes are going to help him understand the principles of law... Med school is only one part of it. the other part is residency training. This is funded by the federal government which is a restricter on how many physicians can actually go into clinical practice and in what field. I do take issue however with the idea of med students having only 1 year of post high school education. The volume of information to assimilate is so massive that # of years of schooling is only one part. Do you think a 21 year old seeing pateints is really going to understand the concerns like the ones raised on this thread? I started med school at the age of 30 after getting a degree in an unrelated field and working in skills teaching, outdoor adventures and retail sales...it really helped form the way I relate to people in and patients. Bedside manner is ranked as one of hte most important aspects of patient satisfaction...those extra years of "life" prior to med school are where many great physicians aquire those skills...med school and residency allow little time for personal development and social interaction. Certainly maturity is a factor that should be considered. But many people grow up faster than others and are more mature at 18 than others are at age 22. I pretty much lived on my own my last 2 years of HS and put myself thru college at the same time became an officer in the Army National Guard and I had done more and seen more at age 22 than than most 26 yo's. But I do see you point. Most people are not going to be ready to see patients at 22. |
| 2012-11-28 12:23 PM in reply to: #4513467 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 11:59 AM TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:19 AM 35,000 deaths per year due to influenza in the USA > From the CDC website: "CDC believes that the range of deaths over the past 31 years (~3,000 to ~49,000) is a more accurate representation of the unpredictability and variability of flu-associated deaths." That range, 3k to 49k is ridiculous. They might as well say, "We have no freaking idea!" They can't even estimate within the an order of magnitude! And yet they want 'everyone' to get vaccinated?! I think you're either misreading or misrepresenting the data you've posted. They're not saying "over the past 31 years, the total number of people who died from the flu is between 3k and 50k." The article is saying that between 1976/77 and 2006/07, the number of annual deaths ranged from 3,000 to 49,000 each year.IOW, some years it was lower, some years it was higher, depending on the viriulence of the flu strain for that season. (Here’s the study cited: “Thompson MG et al. Updated Estimates of Mortality Associated with Seasonal Influenza through the 2006-2007 Influenza Season. MMWR 2010; 59(33): 1057-1062.,") The next paragraph, which ends with the line you posted, says: How do the new estimates compare with the 36,000 figure that is often cited as an estimate of annual flu-associated deaths? The 36,000 estimate was presented in a 2003 study by CDC scientists published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) , using similar statistical modeling techniques, but only refers to a period from 1990-91 through 1998-99. During those years, the number of estimated deaths ranged from 17,000 to 52,000, with an average of about 36,000. The JAMA study also looked at seasonal influenza-associated deaths over a 23 year period, from 1976-1977 and 1998-1999. During that period, estimates of respiratory and circulatory influenza-associated deaths ranged from about 5,000 to about 52,000, with an average of about 25,000. While the 36,000 number is often cited, it's important to note that during that decade, influenza A (H3N2) was the predominant virus during most of the seasons, and H3N2 influenza viruses are typically associated with higher death rates. |
| 2012-11-28 12:29 PM in reply to: #4513529 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Flu shot question jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-28 12:23 PM Rogillio - 2012-11-28 11:59 AM TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:19 AM 35,000 deaths per year due to influenza in the USA > From the CDC website: "CDC believes that the range of deaths over the past 31 years (~3,000 to ~49,000) is a more accurate representation of the unpredictability and variability of flu-associated deaths." That range, 3k to 49k is ridiculous. They might as well say, "We have no freaking idea!" They can't even estimate within the an order of magnitude! And yet they want 'everyone' to get vaccinated?! I think you're either misreading or misrepresenting the data you've posted. They're not saying "over the past 31 years, the total number of people who died from the flu is between 3k and 50k." The article is saying that between 1976/77 and 2006/07, the number of annual deaths ranged from 3,000 to 49,000 each year.IOW, some years it was lower, some years it was higher, depending on the viriulence of the flu strain for that season. (Here’s the study cited: “Thompson MG et al. Updated Estimates of Mortality Associated with Seasonal Influenza through the 2006-2007 Influenza Season. MMWR 2010; 59(33): 1057-1062.,") The next paragraph, which ends with the line you posted, says: How do the new estimates compare with the 36,000 figure that is often cited as an estimate of annual flu-associated deaths? The 36,000 estimate was presented in a 2003 study by CDC scientists published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) , using similar statistical modeling techniques, but only refers to a period from 1990-91 through 1998-99. During those years, the number of estimated deaths ranged from 17,000 to 52,000, with an average of about 36,000. The JAMA study also looked at seasonal influenza-associated deaths over a 23 year period, from 1976-1977 and 1998-1999. During that period, estimates of respiratory and circulatory influenza-associated deaths ranged from about 5,000 to about 52,000, with an average of about 25,000. While the 36,000 number is often cited, it's important to note that during that decade, influenza A (H3N2) was the predominant virus during most of the seasons, and H3N2 influenza viruses are typically associated with higher death rates. ok, I thought that was pretty odd. |
| 2012-11-28 12:40 PM in reply to: #4513420 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: Flu shot question AdventureBear - 2012-11-28 11:34 AM Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I live in Texas and she lives in Colorado so I don't think she would benefit from us getting vaccinated KeriKadi - 2012-11-28 10:28 AMMy Mother is 72, she has smoked for 60 years, eats a poor diet, has had 2 heart attacks, a stroke and has COPD. If she got the flu and died I wonder if it would be concluded she died from the flu? When in reality it was the 60 years of smoking and lifestyle that wreaked havoc on her immune system. Nobody is attacking you TT and I don't see the quotes where Mike said what you are saying he said. All we are saying is we don't feel the flu shot is right for us. We are not suggesting what anybody else should do. Nobody ever said ALL medicine is bad or ALL doctors are bad. I think you are reading things into our posts that are not there. If she was at her usual state of health, and then got true influenza, with or without the secondary bacterial pneumonia that COPDers are more likely to develop with influeza...and then passed way, then I'd say influenza was the cause of death complicated by COPD, and possibly the stroke as well if that inhibits her ability to strongly cough and clear mucus & secretions. It's not so much the immune system that isn't working, but that the lung disease creates a smaller reserve for her to get ill. If she's a current smoker, her mucocilliary defense is weakened (the little hairs that clear bacteria, dust & crap from the airways), and that makes secondary infection much more likely as well. You could blame it on her, but that's on in the past. What you can do NOW is protect her from what's out of her control...your exposure to someone else's pathogens. They may not make you sick, but they can kill her. I'd have the whole family, yourself the kids and your mother get the vaccine for your mother's sake. That's just my opinion as someone who sees & treats this exact scenario on a daily basis in the winter (including the occasional death certificate).  . I think it would be a god idea for her to get vaccinated considering her risk factors but she chooses not to. She doesn't suffer affects from the stroke, it was mild 5.5 years ago. I do wonder how many infirmed/elderly people are listed as flu deaths when in reality they were already on their way out. Those numbers are not reflected in the stats. |
| 2012-11-28 12:47 PM in reply to: #4513448 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 12:49 PMOTOH, since you represent your profession.....I'll tell you my opinion on one of the reasons medical costs are so high. The AMA is the most powerful union in the country. They set the bar for MDs very high to limit the number of people willing and able to become an MD. So the supply of MDs is low and the demand is high. Basic econ 101 right. There is no reason a MD needs a 4 year undergraduate degree before starting medical school! There are many brillant HS students who would be great MDs but don't want to spend 12 years of time and money becoming an MD. If the AMA lowered the bar and allowed people to enter medical school after maybe a year of college level, medicine related or life sciences classes, they would have a lot more people willing to spend 9 years of schooling/training before starting their practice. But don't take this personally.....I'll say the same about law school. If you can pass the entry tests, why do you need some random undergraduate degree before you start law school. My son is an electrical engineering major and plans to go to law school. I doubt his calculus and thermodynamics classes are going to help him understand the principles of law...
only 23% of MDs belong to the AMA. I am not one of them. so how do they have any control??? they have NOTHING to do with Graduate Medical Education (GME funding for residency partly comes from the government) nor anything to do with medical colleges - many are private.
I was a theater arts and computer science major. I then went back later to do my premedical requirements to go to medical school. The premeds, crammed together took 18 months. NO WAY could someone get all the prerequisites done in a year. As it is many bio majors are woefully unprepared for medical school so your suggestion to just let them in and lower the bar - not a good idea IMO. But the AMA has NOTHING to do with it. |
| 2012-11-28 12:49 PM in reply to: #4513448 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Flu shot question Rogillio - 2012-11-28 12:49 PM My son is an electrical engineering major and plans to go to law school. I doubt his calculus and thermodynamics classes are going to help him understand the principles of law... Sounds like a good combination for a very lucrative legal career.
|
| 2012-11-28 12:53 PM in reply to: #4513529 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Flu shot question jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-28 11:23 AM Rogillio - 2012-11-28 11:59 AM TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:19 AM 35,000 deaths per year due to influenza in the USA > From the CDC website: "CDC believes that the range of deaths over the past 31 years (~3,000 to ~49,000) is a more accurate representation of the unpredictability and variability of flu-associated deaths." That range, 3k to 49k is ridiculous. They might as well say, "We have no freaking idea!" They can't even estimate within the an order of magnitude! And yet they want 'everyone' to get vaccinated?! I think you're either misreading or misrepresenting the data you've posted. They're not saying "over the past 31 years, the total number of people who died from the flu is between 3k and 50k." The article is saying that between 1976/77 and 2006/07, the number of annual deaths ranged from 3,000 to 49,000 each year.IOW, some years it was lower, some years it was higher, depending on the viriulence of the flu strain for that season. (Here’s the study cited: “Thompson MG et al. Updated Estimates of Mortality Associated with Seasonal Influenza through the 2006-2007 Influenza Season. MMWR 2010; 59(33): 1057-1062.,") I'm quoting both of you because this is a really important point. The severity of the flu varies from year to year. Not all deaths are reported, and many deaths are suspected but never tested. We see probabaly 10x the number of patients we suspect of having influenza as we test for having it. Why? Once flu season starts (tru influenza virus infections, either A or B), many tests are done and every positive case gets reported and counted. You can see the influenza map on the CDC website for the year on a week to week basis. You can also see how the numbers from this year compare to the numbers from last year and whether or not it's reached epidemic levels yet for this year. However once you've started to see abrupt high fevers, maliase, runny nose & cough with no other exam findings and confirmed that the first half dozen cases you saw are influenza, there's not a lot of reason to keep doing the tests since it doesn't change treamtment much. You just treat if it looks like flu and you know that flu is becoming more and more common in your local area. From year to year as I said before, the nature of the influeza changes due to the way the virus replicates itself...it's a very smart virus and well studied....just unpredictable... kind of like an underground decentralized terrorist organization that keeps trying different ways to inflict itself upon unssuspecting people, animals & society! Also, unrelated to the flu, I love how this debates turn into perceived personal attacks for those sharing opinions....OK I don't love it, I'm being a bit sarcastic. But really wehther you agree or not with an opinion or with the way someone has come to their conclusion a debate isa debate...it may make you hotheaded, but because someone has an opposing point of view does not mean they are attacking you (you being people on both sides of this debate thread here). PPS This got moved to COJ...love it! |
| 2012-11-28 1:02 PM in reply to: #4513585 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Flu shot question TriToy - 2012-11-28 11:47 AM I was a theater arts and computer science major. I then went back later to do my premedical requirements to go to medical school. The premeds, crammed together took 18 months. NO WAY could someone get all the prerequisites done in a year. As it is many bio majors are woefully unprepared for medical school so your suggestion to just let them in and lower the bar - not a good idea IMO. But the AMA has NOTHING to do with it. Agreed, I did all my prerequisites in a year, but that included summer school (8 credits) and 36 solid science credits, with no time off. Organic Chemistry? Loved it!!! I could not have done that as an 18 year old, who would want to? First time around my GPA was a 2.89, second time around 3.98 AMA is not a union...i don't think there are any doctors unions? I was a member in med school but only because it was free and it made me feel like a grown up. Once I realized it wasn't required I didn't renew and that's been 10 years. Every specialty has it's own specialty college organizations and even within fields there are competing organizations. (American College of Emergency Medicine and American Acedemy of Emergency Medicine are the 2 big ones in the EM field). Membership helps you network, attend annual meetings, earn continuing education and yes, the groups do lobby for political initiatives related to your field. Emergency Medicine has very specific needs as compared to other specialties. But those groups have nothing to do with med school. People want it both ways. (or all 3 ways) They want cheap healthcare and easy access with quality services. Pick 2...but all 3 can't co-exist. Govt sponsored helathcare but slow access...you'll get your MRi in 6 months and your knee replacement in 2 years in Canada In England, free healthcare and quick access, but you have to go to the doc who's on that day in your local clinic Want your MRI today and YOUR orthopedic physician of choice to treat you? Pull out your pocketbook (you are your employer) and pony up the money. Now diverging in to a different rant...but at least we are in COJ so that's OK. Edited by AdventureBear 2012-11-28 1:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK