should flu vacinations be manditory?

[Bauke]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks flu shots or whatever other nonsense should be mandatory, should have their head run over by a T-90.

 

 

 

Say drugs are never good "period" is as bad as promoting drug use when not necessary. I get where you are coming from, people take drugs for way too many things now and just eating healthier and exercise would fix a lot of problems. But there are a lot of ailments that can't be fixed by even the healthiest of lifestyles.

 

Indeed. I guess some people can't seem to distinguish between clinical and lifestyle features.

[IGoddessI]

Hey warrior haven't forgotten about you have a bit to get done today (2 tarot readings, hydro bath the dog at the shelter, visit brent's mum and dad, find a present for rick and shelly, find a bigger bed for raiden and some computer tables, go to the city, then go to rick's engagement party). Some may be repeats sorry in a rush. Oh btw my friend is almost done with her report she had to print 60 pages off and critically analyse them to the best of her ability.

 

 

 

Bias exposure & some examples of poor-quality information:

 

 

 

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/in ... -idiots-2/

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/35281.php

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/139150.php

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract ... b12_2/b354

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/ ... 50?papetoc

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179553,00.html

 

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/2/352

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... alth_rss20

 

http://healthscents4u.com/FluVaccine.aspx

 

http://www.medicalconsumers.org/pages/F ... ctive.html

 

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/09/25/fl ... r-infants/

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 116/5/1214

 

 

 

 

 

flu shots and seniors:

 

 

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousD ... cines/6775

 

http://www.abc.net.au/health/minutes/st ... 368199.htm

 

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... t/35/2/337

 

http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/ab ... 57/14/1373

 

 

 

You will need access to these, try through your uni website:

 

 

 

A meta-analysis of effectiveness of influenza vaccine in persons aged 65 years and over living in the community

 

Vaccine

 

Volume 20, Issues 13-14,

 

ScienceDirect

 

 

 

Effects of influenza vaccination in HIV-infected adults: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

 

Vaccine

 

Volume 16, Issues 9-10,

 

ScienceDirect

 

 

 

Flu vaccine & children, 2 relating to children with asthma:

 

 

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 84/13/1677

 

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1273527

 

http://171.66.122.149/cgi/content/abstract/169/4/488

 

http://www.virtualcancercentre.com/pda/ ... artid=1177

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/342/4/275

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... /115/2/453

 

 

 

Flu vaccine & egg allergy ( :lol: ....)

 

 

 

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 490201463X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pregnant studies:

 

 

 

http://www.globalfamilydoctor.com/searc ... emNum=9155

 

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajrp/abstr ... 29!8091!-1

 

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 7804021027

 

 

 

links to brain damage, from use of flu vaccine in pregnancy?

 

 

 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 10793.html

 

 

 

healthy adults:

 

 

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/14/889

[warri0r45]

Thanks for the links, Goddess.

 

 

 

Firstly, which of those sources that you listed are poor-quality? I know which ones I think are, but I want to hear what you say.

 

 

 

Secondly, I'm willing to agree that some estimates of vaccine efficacy in seniors are biased and that there are possible conflicts of interest due to funding arrangements, but that doesn't mean the flu vaccine is useless. One of the sources that argues that data on senior vaccine efficacy is biased [1] also states the following:

 

 

 

For example, the recent study by Falsey et al. determined viral aetiologies for elderly patients hospitalized with pneumonia.8 By comparing vaccine status of subjects with proven influenza virus infections to a group with respiratory syncytial virus infection it was possible to estimate that vaccine provided 30% protection against influenza-associated hospitalization.9 With new technologies available, studies such as this could be expanded to demonstrate efficacy of the influenza vaccine for prevention of both hospitalizations and death in the elderly.

 

 

 

This definitely seems like a more reliable way of determining vaccine efficacy in the elderly because it's based on proven cases of flu in the hospital and compares them to vaccine status. I'm not saying that this now proves efficacy in seniors, though; I'd need to do more research into studies of this methodology before I do that.

 

 

 

Also, another of your sources [2] makes a point not to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of bias:

 

 

 

No one suggests that seniors should not be vaccinated: there is no doubt that flu shots reduce their risk of dying because of flu. But health professionals must accept that flu shots do not have the impossible benefits claimed, and start working on more effective prevention programmes. Manufacturers should step up efforts to develop vaccines that are more effective in the elderly, and public health authorities should assess whether it would be better to protect elderly citizens indirectly by vaccinating groups such as schoolchildren or carers, to prevent transmission of the virus.

 

 

 

In fact, most sources that I've seen always acknowledge that the vaccine works fairly well, it's just that not all studies have good methodology. I don't know how much of an effect the conflict of interest has in this case, so perhaps that's something to look into further.

 

 

 

Perhaps I can revise my earlier comments and say that flu vaccines should only be mandatory in at-risk groups and also during outbreaks. I like the idea of vaccine programs in schools, for example.

[H2PM]

Well..No not really..

 

 

 

You see, I have never had the flu, never had a vacination.

 

I believe unless you have a very crappy imune system than yes, it should be manditory for them, but for people like me, who dont get sick as often, shouldnt.

[Shazarabbit]

I think all vaccinations should be mandatory. Simply because in alot of cases at least here in Australia people blame the authorities even when they were the ones who didn't get the vaccination.

 

 

 

Parent's make the decisions for children, that in my opinion isn't fair. Why should the children suffer based on their parent's decisions, vaccinations for children should be mandatory at the very least, let parent's make their own decisions but when it comes to children it should be mandatory.

[i_love_burritos]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks flu shots or whatever other nonsense should be mandatory, should have their head run over by a T-90.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you get AIDS or Ebola, in fact inhale some fungal spores. These are non-hereditary, and non-lifestyle based diseases.

 

 

 

Goddess, what are you currently studying ?

 

 

 

Shazarabbit posted in the time it took to write this. Damn you OT.

[IGoddessI]

Hi warrior I'll pm you tonight when I have some more time, @ adr I've studied lots of things, I'm now studying children's services for a backdoor entry in to teaching and maybe human resources. I mainly came on here to post the link to my friend's latest advice, she's a post graduate pediatric nurse who just finished her article all facts on the flu vaccine:

 

 

 

http://www.minti.com/parenting-advice/1 ... Pregnancy/

 

 

 

Please feel free to vote and leave a comment on her article she is an amazingly intelligent woman who put a lot of time and effort in to her post.

[i_love_burritos]

Goddess got angry at me.

 

 

 

Comment removed.

[IGoddessI]

I don't think that's any of your business, don't ask again, especially in the middle of a thread :wall:

[i_love_burritos]

I don't think that's any of your business, don't ask again, especially in the middle of a thread :wall:

 

 

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

:?

[IGoddessI]

It's all good I just don't like to feel interrogated :-#

 

 

 

I have to go for now but after reading through my friend's article here are some other reasons why the flu vaccine shouldn't be mandatory:

 

 

 

 

Who shouldnt have flu vax

 

 

 

Anyone with a history of allergies to egg or other vaccine components should not have the fluvax as it may cause an anaphylactic reaction (1). Prophylactic antivirals may be administered to these people if they have had exposure to the flu.

 

 

 

Anyone who has a moderate to severe acute febrile illness should not be vaccinated until the symptoms are gone (Fiore et.al, CDC, 2008, p.29).

 

 

 

Anyone who has had a severe reaction to flu vax in the past.

 

 

 

Anyone who has developed Guillian Barre syndrome within 6 weeks of a prior influenza vaccine.

 

 

 

http://www.minti.com/parenting-advice/1 ... Pregnancy/

 

 

 

 

It seems the flu vaccine works best in healthy patients (70%-90% effectiveness) and so should be encouraged, especially during pregnancy. Warrior, I know you mentioned that you thought the vaccine should be mandatory for at-risk groups but it seems from the aforementioned study at-risk groups have as little as 30% effectiveness, therefore nowhere near as effective as healthy persons. I like your idea about children though, I think from memory there was a study in the list I provided you with about how health professionals should be targeting children foremost instead of seniors.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Yes. Vaccinations should be mandatory when it involves a highly contagious virus and/or disease like the flu, polio, small pox, chicken pox, etc.

[wild_goat_14]

Without mandatory vaccinations, many diseases would not be wiped out. They are vital to the public health, just like smoking bans in public places.

 

 

 

Only one disease has been completely eradicated by human vaccinations(smallpox). And the only reason we could do that is because it could only be spread directly from person to person, it was not airbourne and not sitting on any touched surface.

 

 

 

Vaccinations only keep those who get vaccinated safe. They actually hurt those who don't, because the disease gets stronger trying to outdo the vaccination.

[i_love_burritos]

Without mandatory vaccinations, many diseases would not be wiped out. They are vital to the public health, just like smoking bans in public places.

 

 

 

Only one disease has been completely eradicated by human vaccinations(smallpox). And the only reason we could do that is because it could only be spread directly from person to person, it was not airbourne and not sitting on any touched surface.

 

 

 

Vaccinations only keep those who get vaccinated safe. They actually hurt those who don't, because the disease gets stronger trying to outdo the vaccination.

 

 

 

 

 

All the more reason for others to get vaccinated.

[wild_goat_14]

Without mandatory vaccinations, many diseases would not be wiped out. They are vital to the public health, just like smoking bans in public places.

 

 

 

Only one disease has been completely eradicated by human vaccinations(smallpox). And the only reason we could do that is because it could only be spread directly from person to person, it was not airbourne and not sitting on any touched surface.

 

 

 

Vaccinations only keep those who get vaccinated safe. They actually hurt those who don't, because the disease gets stronger trying to outdo the vaccination.

 

 

 

 

 

All the more reason for others to get vaccinated.

 

 

 

Exactly. It's too late now to go back to no vaccinations, as these diseases are now so strong that 2000 years ago, something like our common flu would wipe out over 50% of the world.

 

 

 

Some people seem to forget how lucky we are with dieases sometimes. Just imagine if HIV/AIDS was an airbourne disease.

[Bauke]

Interesting how everyone here takes it from a practical point of view, and leaves the ethics behind.

 

 

 

I know for a fact that vaccines, no matter what, will ever be mandatory here, since it is quite unethical to violate one's body without consent. I'm all for vaccinations, but I don't think making them mandatory is realistic.

 

 

 

And flu vaccinations aren't that great at this point. Though, research is currently being performed to find out whether it's possible to vaccinate for influenza which covers the antigenic drift that takes place every year.

[warri0r45]

It's all good I just don't like to feel interrogated :-#

 

 

 

I have to go for now but after reading through my friend's article here are some other reasons why the flu vaccine shouldn't be mandatory:

 

 

 

 

Who shouldnt have flu vax

 

 

 

Anyone with a history of allergies to egg or other vaccine components should not have the fluvax as it may cause an anaphylactic reaction (1). Prophylactic antivirals may be administered to these people if they have had exposure to the flu.

 

 

 

Anyone who has a moderate to severe acute febrile illness should not be vaccinated until the symptoms are gone (Fiore et.al, CDC, 2008, p.29).

 

 

 

Anyone who has had a severe reaction to flu vax in the past.

 

 

 

Anyone who has developed Guillian Barre syndrome within 6 weeks of a prior influenza vaccine.

 

 

 

http://www.minti.com/parenting-advice/1 ... Pregnancy/

 

 

 

 

It seems the flu vaccine works best in healthy patients (70%-90% effectiveness) and so should be encouraged, especially during pregnancy. Warrior, I know you mentioned that you thought the vaccine should be mandatory for at-risk groups but it seems from the aforementioned study at-risk groups have as little as 30% effectiveness, therefore nowhere near as effective as healthy persons. I like your idea about children though, I think from memory there was a study in the list I provided you with about how health professionals should be targeting children foremost instead of seniors.

 

 

 

Ok, let me do his one more time. No vaccinations for people who may have a severe reaction to it (e.g. people with egg allergies). Vaccinations primarily for those in whom it will be most effective at stopping the spread of the flu (schools kids and healthy adults working in nursing homes, hospitals, etc). I'd go so far as to make it mandatory in these people. I can't understand why some people in this thread are getting hung up on a principle that "only I can choose to do what I want with my body" when this kind of thing is a little [puncture] (or nasal spray) and a couple of symptoms that can save peoples lives. I'm not usually driven by authoritarian principles but there's a clear advantage in cases like this.

 

 

 

As for the elderly and others with an immune system less likely to get a good response from the vaccine, why not make it mandatory for them as well? The only issue I can see is running out of the vaccine each season, and as I said above we should vaccinate other groups first.

 

 

 

Without mandatory vaccinations, many diseases would not be wiped out. They are vital to the public health, just like smoking bans in public places.

 

 

 

Only one disease has been completely eradicated by human vaccinations(smallpox). And the only reason we could do that is because it could only be spread directly from person to person, it was not airbourne and not sitting on any touched surface.

 

 

 

Vaccinations only keep those who get vaccinated safe. They actually hurt those who don't, because the disease gets stronger trying to outdo the vaccination.

 

 

 

It's not quite that simple. You'd also have to consider that if more people get vaccinated, there are less carriers and therefore less spread of the diseased to the unvaccinated. Consider a family where everyone but the father has been vaccinated. The good thing for dad is that the rest of the family won't come home with the disease and spread it to him.

 

 

 

I'd also argue against your second point as well. An infectious disease that makes it's way through a human host usually only divides within the host (can you think of an example where it doesn't?), and it's that division which allows the possibility of mutations--and therefore the evolution of resistance--to seep in. If more people are vaccinated, the pathogen population has less chances to pass on beneficial mutations, hence in theory the disease shouldn't get stronger because of vaccinations.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Without mandatory vaccinations, many diseases would not be wiped out. They are vital to the public health, just like smoking bans in public places.

 

 

 

Only one disease has been completely eradicated by human vaccinations(smallpox). And the only reason we could do that is because it could only be spread directly from person to person, it was not airbourne and not sitting on any touched surface.

 

 

 

Vaccinations only keep those who get vaccinated safe. They actually hurt those who don't, because the disease gets stronger trying to outdo the vaccination.

 

 

 

 

 

All the more reason for others to get vaccinated.

 

 

 

Exactly. It's too late now to go back to no vaccinations, as these diseases are now so strong that 2000 years ago, something like our common flu would wipe out over 50% of the world.

 

 

 

Some people seem to forget how lucky we are with dieases sometimes. Just imagine if HIV/AIDS was an airbourne disease.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I am imagining the world having noone left.

[IGoddessI]

:lol: I'm all for vaccines just in case anyone thinks I'm not, I say if there is a strong chance it will help you, do it especially look after your children. But yeah before making it mandatory, forget the "it's my body" argument, think about people who actually can't have the flu vax or the actual effectiveness in at-risk people. With statistics as low as 30% effectiveness for at-risk people, is it worth it? *scratches head*.

[wild_goat_14]

It's not quite that simple. You'd also have to consider that if more people get vaccinated, there are less carriers and therefore less spread of the diseased to the unvaccinated. Consider a family where everyone but the father has been vaccinated. The good thing for dad is that the rest of the family won't come home with the disease and spread it to him.

 

 

 

This is true, but since the disease is stronger, it is more likely to kill the father if he does get infected. Sure, it lowers infection rate(if the vaccination is effective) but it raises the mortaility rate of people who haven't been vaccinated. Of course I'm not referring to human influenza, because we have somewhat formed a natural immunity to it already.

 

 

 

I'd also argue against your second point as well. An infectious disease that makes it's way through a human host usually only divides within the host (can you think of an example where it doesn't?), and it's that division which allows the possibility of mutations--and therefore the evolution of resistance--to seep in. If more people are vaccinated, the pathogen population has less chances to pass on beneficial mutations, hence in theory the disease shouldn't get stronger because of vaccinations.

 

 

 

But without vaccinations, the disease has nothing to evolve against, except a natural immunity that we may form from it.

 

 

 

Of course, I believe getting vaccinations is a good idea, but I will never be for forcing people to have something put into their bodies against their will.

[warri0r45]

It's not quite that simple. You'd also have to consider that if more people get vaccinated, there are less carriers and therefore less spread of the diseased to the unvaccinated. Consider a family where everyone but the father has been vaccinated. The good thing for dad is that the rest of the family won't come home with the disease and spread it to him.

 

 

 

This is true, but since the disease is stronger, it is more likely to kill the father if he does get infected. Sure, it lowers infection rate(if the vaccination is effective) but it raises the mortaility rate of people who haven't been vaccinated. Of course I'm not referring to human influenza, because we have somewhat formed a natural immunity to it already.

 

 

 

I'd also argue against your second point as well. An infectious disease that makes it's way through a human host usually only divides within the host (can you think of an example where it doesn't?), and it's that division which allows the possibility of mutations--and therefore the evolution of resistance--to seep in. If more people are vaccinated, the pathogen population has less chances to pass on beneficial mutations, hence in theory the disease shouldn't get stronger because of vaccinations.

 

 

 

But without vaccinations, the disease has nothing to evolve against, except a natural immunity that we may form from it.

 

 

 

You've not justified why the disease is stronger if you vaccinate against it. I don't even see what you're trying to argue with that second point...

 

 

 

Let me try and break it down this way: if you don't vaccinate, people will gain natural immunity but the pathogen will evolve immunity against the antibodies we produce. If you do vaccinate, we gain "artificial" immunity but the pathogen will evolve immunity against the antibodies we produce. The only point of a vaccine is to gain immunity before copping the brunt of the disease, and I don't see how that makes the pathogen stronger.

 

 

 

My argument was that vaccinations, due to lowering the amount of time a pathogen divides and mutates in vivo, can't possibly make the pathogen stronger. Quite the opposite, I would have thought.

[wild_goat_14]

It's not quite that simple. You'd also have to consider that if more people get vaccinated, there are less carriers and therefore less spread of the diseased to the unvaccinated. Consider a family where everyone but the father has been vaccinated. The good thing for dad is that the rest of the family won't come home with the disease and spread it to him.

 

 

 

This is true, but since the disease is stronger, it is more likely to kill the father if he does get infected. Sure, it lowers infection rate(if the vaccination is effective) but it raises the mortaility rate of people who haven't been vaccinated. Of course I'm not referring to human influenza, because we have somewhat formed a natural immunity to it already.

 

 

 

I'd also argue against your second point as well. An infectious disease that makes it's way through a human host usually only divides within the host (can you think of an example where it doesn't?), and it's that division which allows the possibility of mutations--and therefore the evolution of resistance--to seep in. If more people are vaccinated, the pathogen population has less chances to pass on beneficial mutations, hence in theory the disease shouldn't get stronger because of vaccinations.

 

 

 

But without vaccinations, the disease has nothing to evolve against, except a natural immunity that we may form from it.

 

 

 

You've not justified why the disease is stronger if you vaccinate against it. I don't even see what you're trying to argue with that second point...

 

 

 

Let me try and break it down this way: if you don't vaccinate, people will gain natural immunity but the pathogen will evolve immunity against the antibodies we produce. If you do vaccinate, we gain "artificial" immunity but the pathogen will evolve immunity against the antibodies we produce. The only point of a vaccine is to gain immunity before copping the brunt of the disease, and I don't see how that makes the pathogen stronger.

 

 

 

My argument was that vaccinations, due to lowering the amount of time a pathogen divides and mutates in vivo, can't possibly make the pathogen stronger. Quite the opposite, I would have thought.

 

 

 

Wow, I feel really dumb. Looking back at this, I really look like an absolute idiot. For some reason I thought the vaccination strengthened the actual immune system against the disease, thus making the pathogen evolve faster to survive. But obviously, it would still infect those without the vaccine the same. :wall:

[fastortoise]

Well since the general population can fight the annual flu I don't see why it should be mandatory. The fact that it changes every season/half-year/year pretty much makes vaccination efforts futile for those truly at-risk (the poor).

[i_love_burritos]

It's not quite that simple. You'd also have to consider that if more people get vaccinated, there are less carriers and therefore less spread of the diseased to the unvaccinated. Consider a family where everyone but the father has been vaccinated. The good thing for dad is that the rest of the family won't come home with the disease and spread it to him.

 

 

 

This is true, but since the disease is stronger, it is more likely to kill the father if he does get infected. Sure, it lowers infection rate(if the vaccination is effective) but it raises the mortaility rate of people who haven't been vaccinated. Of course I'm not referring to human influenza, because we have somewhat formed a natural immunity to it already.

 

 

 

I'd also argue against your second point as well. An infectious disease that makes it's way through a human host usually only divides within the host (can you think of an example where it doesn't?), and it's that division which allows the possibility of mutations--and therefore the evolution of resistance--to seep in. If more people are vaccinated, the pathogen population has less chances to pass on beneficial mutations, hence in theory the disease shouldn't get stronger because of vaccinations.

 

 

 

But without vaccinations, the disease has nothing to evolve against, except a natural immunity that we may form from it.

 

 

 

You've not justified why the disease is stronger if you vaccinate against it. I don't even see what you're trying to argue with that second point...

 

 

 

Let me try and break it down this way: if you don't vaccinate, people will gain natural immunity but the pathogen will evolve immunity against the antibodies we produce. If you do vaccinate, we gain "artificial" immunity but the pathogen will evolve immunity against the antibodies we produce. The only point of a vaccine is to gain immunity before copping the brunt of the disease, and I don't see how that makes the pathogen stronger.

 

 

 

My argument was that vaccinations, due to lowering the amount of time a pathogen divides and mutates in vivo, can't possibly make the pathogen stronger. Quite the opposite, I would have thought.

 

 

 

Wow, I feel really dumb. Looking back at this, I really look like an absolute idiot. For some reason I thought the vaccination strengthened the actual immune system against the disease, thus making the pathogen evolve faster to survive. But obviously, it would still infect those without the vaccine the same. :wall:

 

 

 

Yeah warri0r45, Venomai, Ginger Warrior and Zierro are the only people that, in my opinion, actually explain their argument and deconstruct it rationally. I would have said something intelligent, like warri0r45 just did - but frankly, I'm just too lazy. :P

[IGoddessI]

Gee thanks, last time I explain things to people -.-