Got your flu vaccination yet? What if you get it...?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

OP
DandyDon

DandyDon

Old men ought to be explorers
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
51,408
Reaction score
6,130
Location
One kilometer high on the Texas Central Plains
# of dives
500 - 999
Besides, you usually get a neato smiley face sticker if you were a good boy/girl while getting the shot.
I guess I'm not good enough. :(

I always go a few push ups as soon as the shot is over so my arm won't hurt. :wink:
 

Lightning Fish

Contributor
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Location
Waterloo, ON
DandyDon:
This topic gets about the same reaction every year when I bring it up, and some even try to argue as if they knew more than the CDC. But then, it is a personal choice.

Hey that sounds like an appeal to authority. http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=164373 :)D Sorry Don, I couldn't resist). I think that is what the article quoted from the CBC discusses. According to the expert in the article, despite what other experts say, flu vaccines haven't been proven to work. From my point of view, if people feel flu shots work for them, then by all means, go ahead. I would be interested in whether Rookers and anyone else feels the flu shots have been beneficial.

Anyway, from the Centre for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/fluvaccine.htm:
How are the viruses for flu vaccine selected?
Each year, many laboratories throughout the world, including in the United States, collect flu viruses. Some of these flu viruses are sent to one of four World Health Organization (WHO) reference laboratories, one of which is at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, for detailed testing. These laboratories also test how well antibodies made to the current vaccine react to the circulating virus and new flu viruses. This information, along with information about flu activity, is summarized and presented to an advisory committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at a WHO meeting. These meetings result in the selection of three viruses (two subtypes of influenza A viruses and one influenza B virus) to go into flu vaccines for the following fall and winter. Usually, one or two of the three virus strains in the vaccine are changed each year.

Cheers,
Bill.
 
OP
DandyDon

DandyDon

Old men ought to be explorers
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
51,408
Reaction score
6,130
Location
One kilometer high on the Texas Central Plains
# of dives
500 - 999
Yeah it's a crap shoot on the vaccines. I always try to remember, and nag my family, to get one. Benefit seems to out weigh the risk.

Many ppl don't. Keep the treatment shot in mind. Don't stay home and hope you survive, see a physician. Another crap shoot perhaps, but worth a try. :D
 

riguerin

Blah Blah Blah
Messages
5,325
Reaction score
52
Location
So Cal
Flue vaccination are for the weak and feeble. BTW, we have free drive up vaccination here. Literally like MacDonald's. Drive up ...sign the sheet ... stick you arm out the window ... and get your happy meal prize ...easy-peasy.
 

Warthaug

Contributor
Messages
4,577
Reaction score
2,503
Location
Ontario, Canada
# of dives
100 - 199
Lightning Fish:

I would be very critical of this article. I'm a medical researcher by profession, :doctor: and this article is quite concerning to me, for several reasons:

1) It is talking about an editorial - i.e. an opinion piece - not an actual scientific paper. Here's the original editorial:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...INDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

2) The major criticism of the author is not the efficacy of the vaccine, but rather the way in which efficacy was demonstrated. He actually has a table in his article giving an overview of several studies, and each and every study in that table showed beneficial results after vaccination (see table 2 in the above link).

3) The types of studies which he proposes we replace current methods with are very difficult to implement, particularly with diseases like the flu. There are also ethical issues with the study method he proposes (it would actually be illegal in several countries, as it involves withholding a known effective therapeutic from people at risk).

4) There is no guarantee his method would get better results - the flu is a highly variable disease year-to-year, as is the efficacy of it's vaccine. His methodology may produce more accurate results for a single year, but would be less likely then current methods to accurately measure the efficacy of the vaccine from year-to-year.

Not to mention the study he proposes would probably have a multi-billion dollar price tag associated with it.

5) The large majority of the scientific and medical community disagree with him, and finally

6) He works for the Cochrane group. Although this group does very excellent work, they are renound for their overly stringent criteria. Based on their standards for vaccine development, they stated that the smallpox vaccine would be categorized as having "questionable effectiveness" - and that vaccine was sufficient to wipe out smallpox world-wide. If Cochrane says something works, or is true; then it works, or is true. But if they same something may not work (which is what this study says), then it probably does work; it just doesn't achieve the perfection they seem to think all medicine should achieve.

It's like my last lady friend - nothing was ever right, no matter how close to perfect I got. :gorgeous:

Bryan
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Top Bottom