Think twice about having flu (or any other) vaccines for you and/or your baby

[java]

I also work in a small hospital. After seeing a previously healthy 45 year old mother of 3 intubated and ventilated for 3 weeks before she succumbed to the swine flu, I will definitely be getting my flu shot.

 

[Sarah27]

I defo won't be having the flu jab! I have never had it before during pg.
I did have the swine flu jab when I was pg with my last son I was about 20weeks at the time and reacted very badly! I regretted it straight away.. Even more so as he was stillborn at 36+5wk.. Now apparently there is no proven link between the two but I can't be fully sure I believe them...... and many mw have disputed this out of tight lipped mouths....... So nada for me unless I am dying! Thanks so much for sharing this info tho xx

 

[AveryATL]

Outbreaks like these can blame anti-vaxers, as you call them, but the underlying problem can be laying in the opposite direction. Nobody will actually know why it's happening, these outbursts of illnesses. Have you read anything about pharmaceutical companies and how they're milking the nations and societies around the world? I'm studying social sciences and i did a bit of research regarding this. It's more beneficial to the world wide tycoon companies than to us, those who died from small pox years ago and now we can cure it:} I'm not saying that medicine can't help, but hey, vaccines can be avoided and cure for illnesses can still be found. Why there isn't a vaccine against cancer yet then? Wondering!

This post really does display your lack of understanding about the science behind the viruses that cause disease. I have a master's degree in Biology, and while I am not trying to be rude, I do feel like I need to address some of these issues:

1. There is no 'cure' for small pox. The REASON that Small Pox is not around at the moment, is because of the world-wide vaccination effort, done by the WHO. Once you get it, like most viral diseases, there is not much that can be done, other than treat symptoms to make you feel better. We can prevent the virus from being as active in your body as it otherwise would have BEFORE you get the virus - by giving your immune system the tools to learn how to deal with the virus before hand - through a vaccination.

In 1967, TWO MILLION people died of small pox - and since the 70's, that number has dropped substantially, until it has been effectively eradicated. We do know why this virus went away - because it wasn't able to be spread from person to person, causing a pandemic. Small pox has been around since 10,000 BC, so we do know the only thing that changed in the last 40 years was the vaccination. This is a pretty strong and conclusive cause/effect relationship.


Your arguement about there not being a 'vaccination' for cancer is completely counter-intuitive to your statement that pharmaceutical companies are just after money. All of the various types of cancer kills millions of people every year - so if they COULD come up with 'cure' for cancer, then don't you think the pharmaceutical companies would be all over it?? It would SURELY rake in the $$ for them.

But, more importantly, your statement again reflects your lack of understanding about cancer. There are hundreds of different forms of cancer, and each effect the body in a different way, and while a virus CAN cause cancer, it isn't usually a primary cause in some of the more common types of cancer - like breast cancer, lukemia, prostate cancer..etc. Those are caused by genetic triggers that have somehow been turned 'on'. SOME types of cancer have been more researched than others, and because of that, we have been able to make leaps and bounds in our treatment. Other types of cancer research isn't well funded (there are only so many researchers and so much $$$) so the progress is much slower. Below are just a few examples of recent advancements in cancer treatment:

~ Childhood Lukemia now has a tremendously high success rate
~ New and improved treatments for Breast Cancer has meant that many women, who would have been destined to die are now in remission.
~ Early screenings for prostate cancer have allowed men to have their prostate remove before the cancer metastisizes throughout the body, and has saved the life of thousands of men each year (my FIL included).

A 'vaccination' against cancer would only work IF the cancer-causing agent was viral in nature - and most aren't. It turns out that we DO have a vaccination for at least one of the viruses that does cause cancer, HPV virus.

Making a 'vaccination' isn't feasable for every virus either. Some mutate MUCH too quickly for a vaccination to be effective (like HIV). The flu vaccination also mutates quickly, and it is challenging for scientists to be able to keep up with it. They have to predict from year to year how the virus will change - some years they get it right, sometimes it is less effective. There is a lot about science that we are still learning, and our understanding changes from year to year. And, for sure, in 100 years, we will look back and wonder what the heck we were thinking about SOME of it - but it isn't because there is a vast conspiracy, but because we just will know more. I agree that the pharmaceutical companies are for-profit companies, who want to maximize their profits. I also agree that there are a lot of medications that aren't well studied before they go to market, and we then learn that they can be dangerous - so people do need to be educated so that they can make their own decisions. However, they need to be *truly* educated, and not just read some propaganda pieces that have a lack of actual scientific evidence to back it up.

 

[shazland]

I haven't even been offered a Flu jab, so I guess I have no choice other than hope I do not get ill.

 

[roxursox302]

All your doing by posting this is making ppl second guess their decisions. And if they've already gotten their shots scaring them to death. I hate fear-mongering threads.

 

[bababel]

Outbreaks like these can blame anti-vaxers, as you call them, but the underlying problem can be laying in the opposite direction. Nobody will actually know why it's happening, these outbursts of illnesses. Have you read anything about pharmaceutical companies and how they're milking the nations and societies around the world? I'm studying social sciences and i did a bit of research regarding this. It's more beneficial to the world wide tycoon companies than to us, those who died from small pox years ago and now we can cure it:} I'm not saying that medicine can't help, but hey, vaccines can be avoided and cure for illnesses can still be found. Why there isn't a vaccine against cancer yet then? Wondering!

This post really does display your lack of understanding about the science behind the viruses that cause disease. I have a master's degree in Biology, and while I am not trying to be rude, I do feel like I need to address some of these issues:

1. There is no 'cure' for small pox. The REASON that Small Pox is not around at the moment, is because of the world-wide vaccination effort, done by the WHO. Once you get it, like most viral diseases, there is not much that can be done, other than treat symptoms to make you feel better. We can prevent the virus from being as active in your body as it otherwise would have BEFORE you get the virus - by giving your immune system the tools to learn how to deal with the virus before hand - through a vaccination.

In 1967, TWO MILLION people died of small pox - and since the 70's, that number has dropped substantially, until it has been effectively eradicated. We do know why this virus went away - because it wasn't able to be spread from person to person, causing a pandemic. Small pox has been around since 10,000 BC, so we do know the only thing that changed in the last 40 years was the vaccination. This is a pretty strong and conclusive cause/effect relationship.


Your arguement about there not being a 'vaccination' for cancer is completely counter-intuitive to your statement that pharmaceutical companies are just after money. All of the various types of cancer kills millions of people every year - so if they COULD come up with 'cure' for cancer, then don't you think the pharmaceutical companies would be all over it?? It would SURELY rake in the $$ for them.

But, more importantly, your statement again reflects your lack of understanding about cancer. There are hundreds of different forms of cancer, and each effect the body in a different way, and while a virus CAN cause cancer, it isn't usually a primary cause in some of the more common types of cancer - like breast cancer, lukemia, prostate cancer..etc. Those are caused by genetic triggers that have somehow been turned 'on'. SOME types of cancer have been more researched than others, and because of that, we have been able to make leaps and bounds in our treatment. Other types of cancer research isn't well funded (there are only so many researchers and so much $$$) so the progress is much slower. T

~ Childhood Lukemia has a tremendous success rate
~ New and improved treatments for Breast Cancer has meant that many women, who would have been destined to die are now in remission.
~ Early screenings for prostate cancer have allowed men to have their prostate remove before the cancer metastisizes throughout the body, and has saved the life of thousands of men each year (my FIL included).

A 'vaccination' against cancer would only work IF the cancer-causing agent was viral in nature - and most aren't. It turns out that we DO have a vaccination for at least one of the viruses that does cause cancer, HPV virus.

Making a 'vaccination' isn't feasable for every virus either. Some mutate MUCH too quickly for a vaccination to be effective (like HIV). The flu vaccination also mutates quickly, and it is challenging for scientists to be able to keep up with it. They have to predict from year to year how the virus will change - some years they get it right, sometimes it is less effective. There is a lot about science that we are still learning, and our understanding changes from year to year. And, for sure, in 100 years, we will look back and wonder what the heck we were thinking about SOME of it - but it isn't because there is a vast conspiracy, but because we just will know more. I agree that the pharmaceutical companies are for-profit companies, who want to maximize their profits. I also agree that there are a lot of medications that aren't well studied before they go to market, and we then learn that they can be dangerous - so people do need to be educated so that they can make their own decisions. However, they need to be *truly* educated, and not just read some propaganda pieces that have a lack of actual scientific evidence to back it up.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! It's nice to read something from someone educated on the subject.

 

[Lilmiss1]

That is all great accept what they don't want to tell you is this year's flu shot is based off of last year's strand of the flu. Every year there are different strands, often worse, or different from the last, making the shot ineffective if you do not catch the strand of the flu it treats.

Not getting the shot. I am allergic to it, and will probably never get it again for the rest of my life.

What do you parents who's children have to have the flu shot before they can go to school do? Where I am from (where I grew up) If you did not get the shot than you got set home from school.

This years flu vaccine is based on australia last winters flu strain, because that is the strain that will make its way over to the uk. This is why the vaccine isn't available until late sept/ early oct and why they always expire the following march

 

[Lingobird]

Oh great. Don't freak me out now! I just got a flu shot at my last prenatal appointment.

 

[Louise73]

All your doing by posting this is making ppl second guess their decisions. And if they've already gotten their shots scaring them to death. I hate fear-mongering threads.

Yep totally agree. Have my appointment tomorrow morning and am now doubting whether to have it,just as I was getting round to the idea of getting it done. Thanks

 

[AveryATL]

Please don't freak out. There is no real scientific evidence that suggests that getting the flu shot while pregnant has any negative impacts on the fetus - and quite the contrary, it protects the mother, and many improve immunity in the newborn. There is evidence that may suggest that the vaccination is not effective in children under two, but it does not how actual harm.

 

[mummy2b2010]

All your doing by posting this is making ppl second guess their decisions. And if they've already gotten their shots scaring them to death. I hate fear-mongering threads.

Agree..they make me so mad...let ppl make there own choices and decisions were all grown ups here we dont need someone forcing 'facts' down our necks!!!

Dont mean to offend it just makes me mad!!

 

[bababel]

All your doing by posting this is making ppl second guess their decisions. And if they've already gotten their shots scaring them to death. I hate fear-mongering threads.

Agree..they make me so mad...let ppl make there own choices and decisions were all grown ups here we dont need someone forcing 'facts' down our necks!!!

Dont mean to offend it just makes me mad!!

The worst part is these aren't even "fact." They are unproven hypotheses put together by paranoid anti-pharmaceutical companies! Science clearly shows that the pros outweigh the cons. I hope nobody here regrets their decision if they already got the flu shot. Actual science has never shown there to be any risk to mommy or fetus!

 

[xxEMZxx]

I think everyone should be left to their own decisions x

 

[Croc-O-Dile]

They're not all a load of rubbish, you know. Science can PROVE most of the things that people say are dangerous about vaccines. Just as science proves your theory that they're safe, science proves our theory that they're not.

Money speaks louder than science, always remember that.

 

[Button#]

I am going to discuss whether the dr/midwife thinks I should get the flu vaccine when I get a chance as my immunity will be lower as I am pregnant even though I haven't had flu (not a bad cold) for about 7 years. Flu can kill.

 

[AveryATL]

They're not all a load of rubbish, you know. Science can PROVE most of the things that people say are dangerous about vaccines. Just as science proves your theory that they're safe, science proves our theory that they're not.

Money speaks louder than science, always remember that.

Science doesn't PROVE anything.That isn't how it works. Scientific experiments, done in a controlled manner (or at least as controlled as possible), simply provides evidence, and allows people to make conclusions based on the results of such experiments. If you have links, in peer-reviewed scientific journals that provides significant evidence that vaccinations are not safe, please share. You don't have a theory, and those who support vaccinations do not have a theory. The ONLY 'Theory' that involves vaccinations would be the 'Germ Theory' which suggests that microscopic organisms can cause diseases, and does not involve how those germs are best treated. A theory is a well studied, well established broadly-based explanation for observed phenomenon.

Websites that list 'facts', but can not actually back up the facts with actual controlled research are not scientific.

Sorry, I disagree that money speaks louder than science. There are hundreds of independent researchers at universities all over the world that are doing research for the love of science and the goal of progress. They do get grant funding, often from the government - NOT drug companies. I have done such research, and worked with highly esteemed universities who are doing research for the sake of science, to gain a better understanding about the world around us or to improve humanity. I find it sad that people have such a jaded view of why graduate students, professors and researches conduct their work.

You are right - there are lots of cases where research has become compromised by those that fund it. That is why it is important to look at who is providing the funding for research before you take for gospel the results. Obviously, drug studies conducted by a drug company are not unbiased. However, the majority of research is not tainted by the funding organization. This is one of the main reasons why those peer-reviewed journals are important. To get work included in those journals, they have to pass through a review board whose job is to best maintain and protect scientific integrity.

 

[bababel]

They're not all a load of rubbish, you know. Science can PROVE most of the things that people say are dangerous about vaccines. Just as science proves your theory that they're safe, science proves our theory that they're not.

Money speaks louder than science, always remember that.

Science doesn't PROVE anything.That isn't how it works. Scientific experiments, done in a controlled manner (or at least as controlled as possible), simply provides evidence, and allows people to make conclusions based on the results of such experiments. If you have links, in peer-reviewed scientific journals that provides significant evidence that vaccinations are not safe, please share. You don't have a theory, and those who support vaccinations do not have a theory. The ONLY 'Theory' that involves vaccinations would be the 'Germ Theory' which suggests that microscopic organisms can cause diseases, and does not involve how those germs are best treated. A theory is a well studied, well established broadly-based explanation for observed phenomenon.

Websites that list 'facts', but can not actually back up the facts with actual controlled research are not scientific.

Sorry, I disagree that money speaks louder than science. There are hundreds of independent researchers at universities all over the world that are doing research for the love of science and the goal of progress. They do get grant funding, often from the government - NOT drug companies. I have done such research, and worked with highly esteemed universities who are doing research for the sake of science, to gain a better understanding about the world around us or to improve humanity. I find it sad that people have such a jaded view of why graduate students, professors and researches conduct their work.

You are right - there are lots of cases where research has become compromised by those that fund it. That is why it is important to look at who is providing the funding for research before you take for gospel the results. Obviously, drug studies conducted by a drug company are not unbiased. However, the majority of research is not tainted by the funding organization. This is one of the https://www.babyandbump.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12989332main reasons why those peer-reviewed journals are important. To get work included in those journals, they have to pass throw a review board whose job is to best maintain and protect scientific integrity.

My husband has a PhD in biology. He and his colleagues are constantly complaining about how, for some reason, the public seems to see science as some kind of conspiracy funded by "the man." Science is the purest form of inquiry that seeks nothing but truth. To undermine scientists and claim they have ulterior motives is folly. Science has got us to where we are today but there are so many naysayers who would rather take the word of a celebrity or whack job with a computer when it comes to very important decisions. In cases like these, where doctors and scientists are told that they are wrong by the uneducated, it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

 

[Croc-O-Dile]

They're not all a load of rubbish, you know. Science can PROVE most of the things that people say are dangerous about vaccines. Just as science proves your theory that they're safe, science proves our theory that they're not.

Money speaks louder than science, always remember that.

Science doesn't PROVE anything.That isn't how it works. Scientific experiments, done in a controlled manner (or at least as controlled as possible), simply provides evidence, and allows people to make conclusions based on the results of such experiments. If you have links, in peer-reviewed scientific journals that provides significant evidence that vaccinations are not safe, please share. You don't have a theory, and those who support vaccinations do not have a theory. The ONLY 'Theory' that involves vaccinations would be the 'Germ Theory' which suggests that microscopic organisms can cause diseases, and does not involve how those germs are best treated. A theory is a well studied, well established broadly-based explanation for observed phenomenon.

Websites that list 'facts', but can not actually back up the facts with actual controlled research are not scientific.

Sorry, I disagree that money speaks louder than science. There are hundreds of independent researchers at universities all over the world that are doing research for the love of science and the goal of progress. They do get grant funding, often from the government - NOT drug companies. I have done such research, and worked with highly esteemed universities who are doing research for the sake of science, to gain a better understanding about the world around us or to improve humanity. I find it sad that people have such a jaded view of why graduate students, professors and researches conduct their work.

You are right - there are lots of cases where research has become compromised by those that fund it. That is why it is important to look at who is providing the funding for research before you take for gospel the results. Obviously, drug studies conducted by a drug company are not unbiased. However, the majority of research is not tainted by the funding organization. This is one of the https://www.babyandbump.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12989332main reasons why those peer-reviewed journals are important. To get work included in those journals, they have to pass throw a review board whose job is to best maintain and protect scientific integrity.

My husband has a PhD in biology. He and his colleagues are constantly complaining about how, for some reason, the public seems to see science as some kind of conspiracy funded by "the man." Science is the purest form of inquiry that seeks nothing but truth. To undermine scientists and claim they have ulterior motives is folly. Science has got us to where we are today but there are so many naysayers who would rather take the word of a celebrity or whack job with a computer when it comes to very important decisions. In cases like these, where doctors and scientists are told that they are wrong by the uneducated, it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

I wasn't undermining scientist, ffs I'm in school for physics! But I also know that what makes the drug companies money makes the government money, and the government funds a lot of these research programs. (not all, but a nice majority) The studies that have been done to prove they're safe have just as many counter studies proving they're not. You CAN sway statistics while still having it remain "scientifically correct."

When I said that we have different theories, I was using the other definition of the word, btw.

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it

 

[britishsaffy]

I'll be getting the Flu shot.
As for the other Vaccines - my baby will be getting all of them with the only difference being i'm asking for the MMR to be done as 3 seperate shots instead of an all in one.

 

[Skadi]

All this uneducated fear mongering just makes me cringe. I'll definitely be getting the thimersol free shot. I'd rather NOT risk getting the flu this season and potentially dying or harming my baby. It is a FACT that pregnant women (along with children) are more susceptible to significant health risks than other groups once they have contracted the flu. The Flu itself can cause brain damage in your unborn baby. Why risk that?