[Whirled_Peas]

Interesting article:

Flu Vaccine Study Prompts Caution In Canada : NPR

[sbaglio]

I heard about this. Until I see the data, I'm going to go with what I DO know - kids are dying today of H1N1. As soon as my ped gets the vaccine in, my daughter is getting vaccinated.

[nurse_reedle]

Yeah, amazing how much more aware Canada seems to be and how much more study they seem to be doing, huh?

[crick]

I'm confused...

They said people who got the regular flu shot LAST year have an increased chance of getting the H1N1 this year.

Wouldn't this link have been seen and published by now based on previous years? Meaning, H1N1 isn't "new" (I understand new strains come out, but the "swine flu" isn't new) and has always been around in some form, correct? So why isn't there publication on the previous year results?

I don't know..I guess I just take all these news reports with a grain of salt considering how many are out there and how many half truths stemmed from half data is involved.

[sbaglio]

"Published" is the optimal word, crick. Unless people are willing to have their theories put up for scrutiny, anything goes. Just look at what happened with the MMR/autism debacle - the author of that paper was found to have fabricated data, and yet the effects of his lies are still rippling through our society, putting many children's lives at risk.

And there are always going to be conspiracy theorists who think that the government is out to get us and our kids. Believe what you wish. If you don't want to get the H1N1 vaccine, great! That means there will be more for those of us who do. And in a shortage like this, that's a good thing, in my book.

[crick]

Fazdi - I'm more just commenting on all the conflicting data out there and from both sides, kwim? It's just hard for the general public to know which way to really believe.

Just saying it's confusing to me...

[OakShannon]

There is a lot of conflicting information out there, and I don't know how reliable it all is. It's a judgement call. With all of the conflicting information, it's less clear cut than, say, the polio vaccine.

What I do think is true is that the flu kills people every year. Young children are particularly vulnerable. This new strain seems to have some additional dangers. And I think vaccines beneficial and we are lucky to have access to them.

So, with the recommendation of D's pediatrician and with the hope that this is the right decision, I'm taking D this morning to get his second flu booster and his first dose of H1N1.

[binkybear]

For me it seems the overall discussion seems to boil down to: one man's data is another man's trash.

I mean within this post we have die hard one way and die hard the other...and then there are those somewhere in the middle who do want to read what's out there on all "sides".

There's no great data on H1N1 at this point, so what do we do...we do what we feel is best upon reading it all and knowing our own circumstances.

Given our countries very real history with vaccine, both good AND bad, I think it is foolish to out right discount either "side".

Last night we got the seasonal flu shot, after being on a waiting list. I'd never get the shot if it weren't for B being with us now, he's just 2 months old...so we felt this was smart to protect him given our location and my husbands work environment. H1N1 vaccine isn't even here yet, only a few pediatric office were "picked" to dose. And here's the thing...H1N1 is already here in huge clusters. Even if we , as adults, were able to get the shot we'd have to wait 2 weeks from seasonal and then it takes a min of 3 weeks to build immunities..so we'd be looking at a minimum of 5 weeks before it would even matter!! Because of all of that our pedi said she's much much more worried about the seasonal flu and how THAT vaccine has been back burnered due to H1N1. Seasonal flu's time isn't even here yet and H1N1 may fizzle in it's "season" before people ever see the vaccine for. So maybe H1N1 WILL affect seasonal flu...but maybe it'll be because of lousy planning and organization on creation and disbursment of flu vaccines overall.

For me personally it's really sad that we can not trust what is essentially driven by big big $$. This article below is slightly OT, but it still plays into the idea that what we're "sold" via snazzy commercials and big dollars doesn't always make sense when we're given the data after the fact.
Gardasil Researcher Speaks Out - CBS News

[meghann]

Originally Posted by binkybear

I mean within this post we have die hard one way and die hard the other...and then there are those somewhere in the middle who do want to read what's out there on all "sides".

The problem is that unless people understand how to tell good science from bad (or from completely unsupported speculation), reading what's out there "on all sides" can muddy the waters.

I'm all for people educating themselves, but I'm leery of an environment (the news media, the Internet, etc.) that presents Jenny McCarthy's opinions alongside reports of peer-reviewed research as though they're worthy of equal weight and consideration.

[binkybear]

Originally Posted by meghann

The problem is that unless people understand how to tell good science from bad (or from completely unsupported speculation), reading what's out there "on all sides" can muddy the waters.

I'm all for people educating themselves, but I'm leery of an environment (the news media, the Internet, etc.) that presents Jenny McCarthy's opinions alongside reports of peer-reviewed research as though they're worthy of equal weight and consideration.

who's to say what is "good" information when most of what we read anymore is the product of big $.

And what happens when the "good science" one year is found to be faulty the following year or the following decade? People have to trust themselves and what they find to be compelling...whether or not others find it to be "good" or "bad" information.

Why shouldn't Jenny's opinions be out there for people to hear? I personally want to hear the one voice along with the big machine and make a conclusion after hearing all of the information.

The experts said tummy sleep, then side then back..the experts thought cigarettes were safe at one time, the experts thought Thalidomide was safe. That's not crazy medival history, it's within our lifetime and some people saw tragedy by following the experts at face value. People should seek out all they can for themselves, who's to say what's good or bad...and who wants to be held responsible when only one idea was presented and people made uninformed decisions with negative results?

[nurse_reedle]

Originally Posted by binkybear

who's to say what is "good" information when most of what we read anymore is the product of big $.

And what happens when the "good science" one year is found to be faulty the following year or the following decade? People have to trust themselves and what they find to be compelling...whether or not others find it to be "good" or "bad" information.

Why shouldn't Jenny's opinions be out there for people to hear? I personally want to hear the one voice along with the big machine and make a conclusion after hearing all of the information.

The experts said tummy sleep, then side then back..the experts thought cigarettes were safe at one time, the experts thought Thalidomide was safe. That's not crazy medival history, it's within our lifetime and some people saw tragedy by following the experts at face value. People should seek out all they can for themselves, who's to say what's good or bad...and who wants to be held responsible when only one idea was presented and people made uninformed decisions with negative results?

I SOOOOO agree!!!!

[mommytoEli]

Originally Posted by meghann

The problem is that unless people understand how to tell good science from bad (or from completely unsupported speculation), reading what's out there "on all sides" can muddy the waters.

I'm all for people educating themselves, but I'm leery of an environment (the news media, the Internet, etc.) that presents Jenny McCarthy's opinions alongside reports of peer-reviewed research as though they're worthy of equal weight and consideration.

the problem for me is a lot of the "don't vaccinate" propaganda i hear IS from doctors, not celebrities.

[sbaglio]

I've decided that I don't need legal representation, ever...I can do it myself.

I have access to the Internet...all I have to do is go through some key websites for an afternoon, or even a few weeks, if I'm dedicated. Legalzoom.com can get me up to speed on the differences in legal documentation; I can go to the Justice Department website to gain some valuable information on legal precedent in this country. I might even attend a few lectures at the local uni law school, or talk to a few lawyers to give me their opinion on some key legal issues of the day (can we talk, loveajax??).

The next step would be to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. I mean, even though the justices went to law school for 4 years, and tried thousands of cases daily, attended conferences and briefings throughout their careers, and have a wealth of knowledge and experience through doing it every day, why can't all my research online and in questioning people, stand up to the likes of Scalia and Sotomayor? What the heck do they know that I can't learn on my own? Who says they're experts, anyway!

[oceanica]

lol Fadzi.

[Whirled_Peas]

Originally Posted by sbaglio

I've decided that I don't need legal representation, ever...I can do it myself.

I have access to the Internet...all I have to do is go through some key websites for an afternoon, or even a few weeks, if I'm dedicated. Legalzoom.com can get me up to speed on the differences in legal documentation; I can go to the Justice Department website to gain some valuable information on legal precedent in this country. I might even attend a few lectures at the local uni law school, or talk to a few lawyers to give me their opinion on some key legal issues of the day (can we talk, loveajax??).

The next step would be to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. I mean, even though the justices went to law school for 4 years, and tried thousands of cases daily, attended conferences and briefings throughout their careers, and have a wealth of knowledge and experience through doing it every day, why can't all my research online and in questioning people, stand up to the likes of Scalia and Sotomayor? What the heck do they know that I can't learn on my own? Who says they're experts, anyway!

Actually, having experienced the world of lawyers and judges, I think you have a good idea here. You may have been sarcastic, but I, personally, found that I am smarter and more aware of nuances than highly paid lawyers. My life would have been a lot better if I'd taken your above advice.