Tetanus Shot and What Else?

[Jimbotomateo]

Originally Posted by BigVanVader

I gotta say some of the vaccination protocols don't make any sense. I certainly think you do need many of them and in most cases there is nothing to worry about, but some are questionable and I feel as a parent I should be able to decide if and when I have my child vaccinated. Forced anything is simply wrong. All people should have the right to make their own informed decisions without ridicule. My daughter can't even go to school or daycare now without all her vaccinations. The last round caused some pretty severe side effects and she kept crossing her eyes afterwards which scares the blank out of me.

Granddaughter just turned two. Lost track of how many shots she's had but it's a lot! My daughter wouldn't let them give her group shots. A couple of times she had to have the combo shots. It's amazing how miserable she gets from these things. I hope there's no repercussions in the future for her.

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by dmforcier

A discount?


My clinic keeps wanting to give me a tetanus shot. Neither I nor the nurse can explain why since I'm not at risk. But if you're working in dirt, it's a good idea.

We are all at risk. that is why they give little kids boosters. Tetanus will grow in a deep puncture wound and it does not have to come from a garden injury. So I would say to all of us, get one every ten years.

[seaeagle]

Originally Posted by throwaway

Our justice system strikes me as being the least bad out of a bunch of crummy options. Juries are absolutely prone to bias and there is certainly an argument that laypeople make poor/arbitrary decisions on topics they are ill-equipped to understand.

I think what you are saying is that the system works but is not perfect and I think everyone would be in agreement on that

[brownrexx]

Originally Posted by Labradors2

That's great isn't it. 5 cases in a DECADE in the US and now there is treatment for it. So they decide that people who require boosters for Tetanus may as well get diptheria in their vaccination while they are at it, just because some pharmaceutical company feels like adding it so that they can charge more.

Hands up all those who work for Big Pharma.

Linda

I think that you have missed the point here. Yes there have been 5 cases in a decade but that is BECAUSE vaccinations kept people from getting diphtheria.

Before vaccinations were available thousands died from diphtheria.

Yes, thank you Big Pharma for keeping me and mine from getting diphtheria.

[ddsack]

I am the youngest of three siblings. There would have been four of us, but the brother closest to my age died of diptheria as a toddler, before I was born. This would have been near the end of WWII, guessing around 1945-46 since I don't know the exact year.

Despite precautions, as long as you have tourists, health care workers, and immigrants traveling to and arriving from third world countries where these diseases are still prevalent, there's always a chance the diseases could be reintroduced here on a wider scale if they find their way into areas with unvaccinated people .

[Father'sDaughter]

Another controversial vaccine these days seems to be Gardasil. I can think of several parents I know who refuse to admit there is any possibility of their teenage children being sexuality active, and deciding that they don't need to have an HPV vaccine. I guess some of them have forgotten what they did as teens...

If it had been available when my son was young, he would have received it as soon as he was old enough.

[rxkeith]

we give flu shots, the two pneumonia shots, zostavax, and Tdap, where i work. most pharmacies offer these vaccinations. no appointment necessary.

whether you choose to vaccinate yourself or child should be a personal decision that i would hope you have made after careful thought and research. i will not say you should or should not vaccinate. i am against any mandatory or forced vaccination legislation or requirements, and will leave it at that.

there are risks either way. no vaccine is completely safe or effective. read the waiver sheet the pharmacy has you sign.



keith

[Worth1]

Originally Posted by rxkeith

we give flu shots, the two pneumonia shots, zostavax, and Tdap, where i work. most pharmacies offer these vaccinations. no appointment necessary.

whether you choose to vaccinate yourself or child should be a personal decision that i would hope you have made after careful thought and research. i will not say you should or should not vaccinate. i am against any mandatory or forced vaccination legislation or requirements, and will leave it at that.

there are risks either way. no vaccine is completely safe or effective. read the waiver sheet the pharmacy has you sign.



keith

I agree and to add.
It is everyone's responsibility to see and look at what ever drug or medication they are being asked to take.
Many of which will require you to take something else to deal with the side effects of the first and then on and on.
Soon if you are lucky you will be hauling around a big box of pills everywhere you go.
Seen this all to often all of which were the product of the veterans administration.
Worth

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by seaeagle

Originally Posted by seaeagle


Back to the Shingles debate.The attorney that is bringing the class action lawsuit against Merck is one of the top trial lawyers in the United States according to Fortune Magazine and many others and he thinks he has a good case.

Response Posted by gorbelly

That's not really a scientific argument. That's merely an argument that the cultural climate right now is good for such a lawsuit. Juries are not scientists.

Not sure what your point is unless you are attacking the entire judicial system and the way it works. Are you saying that fair and impartial jury of 12 competent men and women carefully screened and approved by both sides from a larger pool cannot make an intelligent decision?

No one is saying that Shingles is nothing to worry about or that you can't die from it. You can die from almost anything. Shingles can be terrible and yes you can die.

The point is that the Shingles vaccine was advertised as lifetime immunity and it is far from it. Four years. The CDC says 5, but 5 years ago you were good for life. How many here who have had the Shingles Vaccine thought they had lifetime immunity? The answer is probably everyone. If you got the vaccine 5 years ago you are now unprotected and Merck continues to rake in almost a billion dollars a year.

And there is some conjecture that this vaccine may attack your central nervous system in some people without showing any signs of shingles. So someone who gets sick like that without showing signs of Shingles may not realize what was happening and what was making them sick.That is what the lawsuit is all about.

Most of the bad things that large corporations hide from us are initially exposed in the courtroom.The system works.Sitting on the juries in these landmark cases were 12 competent men and women who were not scientists.

I'm saying exactly what I said. It's not an argument to not get the vaccine. It's an argument to adjust expectations of the vaccine, the claims about its efficacy made to the public, and the scheduling and frequency of its administration. The logical conclusion is not "the vaccine doesn't last as long as the manufacturer claims, therefore we should abandon giving people the shingles vaccine and now we have evidence that vaccine recommendations are all bad."

As for people suing because they got shingles after the vaccine in order to make a company accountable for false claims about duration of protection, that's a legitimate claim and one that is provable.

But people suing because they think the vaccine gave them shingles is on a different order of magnitude when it comes to levels of proof required.

And unrelated to all of this, I meant precisely what I said: juries are not scientists. It doesn't mean they can't make legal decisions or the that the jury system isn't the best tool we have to decide legal matters as a society. But the best tools we have still have flaws, and one of them is the average level of science literacy among the public, i.e., among the peers that make up our juries. And under our current legal system, any actual medical researcher who works on vaccines is almost certainly going to be excluded from any jury on such a case during voir dire.

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by brownrexx

I think that you have missed the point here. Yes there have been 5 cases in a decade but that is BECAUSE vaccinations kept people from getting diphtheria.

ding ding ding!

Also, vaccines account for under 2% of pharmaceutical companies' profits. There are routinely crises with finding companies willing to make them because there isn't enough profit in vaccines for the trouble they are to manufacture.

[seaeagle]

Originally Posted by gorbelly

I'm saying exactly what I said. It's not an argument to not get the vaccine. It's an argument to adjust expectations of the vaccine, the claims about its efficacy made to the public, and the scheduling and frequency of its administration. The logical conclusion is not "the vaccine doesn't last as long as the manufacturer claims, therefore we should abandon giving people the shingles vaccine and now we have evidence that vaccine recommendations are all bad."

As for people suing because they got shingles after the vaccine in order to make a company accountable for false claims about duration of protection, that's a legitimate claim and one that is provable.

But people suing because they think the vaccine gave them shingles is on a different order of magnitude when it comes to levels of proof required.

And unrelated to all of this, I meant precisely what I said: juries are not scientists. It doesn't mean they can't make legal decisions or the that the jury system isn't the best tool we have to decide legal matters as a society. But the best tools we have still have flaws, and one of them is the average level of science literacy among the public, i.e., among the peers that make up our juries. And under our current legal system, any actual medical researcher who works on vaccines is almost certainly going to be excluded from any jury on such a case during voir dire.

Originally posted by Gorbelly
But people suing because they think the vaccine gave them shingles is on a different order of magnitude when it comes to levels of proof required.

It really shouldn't be hard to prove as Merck admitted in 2015 I think that ZOSTAVAX absolutely can cause SHINGLES.So all these whacked nutcases who claimed all these years that the shingles vaccine gave them shingles were absolutely correct.

Please let me say this again, I am NOT anti-vaccine.Vaccines wipe out diseases and save lives.But there are good ones and bad ones in my opinion and ZOSTAVAX in my opinion is definitely not one of the best.

Please try to take an unbiased, objective look at this ZOSTAVAX vaccine.

First you pay 200 dollars for this miracle of modern day science and it is a once only vaccine, no boosters

Second it cuts your risk of getting shingles by 50 percent, not exactly what i would call immunity

Third it only lasts 4 years maybe 5

OK so maybe if that's all there is to worry about, it may be worth a shot.But then I look at the list of possible side affects one of which is the very disease it is supposed to protect me from.Oh really?

The following additional side effects have been reported with ZOSTAVAX:

allergic reactions, which may be serious and may include difficulty in breathing or swallowing. If you have an allergic reaction, call your doctor right away.

chickenpox

shingles

Those three alone would raise a red flag for me.And that doesn't even start to address all the other additional concerns about the possible dangers of vaccines.The whole list can be seen here

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biolog.../UCM285016.pdf

I think it is a really great deal for Merck, not so much for the consumer.

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by seaeagle

Originally posted by Gorbelly
But people suing because they think the vaccine gave them shingles is on a different order of magnitude when it comes to levels of proof required.

It really shouldn't be hard to prove as Merck admitted in 2015 I think that ZOSTAVAX absolutely can cause SHINGLES.So all these whacked nutcases who claimed all these years that the shingles vaccine gave them shingles were absolutely correct.

Please let me say this again, I am NOT anti-vaccine.Vaccines wipe out diseases and save lives.But there are good ones and bad ones in my opinion and ZOSTAVAX in my opinion is definitely not one of the best.

Please try to take an unbiased, objective look at this ZOSTAVAX vaccine.

First you pay 200 dollars for this miracle of modern day science and it is a once only vaccine, no boosters

Second it cuts your risk of getting shingles by 50 percent, not exactly what i would call immunity

Third it only lasts 4 years maybe 5

OK so maybe if that's all there is to worry about, it may be worth a shot.But then I look at the list of possible side affects one of which is the very disease it is supposed to protect me from.Oh really?

The following additional side effects have been reported with ZOSTAVAX:

allergic reactions, which may be serious and may include difficulty in breathing or swallowing. If you have an allergic reaction, call your doctor right away.

chickenpox

shingles

Those three alone would raise a red flag for me.And that doesn't even start to address all the other additional concerns about the possible dangers of vaccines.The whole list can be seen here

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biolog.../UCM285016.pdf

I think it is a really great deal for Merck, not so much for the consumer.

First, "reported" side effects are just that: reported. I took a Tylenol the other day and shortly afterward had some gas. I could report that as a side-effect. But maybe I just had gas for some other reasons. But if enough people with coincidental gas report it, it's now reported as a side effect of Tylenol. You have to look at double-blind studies to see what the actual side effects that show up in people are. And, yes, if you give someone who hasn't had chickenpox the zoster vaccine, there is a chance that that person or someone around that person who has not had chickenpox will get chickenpox. But the mechanism by which you'd get shingles is much more complicated and harder to prove and less likely.

Second, nobody is saying vaccines are risk-free. But they're among the least dangerous medical interventions available. If you don't hesitate to take any over the counter drug but hesitate to get basic recommended vaccines, you're not being rational, as almost all OTC drugs have more and more serious side effects than basic vaccines. And the vaccines that are risky are not recommended for people to get unless there is a compelling reason why they need it.

Third, the possibility of allergy is there with every single thing you put into your body. The possibility of pain at the site is a given with anything that requires injection. These are common sense and no different than anything else you put into your body.

As for cost/benefit calculations--by all means, make your calculations with something like shingles vaccine which does not endanger anyone else if you choose to forgo it.

I will be the first person to agree that shingles vaccine is not a slam-dunk like most vaccines against previously very common diseases like measles, diptheria, etc. If you have to pay for it out of pocket and there is financial difficulty with doing so, of course it's rational to decide not to have it.

All I'm saying is that there is little risk and a significant potential benefit if you do get it and it's covered by your insurance (which, if you're a senior with Medicare, it should be). Insurance actuaries would not recommend coverage for it if it didn't save the insurance companies money, i.e., if it did not show a cost benefit in fewer medical claims, i.e., it works to prevent people from needing expensive medical interventions later.

I love how people harp on how "Big Pharma's" profits are evidence that vaccines are a scam (which is a logical fallacy), but insurance companies trying to maximize their profits by incentivizing vaccination is not evidence at all that vaccines work. Why is the "follow the money" argument valid for the former but not the latter?

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by BigVanVader

Forced anything is simply wrong. All people should have the right to make their own informed decisions without ridicule. My daughter can't even go to school or daycare now without all her vaccinations. The last round caused some pretty severe side effects and she kept crossing her eyes afterwards which scares the blank out of me.

With certain vaccines, if you choose not to get them or choose not to get them for your child, you actively endanger others in the society around you.

Sure, nobody should be forced to give their child a vaccine. But it's fair if that's the choice you make that you accept that your child will not be permitted in certain environments in which large numbers of children interact with close contact.

Someone's child--or a child relative or neighbor of an employee at a school or daycare, or the sibling of a child in that facility--may not be able to get vaccines because of a legitimate medical problem, and your child will be a danger to them if they are a potential conduit for a disease that could be dangerous to that other child.

So nobody should be forced, but others in society should also not be forced to take on the risks created by your choices. The whole point of choice is that you live with the consequences of those choices, and if that includes finding alternate child care arrangements or home schooling in order to protect a child that's undergoing chemotherapy or is immune impaired, that's a legitimate consequence.

[seaeagle]

This is the FDA approval of a request from Merck to add shingles as a possible side effect of Zostavax

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Attention: Alison Fisher, Ph.D.
WP37A-102
P.O. Box 4
West Point, PA 19486-0004
Dear Dr. Fisher:
We have approved your request to supplement your biologics license application for the Frozen and Refrigerator - Stable Formulations of Zoster Vaccine Live (ZOSTAVAX™), to update the Package Insert, Section 6.3 Postmarketing Experience to include “infections and infestations: Herpes zoster (vaccine strain)” and to update the Patient Package Insert to include “Shingles” in the “What are the possible side effects of ZOSTAVAX?” section.


https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa.../ucm412104.htm


To me that is admitting that the vaccination can cause shingles.But I was thinking that since the vaccine is relatively ineffective some could have got shingles naturally.Either way, I will pass on this one


“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” — Marcia Angell, MD, Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption. NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.

[gorbelly]

Originally Posted by seaeagle

To me that is admitting that the vaccination can cause shingles.

It could also mean a desire to fend off future lawsuits by people who think the vaccine has given them shingles. Truth does not drive legal disclaimers, and actions are often taken to cover a** or allay public fears regardless of truth or merit.

Example: the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines. Despite extensive research showing absolutely no connection between Thmerosal and autism, it was removed from vaccines in the hopes that people avoiding it because someone accused Thimerosal of causing autism would get over their fears.

Of course, what actually happened is that the anti-vaccine movement merely moved the goalposts and dug in harder than ever. Meanwhile, cheaper, multi-dose vials had to be replaced by far more expensive single-dose packaging without the presence of Thimerosal to preserve the vaccine, and it's almost a certainty that people in the developing world died because of decreased access to vaccines due to the increased cost.

Originally Posted by seaeagle

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” — Marcia Angell, MD, Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption. NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.

This is a valid criticism of the peer review process as it currently stands, but even so, nothing undergoes more rigorous testing and must meet as rigorous a standard as vaccines. So unless one is willing to write off all pharmaceutical intervention in human health as a big ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the fact that the medical publishing process is flawed means *more* critical thinking, not giving up on critical thinking and deciding it's all bad and using "Big Pharma" as some kind of bogeyman that can be used as a catch-all excuse when our personal feelings conflict with scientific evidence.