Makes me think of the MMR vaccination in the UK.....loads of parents chose NOT to vaccinate their kids because of the negative press about the MMR vaccine. Lots of unvaccinated children now getting measles, mumps and rubella because of it, and passing it on to their friends - and some of those kids develop it badly and have nasty reactions, pass it to their children etc. Now they are lining up for it again, and there's a big push to get kids safe again. Turned out actually the risks of the vaccination WERE a lot less (as a population) than crossing fingers and hoping.

I'm not saying 'you've got to have the flu shot', but there are always two opposing points of view on these things....and pretty often the scientists are right.

Bram.

I've never gotten a flu shot, ever. I usually end up with a head cold, not the flu. My colds used to turn into bronchitis, but I've been good about treating them so they don't do that now. Last winter was one of the first in a while that I had the flu, which I got from my daughter who has an awesome immune system and rarely gets sick. I remember blocking off the kitchen doorway and boiling eucalyptus leaves for hours. I wonder if that's because the CRPS had started? It took much longer to get over it then it took my DD.

All last Winter I did try to stay away from sick people. I knew my immune system was weakened, just didn't know why yet. I'll have to highly consider the flu shot this year.

I wasn't saying that either.. I was just posting my view and opinion which I should be free to do. And yes scientists are right but pharmaceutical companies injury/kill thousands of people every day because either the drug was not fully investigated or the % of people that it could significantly harm seemed less important than those it supposedly would help. Being open to all information is how we individually come to our own decisions at least that is how I do.

Not to mention in the situation you were speaking of it makes much more sense.. children go to school together and sit in small class rooms with often poor ventilation for many hours a day. They also touch each other, toys and games that don't often get washed, they don't always wash their hands or cover their mouths when they cough, sneeze etc., that would lead to a higher risk of germ spread and it makes sense to vaccinate with that in mind. But.. in situations where the risk is much less (like people who spend a majority of time at home) or with the same people and don't have compromised lungs then it would be prudent to consider the whole picture before choosing to do it or not.

Again it was just my opinion or a voice from the other side as you pointed out.

Whooooooaa. I wasn't having a go at you. I was just making it clear that my post wasn't meant to be interpreted as a 100% 'I believe the flu shot is the only choice'. Of course docs and pharma companies have an agenda. And of course the MMR situation is different.

I've never had a go at anyone on these boards, because we are all in the same boat and I could never be aggressive about a difference of opinion.

Bram.

I wasn't having a go at you either. Just responding to your message directed toward my post. Your opinion is clear but I feel strongly that offering a live vaccine (nasally) is a risky scenario for some individuals. I think it is better to think about our individual exposure as well as the risk of exposure to others and personal circumstances before choosing. The CDC makes it very clear that especially the live vaccine(which is the nasal type) should only be given to healthy individuals from 2-49 that right there tells me caution is warranted. "This form of the vaccine is given through the nose and is recommended for healthy children and adults, aged 2 to 49 years"
The injected vaccine only prevents certain strains and does not make one immune to all.

The thousands of people who die every year (which is sad) is compromised more so sadly by the aging population living in nursing homes, hospitals, assisted living and the very young who have not had a chance to build the antibodies. It is much less likely (unless of course you live and work with those who are ill, use public transportation etc.,) for you to die of having had the flu.

I am not for it or against it - I just don't personally believe everyone needs to have it.

At the risk of stepping into an increasingly heated exchange, I think its important to just be aware that the nasal version of the vaccine is made from a live virus that is so extensively weakened that it isn't capable of causing flu. Like the injected version, it can't cause flu.

Crumbs . I'm going to step out here. I just put forward a comment into the conversation in which I clearly said that I wasn't saying everyone had to have the jab. I've also agreed that there are mistakes and agendas and risks. I was just making the comparison with the MMR story, that's all.

We all make our own decisions in the end. I suppose on reflection I do think the risk of the jab or nasal application is less than the risk of the flu itself, but I never said everyone should think like me, or think I'm right.

I thought I was being careful and just joining in. Of course I never meant to offend. I still don't think I did

Bram.

No offense to anyone but if it were true that the vaccine was so weakened then why can someone who has received the nasal version spread the virus? And why can't pregnant or postpartum women have it?

Quoted from the CDC
Can people receiving the nasal spray flu vaccine pass the vaccine viruses to others?
Yes, but its rare. (CRPS is supposedly rare too..)

Linkout to CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm

I didn't take the posts as anyone trying to jab the other. Obviously we all have our opinions and we all are entitled to them. Sometimes the posts or opinions come across a little too strong. So, please be aware of how you are saying what you want to say. We need to support each other, not offend each other. Everyone can voice their opinions and the person asking the initial question can make their decision.

It is exceptionally risky for any pharma co to carry out any clinical trials of any drug in pregnant women. The ability to obtain insurance against the liabilities that arise if something affects unborn foetuses is minimal/nil. Post-thalidomide, drug companies just won't take the risk of carrying out clinical trials in pregnant women. The liabilities can be massive when you add up the lifetime costs of care for a large number of affected individuals with reasonable life expectancy. Because nobody is prepared to risk financial and reputation all suicide carrying out trials in pregnant women, however minuscule the perceived risk is, such medications are never licensed or approved for use in pregnant women. That isn't the case with some older medications or some injectable vaccinations which are manufactured from deal viruses. It is a commercial issue rather than one relating to the vaccine. I have some experience with clinical trials regulation.

As far as transfer of the virus is concerned, need to understand the difference between virus shedding/transfer and actually infecting someone else with flu. These are worlds apart and what the document you referred to explains is that whilst evidence of attenuated virus shedding and subsequent transfer to another person has been recorded, they have not seen any evidence of a vaccinated individual "infecting" another person with the flu virus and than person becoming symptomatic as a result. Essentially what they are able to pick up is evidence that the attenuated virus cells are detectable by lab testing in the body of another person.

Further down in that same document you referred to it does explain that you cannot get flu from the attenuated nasal vaccine and it also explains why. I appreciate that you have very firm views about vaccines and I am merely answering the questions that you asked in (what seems to be a slightly confrontational way) but I am not trying to influence your opinion.