shape
carat
color
clarity

Did you get a flu shot this year?

Gussie

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
3,700
Another real experience. My son was not able to be vaccinated from age 3-8 due to being immunosuppressed as a result of treatment for leukemia. I tried very hard to reduce any risk of infection, hard to do when kids in maintenance chemo (last 3 years of treatment) seem almost as healthy as their peers. I decided to let him play soccer at age 5 with his doctor's encouragement. A few days after a game the coach contacted me that one of the other players had chicken pox. I was very distraught to say the least. And we were lucky that he did not get it. I respect parents rights to make decisions for their children. However I believe it is also a responsibility to let others know those decisions, especially when it can put others at unnecessary risk.

As far as the flu shot, yes we all get it. But my daughter is at home today having tested positive for flu type A yesterday. I will say that she is not nearly as sick as many of her classmates that also have it. So maybe the flu vaccine helps alleviate it if not fully prevented it.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
Another real experience. My son was not able to be vaccinated from age 3-8 due to being immunosuppressed as a result of treatment for leukemia. I tried very hard to reduce any risk of infection, hard to do when kids in maintenance chemo (last 3 years of treatment) seem almost as healthy as their peers. I decided to let him play soccer at age 5 with his doctor's encouragement. A few days after a game the coach contacted me that one of the other players had chicken pox. I was very distraught to say the least. And we were lucky that he did not get it. I respect parents rights to make decisions for their children. However I believe it is also a responsibility to let others know those decisions, especially when it can put others at unnecessary risk.

As far as the flu shot, yes we all get it. But my daughter is at home today having tested positive for flu type A yesterday. I will say that she is not nearly as sick as many of her classmates that also have it. So maybe the flu vaccine helps alleviate it if not fully prevented it.

This is why it's so important for those who can to get vaccinated... for those who have no protection, such as your son. I'm so glad he wasn't infected, @ceg.

And yes... Although the flu vaccine will miss strains (more so now with less vaccination overall), getting one will certainly make any contraction of the flu a milder case than it would have been without a vaccination for any strain. I will say that symptoms vary from "oh, wow... I tested positive? I don't really feel that bad" to severe body aches and "I feel like death."
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
Absolutely. About 4 years of study in a PharmD program, in addition to residencies. I believe I answered this (the ingredients and information about them) about almost every vaccination given somewhere upthread... or maybe in another vaccine thread. That's what pharmacy school is.
Yes, I think you did post a print out, but that would be different than actually being taught. Ok, then my next question is, would a pharmacist be taught more than an MD about vacs?
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
Yes, I think you did post a print out, but that would be different than actually being taught. Ok, then my next question is, would a pharmacist be taught more than an MD about vacs?

Pharmacists receive at least 4 years of training in pharmacology and pharmacotherapy to complete the doctoral program, whereas med students receive about a semester in pharmacology, specifically. I haven't been to medical school, so I can't really say whether or not pharmacists are taught more about vaccines than those in medical school. I'd say we are both taught TONS, but about different aspects of each, depending on discipline.

Pharmacists are taught how to do a lot of things in school for understanding, like reading EKGs (I sucked at that, btw...), diagnosing patients, etc -- that doesn't mean that all of us will actually do this in daily practice. Those in the medical field form a unit to work together to provide the best care possible.
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
Ok, thanks. Do you read the VIS to each patient before you administer a vaccine?
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,223
And to address what @telephone89 posted about anti vaxxers being labeled a top health threat by WHO, that's just a way to discredit the very real experiences and concerns that SOME people have had. It's just a way to bully people into silence really instead of acknowledging that maybe there is some merit to what they believe.
Lol do you really thing the World health organization is trying to bully the anti-vaxxers? IMO they are trying to save lives. Anti-vaxxers are putting other people at risk, like @ceg 's kid, and others who don't have a CHOICE not to vaccinate. FTR I fully 100% agree with public schools requiring vax'd kids, and if other parents want to endanger their own children they can homeschool, lest they risk the lives of immunocompromised individuals.

if-my-kid-cant-bring-peanut-butter-to-school-yours-shouldnt-be-able-to-bring-preventable-diseases-d2efd.png
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
Ok, thanks. Do you read the VIS to each patient before you administer a vaccine?

I don't give injections at my current pharmacy, but when I did, the patient was required to read, fill out a medical history questionnaire, and sign a waiver that warned of possible side effects. I'm sure there are certain legal requirements for these that must be included.
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
I don't give injections at my current pharmacy, but when I did, the patient was required to read, fill out a medical history questionnaire, and sign a waiver that warned of possible side effects. I'm sure there are certain legal requirements for these that must be included.
Ok, sorry, I had thought you said something to that effect way back in the thread. And it's actually required by law that these are read. I do wonder how often it is enforced....
 

YadaYadaYada

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
11,841
@telephone89, here's the thing, a lot of people in the anti-vaccine group are not necessarily anti every vaccine, many of them are pro-information and informed consent, this is not that black and white. Many people who are now considered anti vaccine didn't start that way, many like myself wish we didn't have to be.

You say that you are all for schools requiring vaccines and that's great but those kids that aren't getting them are still going to the stores, the playground etc and mingling with adults who also are not up to date. That is still putting kids at risk then. In the bigger picture should we start tying social security benefits to vaccines in older people since they are an at risk group. I mean that's only fair right? Except, what if you don't want to get the flu shot because you reacted poorly, oh well too bad you either get it or you don't eat for the month. Forcing the hand is a slippery slope there.

I think I raise some good points about over vaccination and the use of blood testing to determine immunity, there is no reason to overload a child's immune system unnecessarily. Look, I did what I was told until things started going wrong with my son, not all kids can tolerate the CDC schedule, I can't even give him Benadryl without him going into a trance.

So to just dismiss the concerns of parents who have gone through some of the things we have is really no better than me saying that I don't care about immunocompromised children. Children like my son are no less important and they need to be recognized as a vulnerable group and not just lumped together with all the other kids.
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
So here's something that troubles me, on all sorts of levels. The CDC recommends pregnant women get the flu shot and Tdap. Cute lil info vid, less than 2 min.

So, one would think those shots are safe for pregnant women, right? Because the CDC is all about our health, right? But how can they be safe, when no clinical studies have been done on pregnant women? The following link is to the Fluad insert. This is what it says in regards to pregnant women.

"8.1. Pregnancy Pregnancy Category B: A reproductive and developmental toxicity study has been performed in rabbits with a dose level that was approximately 15 times the human dose based on body weight. The study revealed no evidence of impaired female fertility or harm to the fetus due to FLUAD. There are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, this vaccine should be used during pregnancy only if clearly needed. "
http://labeling.seqirus.com/PI/US/FLUAD/EN/FLUAD-Prescribing-Information.pdf

I don't care what animal studies have been done. When you are asking me to inject myself with an unkown neurotoxic soup, literally (and we'll get to that later), I want to KNOW that my unborn child is not at risk. Not only can the CDC not guarantee me that, they are literally talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand all pregnant women should get a flu shot, on the other, "only if clearly needed". I find this troubling.

Here we have Fluarix. In section 8.1, which pregnancy info is the same for all inserts, we find this.
"There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to FLUARIX QUADRIVALENT during pregnancy. Healthcare providers are encouraged to register women by calling 1-888-452-9622. Risk Summary All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies is 2% to 4% and 15% to 20%, respectively. There are insufficient data on FLUARIX QUADRIVALENT in pregnant women to inform vaccine associated risks. "
https://www.gsksource.com/pharma/co...rix_Quadrivalent/pdf/FLUARIX-QUADRIVALENT.PDF

Well hey, they're taking info on you if you got one, cuz they have no idea what it might do!

Flublock.
"8.1 Pregnancy Pregnancy Exposure Pregnancy outcomes in women who have been exposed to Flublok Quadrivalent during pregnancy are being monitored. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. is maintaining a prospective pregnancy exposure registry to collect data on pregnancy outcomes and newborn health status following vaccination with Flublok Quadrivalent during pregnancy. Healthcare providers are encouraged to enroll women who receive Flublok Quadrivalent during pregnancy in Sanofi Pasteur Inc.’s vaccination pregnancy registry by calling 1-800-822-2463. Risk Summary All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risks of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies are 2% to 4% and 15% to 20%, respectively. Available data on Flublok Quadrivalent and Flublok (trivalent formulation) administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnant women"
https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?doc_id=14055&image_type=product_pdf

They're watching too. I feel better.

I could go on, but I won't belabor the point. It's like this with each one. There are seven others on the list I am looking at.

Now, in conjunction with the flu shot for pregnant women that's highly recommended but shouldn't be given unless clearly necessary, there is the unborn child. Children less than 6 months are not (yet) required to get a flu shot. Well, if no human studies have been done on pregnant women, and therefore no studies on unborn infants, what might it do to an unborn baby?

They have no.clue. Does anyone see a problem with this? msop?
 

YadaYadaYada

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
11,841
@Ellen (or Eileen lol!) sorry I feel like I derailed your discussion here a bit. Last thing, I just wanted to mention that there is actually a law in NJ about titer testing from Wikipedia:
  • "The New Jersey Antibody Titer Law ( Holly's Law ) (NJSA 26:2N-8-11), passed on January 14, 2004. The law gives parents a choice before they consent to a second dose of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. A Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) should be provided to the parents each time a vaccine is given. Holly's Law, NJ Chapter 257. C.26:2N-9b; " Documented laboratory evidence of immunity from MMR shall exempt a child from further vaccination for MMR, as may be required pursuant to Department of Health and Senior Services regulations."


    This law is also known as Holly's Law, named after a little girl who died from encephalopathy a week after receiving her second MMR vaccine. You can read about Holly's story here: http://www.hopefromholly.com/hollys-story

  • In response to your pregnant women flu shot post, I did not get a flu shot with either pregnancy, I also didn't get the whooping cough shot which they also highly recommend.
 
Last edited:

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
Stepanie, NO worries! It's not "my" thread. It's all of ours. We all NEED to talk. I encourage anyone who wants to say something to grab the mike. ;))

I will look at your link, thanks.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
Ok, sorry, I had thought you said something to that effect way back in the thread. And it's actually required by law that these are read. I do wonder how often it is enforced....

The patient's signature on the documentation is what is legally required to show that this information has been presented to them prior to administering any vaccination. They sign agreeing that they have read and understand prior to getting the vaccination. The pharmacist isn't required to read it to the patient... that is the patient's responsibility. Of course, we will assist anyone who may need it. It must remain with each patient's records and kept current. Every pharmacy I've ever worked for is very serious about this for documentation and liability purposes.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
So here's something that troubles me, on all sorts of levels. The CDC recommends pregnant women get the flu shot and Tdap. Cute lil info vid, less than 2 min.

So, one would think those shots are safe for pregnant women, right? Because the CDC is all about our health, right? But how can they be safe, when no clinical studies have been done on pregnant women? The following link is to the Fluad insert. This is what it says in regards to pregnant women.

"8.1. Pregnancy Pregnancy Category B: A reproductive and developmental toxicity study has been performed in rabbits with a dose level that was approximately 15 times the human dose based on body weight. The study revealed no evidence of impaired female fertility or harm to the fetus due to FLUAD. There are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, this vaccine should be used during pregnancy only if clearly needed. "
http://labeling.seqirus.com/PI/US/FLUAD/EN/FLUAD-Prescribing-Information.pdf

I don't care what animal studies have been done. When you are asking me to inject myself with an unkown neurotoxic soup, literally (and we'll get to that later), I want to KNOW that my unborn child is not at risk. Not only can the CDC not guarantee me that, they are literally talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand all pregnant women should get a flu shot, on the other, "only if clearly needed". I find this troubling.

Here we have Fluarix. In section 8.1, which pregnancy info is the same for all inserts, we find this.
"There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to FLUARIX QUADRIVALENT during pregnancy. Healthcare providers are encouraged to register women by calling 1-888-452-9622. Risk Summary All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies is 2% to 4% and 15% to 20%, respectively. There are insufficient data on FLUARIX QUADRIVALENT in pregnant women to inform vaccine associated risks. "
https://www.gsksource.com/pharma/co...rix_Quadrivalent/pdf/FLUARIX-QUADRIVALENT.PDF

Well hey, they're taking info on you if you got one, cuz they have no idea what it might do!

Flublock.
"8.1 Pregnancy Pregnancy Exposure Pregnancy outcomes in women who have been exposed to Flublok Quadrivalent during pregnancy are being monitored. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. is maintaining a prospective pregnancy exposure registry to collect data on pregnancy outcomes and newborn health status following vaccination with Flublok Quadrivalent during pregnancy. Healthcare providers are encouraged to enroll women who receive Flublok Quadrivalent during pregnancy in Sanofi Pasteur Inc.’s vaccination pregnancy registry by calling 1-800-822-2463. Risk Summary All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risks of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies are 2% to 4% and 15% to 20%, respectively. Available data on Flublok Quadrivalent and Flublok (trivalent formulation) administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnant women"
https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?doc_id=14055&image_type=product_pdf

They're watching too. I feel better.

I could go on, but I won't belabor the point. It's like this with each one. There are seven others on the list I am looking at.

Now, in conjunction with the flu shot for pregnant women that's highly recommended but shouldn't be given unless clearly necessary, there is the unborn child. Children less than 6 months are not (yet) required to get a flu shot. Well, if no human studies have been done on pregnant women, and therefore no studies on unborn infants, what might it do to an unborn baby?

They have no.clue. Does anyone see a problem with this? msop?


In a nutshell...
Pregnancy Categories A & B are safe.
Category C is benefit vs risk, but usually okay (pt should consult with OB)
Category D is a no (for me, both personally and professionally).
Category X is contraindicated.

I am currently 10 weeks pregnant with my second child. I get the two vaccines recommended during pregnancy, which is flu and Tdap. Pregnant women can only receive vaccinations that are dead/inactivated virus. (Any live vaccines should be given at least a month before conception.)

Here's a good link for info regarding Vaccines & Pregnancy/Breastfeeding:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pregnancy/downloads/immunizations-preg-chart.pdf

This is also a good read from July published on the AAMC Newsletter regarding pregnant women and their participation in clinical trials: (I would summarize, but I'm working, and this is a super quick and easy read - hope this helps)
https://news.aamc.org/research/article/should-pregnant-women-be-included-clinical-trials/
..."Research with pregnant women can be done and it can be done ethically. In some cases, it’s just a matter of gathering “low hanging fruit” — opportunistically but systematically collecting data from pregnant women who are already taking medications, including women who become pregnant while enrolled in a clinical trial. But more is required, including enrolling pregnant women in studies of drugs or vaccines in development that are likely to be used by pregnant women or are likely to benefit them. An important step forward would be to require studies that exclude pregnant women to justify the decision to do so."
 
Last edited:

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
The patient's signature on the documentation is what is legally required to show that this information has been presented to them prior to administering any vaccination. They sign agreeing that they have read and understand prior to getting the vaccination. The pharmacist isn't required to read it to the patient... that is the patient's responsibility. Of course, we will assist anyone who may need it. It must remain with each patient's records and kept current. Every pharmacy I've ever worked for is very serious about this for documentation and liability purposes.
I'm sure they may get it handed to them, but with nothing on the MSM except they are "safe and effective", most won't question or bother reading.
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
In a nutshell...
Pregnancy Categories A & B are safe.
Category C is benefit vs risk, but usually okay (pt should consult with OB)
Category D is a no (for me, both personally and professionally).
Category X is contraindicated.

I am currently 10 weeks pregnant with my second child. I get the two vaccines recommended during pregnancy, which is flu and Tdap. Pregnant women can only receive vaccinations that are dead/inactivated virus. (Any live vaccines should be given at least a month before conception.)

Here's a good link for info regarding Vaccines & Pregnancy/Breastfeeding:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pregnancy/downloads/immunizations-preg-chart.pdf

This is also a good read from July published on the AAMC Newsletter regarding pregnant women and their participation in clinical trials: (I would summarize, but I'm working, and this is a super quick and easy read - hope this helps)
https://news.aamc.org/research/article/should-pregnant-women-be-included-clinical-trials/
..."Research with pregnant women can be done and it can be done ethically. In some cases, it’s just a matter of gathering “low hanging fruit” — opportunistically but systematically collecting data from pregnant women who are already taking medications, including women who become pregnant while enrolled in a clinical trial. But more is required, including enrolling pregnant women in studies of drugs or vaccines in development that are likely to be used by pregnant women or are likely to benefit them. An important step forward would be to require studies that exclude pregnant women to justify the decision to do so."
Maybe I'm missing it, but where are you finding these "categories"?
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,083
In a nutshell...
Pregnancy Categories A & B are safe.
Category C is benefit vs risk, but usually okay (pt should consult with OB)
Category D is a no (for me, both personally and professionally).
Category X is contraindicated.

I am currently 10 weeks pregnant with my second child. I get the two vaccines recommended during pregnancy, which is flu and Tdap. Pregnant women can only receive vaccinations that are dead/inactivated virus. (Any live vaccines should be given at least a month before conception.)

Here's a good link for info regarding Vaccines & Pregnancy/Breastfeeding:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pregnancy/downloads/immunizations-preg-chart.pdf

This is also a good read from July published on the AAMC Newsletter regarding pregnant women and their participation in clinical trials: (I would summarize, but I'm working, and this is a super quick and easy read - hope this helps)
https://news.aamc.org/research/article/should-pregnant-women-be-included-clinical-trials/
..."Research with pregnant women can be done and it can be done ethically. In some cases, it’s just a matter of gathering “low hanging fruit” — opportunistically but systematically collecting data from pregnant women who are already taking medications, including women who become pregnant while enrolled in a clinical trial. But more is required, including enrolling pregnant women in studies of drugs or vaccines in development that are likely to be used by pregnant women or are likely to benefit them. An important step forward would be to require studies that exclude pregnant women to justify the decision to do so."

The issue of pregnant women and drug studies (and even non-drug studies) is really just an aspect of a much larger problem of women being excluded from so many things health-related. Being able to get pregnant has functioned mostly as the most handy excuse for excluding women when the male medical world, really just didn't want to mess with people they saw/see as less reliable and harder to deal with. I know things have changed some, but not nearly enough.

This is an NPR short interview (transcript only)

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ne-dismisses-and-misdiagnoses-womens-symptoms

with author Maya Dusenbury, about her book entitled "Doing Harm: The Truth About How Bad Medicine and Lazy Science Leave Women Dismissed, Misdiagnosed, and Sick". I have read the book (my copy is currently being read by a friend who is mere months away from graduating nursing school, she was all, "Ooo! I need to read that!" (in her massive spare time, ha ha!) ) and highly recommend it for any woman, even those working in healthcare, because none of us is immune from the biases - we understand them on a core level, and have internalized many of them ourselves. From start to finish it was a whole lot of AHA! for me, and explained a lot of the problems I've had with doctors over the years. It was nice to know I was far from alone in that, while being depressing at the same time, because there's no easy fix for it, that's for sure.

OK, book recommendation done. Back to lurking. ;))
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
I'm sure they may get it handed to them, but with nothing on the MSM except they are "safe and effective", most won't question or bother reading.

I can't remember the exact verbiage, but I know for a fact they didn't say anything about "safe and effective." I think you should pick one up the next time you pass a Walgreens or CVS before making assumptions as to what these documents do or do not say... for information.
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
I can't remember the exact verbiage, but I know for a fact they didn't say anything about "safe and effective." I think you should pick one up the next time you pass a Walgreens or CVS before making assumptions as to what these documents do or do not say... for information.
I'm not talking about any document. I'm saying all you hear on the main stream news is that they are safe and effective. Are you saying that they don't tell us that?
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
The issue of pregnant women and drug studies (and even non-drug studies) is really just an aspect of a much larger problem of women being excluded from so many things health-related. Being able to get pregnant has functioned mostly as the most handy excuse for excluding women when the male medical world, really just didn't want to mess with people they saw/see as less reliable and harder to deal with. I know things have changed some, but not nearly enough.

Although I agree that women's health issues have been considered "not as important" as men's in the past (as evidenced by insurance coverage, at the very least)... I disagree with the bolded statement regarding the use of pregnant women in clinical trials, which has been lacking in most for the obvious unknowns and issues of safety. That said, I'm glad that new evidence is being collected and studied all them time so that, in the present and future, the medical community will feel more confident about the safety of pregnant women and their unborn children with regards to medical trials.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
I'm not talking about any document. I'm saying all you hear on the main stream news is that they are safe and effective. Are you saying that they don't tell us that?

Well... I won't go into what I think about the media. All I can tell you is the actual scientific data -- which you typically DO NOT GET from the media. They aren't professionals. They work for hits, likes, and love sensationalism... as all of these equal $$$$$ at the expense of the sheep blindly believing everything they say -- "...because it's the news, for the love of God!! They can't be wrong or biased."

"THIS JUST IN!! Aspirin can kill you!!" ...well, this is old news... and so can drinking too much water. I suggest you consult with people who actually understand the science. The news media can say whatever they feel like, but that doesn't make it true... as we all well know.

At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves. The media tells us all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean that we have to believe it all. Have medical questions? Ask medical professionals. Contrary to what the media want you to believe (but only some of the time and if it makes them money), we are here to improve and save lives.
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
I'm not talking about any document. I'm saying all you hear on the main stream news is that they are safe and effective. Are you saying that they don't tell us that?

I wanted to add that vaccines, as a whole, are indeed safe and effective for the vast majority of the population.
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
You missed my point. Never mind. Could you answer my question about the ABC etc. categories and where you got them please?
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
Maybe I'm missing it, but where are you finding these "categories"?

These are FDA Drug Pregnancy Categories... here is the breakdown I copied and pasted:

FDA Pregnancy Risk Categories Prior to 2015
In 1979, the FDA established five letter risk categories - A, B, C, D or X - to indicate the potential of a drug to cause birth defects if used during pregnancy. The categories were determined by assessing the reliability of documentation and the risk to benefit ratio. These categories did not take into account any risks from pharmaceutical agents or their metabolites in breast milk. In the drug product label, this information was found in the section “Use in Specific Populations”.

The former pregnancy categories, which still may be found in some package inserts, were as follows:

Category A
Adequate and well-controlled studies have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy (and there is no evidence of risk in later trimesters).

Example drugs or substances:
levothyroxine, folic acid, liothyronine

Category B
Animal reproduction studies have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women.

Example drugs:
metformin, hydrochlorothiazide, cyclobenzaprine, amoxicillin, pantoprazole

Category C
Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.

Example drugs:
tramadol, gabapentin, amlodipine, trazodone

Category D
There is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience or studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.

Example drugs:
lisinopril, alprazolam, losartan, clonazepam, lorazepam

Category X
Studies in animals or humans have demonstrated fetal abnormalities and/or there is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience, and the risks involved in use of the drug in pregnant women clearly outweigh potential benefits.

Example drugs:
atorvastatin, simvastatin, warfarin, methotrexate, finasteride
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
You missed my point. Never mind. Could you answer my question about the ABC etc. categories and where you got them please?

Just did... see above.

ETA: I took it that you are upset that the mainstream media says that vaccines are safe and effective. Well, they are. In the same breath, the media will also say that vaccines cause everything from autism to your feet growing 5 sizes... I mean, do you trust the media or those who have dedicated their professional lives to medical study?
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,433
Just did... see above.

ETA: I took it that you are upset that the mainstream media says that vaccines are safe and effective. Well, they are. In the same breath, the media will also say that vaccines cause everything from autism to your feet growing 5 sizes... I mean, do you trust the media or those who have dedicated their professional lives to medical study?
ms, I am not upset because the news said that. Please, you have totally missed the point, and it's not worth rehashing. Thank you for posting the categories, I will look at them now. :wink2:
 

msop04

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
10,051
ms, I am not upset because the news said that. Please, you have totally missed the point, and it's not worth rehashing. Thank you for posting the categories, I will look at them now. :wink2:

I guess I totally missed your point, but I'm happy to give my best answer if you'd be more clear with your question. No worries. And you're very welcome.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
4,223
@telephone89, here's the thing, a lot of people in the anti-vaccine group are not necessarily anti every vaccine, many of them are pro-information and informed consent, this is not that black and white. Many people who are now considered anti vaccine didn't start that way, many like myself wish we didn't have to be.

You say that you are all for schools requiring vaccines and that's great but those kids that aren't getting them are still going to the stores, the playground etc and mingling with adults who also are not up to date. That is still putting kids at risk then. In the bigger picture should we start tying social security benefits to vaccines in older people since they are an at risk group. I mean that's only fair right? Except, what if you don't want to get the flu shot because you reacted poorly, oh well too bad you either get it or you don't eat for the month. Forcing the hand is a slippery slope there.

I think I raise some good points about over vaccination and the use of blood testing to determine immunity, there is no reason to overload a child's immune system unnecessarily. Look, I did what I was told until things started going wrong with my son, not all kids can tolerate the CDC schedule, I can't even give him Benadryl without him going into a trance.

So to just dismiss the concerns of parents who have gone through some of the things we have is really no better than me saying that I don't care about immunocompromised children. Children like my son are no less important and they need to be recognized as a vulnerable group and not just lumped together with all the other kids.
A lot of anti vaxxers are also pro- false information, and spread BS. I'm not saying you do, but various anti vax groups have been banned or fined for false advertising and straight up lying about effects. That's sketchy AF.

It's also not fair to compare vaxxing in schools - where kids will be for what, 8-10 hours a day, and a store where they are in for far less. There is a reason nasty shit spreads through schools much more often and quickly than a 7/11.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,852
Why not change the protocol so that we aren't overvaccinating kids,
Yeah, I don't understand why kids nowadays need 20 vaccines ? before they start school. They become drug addicts before they start preschool. :wall:
 

YadaYadaYada

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
11,841
@telephone89, I realize that people in the anti group can come across as crazy conspiracy theorists who totally rebuke science. In my case anything I share is directly related to what I went through with my son and to try to bring awarness to the fact that some kids do not tolerate these shots as well as others and something really needs to be done about this.

I totally disagree though about schools being different from other public places, I believe measles can live up to two hours on surfaces or in the air so all it really takes is one sick kid in a mall, at an amusement park etc to infect hundreds of people. Yale has actually had two confirmed cases so imagine that in a hospital setting.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top