9 Reasons to NOT get the H1N1 Vaccine

[Anonymous]

penguinsix wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am open minded. and this is a perfect example of what I mean. No one seems to have a clue what is best. you have one "expert" saying no, while others "experts say yes.

Who do you trust? I lean towards some opinons and lean the other way on other things.

It's tricky. You want to stay open to new ideas, to treat other opinions with respect, and most importantly, do the right thing for your children. You wish there was a black and white solution to the problem, but even an honest scientist would tell you when you get philosophical nothing is black and white, right or wrong, it's just what we can observe and what we cannot.

"We don't know" has been the rallying cry of nearly every critique of science in the last 500 years. "We don't know if man causes global warming", "we don't know about evolution because there is this missing link", "we don't know if the planets revolve around the Sun." But the reality you should really confront yourself with is "do we know enough"?

With the case of the H1N1 vaccine, I'd say we certainly know enough to make this statement: your chances of a serious complication from the flu is far GREATER than your chances of a serious side effect from the vaccine.

There is a lot of frustration on one side in that this really isn't a battle on whether or not your get your kids vaccinated. Honestly, I differ from some in that I don't care what the end result is for your kids. Like your calculus teacher, the answer is not 'the answer' but the process by which you came to that answer. It's a battle about how we, as a civilized society, think. How we process information and how we come to conclusions and decisions.

Scientific discovery is based on a process, a way of thinking that has developed many of the great advances of the last century. A simple idea, run up against an experiment, results determined and conclusions developed. Presented and reviewed by their peers, and contrasted with different conclusions presented when different sets of behavior is noticed and evidence studied. The view that is accepted is the view that can be repeated and reproduced by all. Skepticism, distrust, disagreement are CORE VALUES in this process, and respected when backed with the proper evidence. A friend of mine doing some graduate work at Hopkins told me as to this debate "these people simply don't realize that scientists are some of the most skeptical people on the planet."

Unfortunately, recently there has been rash of skepticism developing into a type of 'pseudo-science'. Of amateur professionals waxing on about their own theories, shoddily researched and rife with hyperbole, festering the development of 'FUD'--fear, uncertainty, doubt that has no basis in reality. We now live in a world populate by legions of "Army of Ones"--folks armed with the Internet and a distrust of all things 'establishment' that have mobilized against 'the old order' that is responsible for all the ills of 'Big Pharma' and is in a conspiracy to keep corporate profits high and the people in the dark. There are no clinical studies for them, they refuse to participate in the peer review process, and they have played on the fears and doubts and brought us back to the age of the snake-oil salesman.

I think some of the frustration you see on messageboards about the flu is one side literally banging their heads against the wall trying to reply to the same old random (and incorrect) factoids from the FUD-meisters thrown up about vaccinations. There is, for lack of a better word, a war against science going on in this country, and at an even deeper level, a war against rational thought underway that quite frankly scares some people, myself included. We now have doctors such as Paul Offit who must travel with bodyguards because of the death threats. The very idea that my children may be living in a world that is intellectually regressing from scientific advancement is what has spurred me on to post so frequently on this subject.

This is an interesting article as it summarizes what has been going on of late. It is only tangentially about the battle of H1N1, and is more focused on the war that is fully underway.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/the_anti-vaccine_movement_cranks.php

That's a tad long but it really summarizes the whole war to date. There is a shorter version written recently in the LA Times about the journalist who wrote the Wired piece "The War on Science" and how she is now on the receiving end of threats and accusations and even some harsh personal attacks.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia4-2009nov04,0,2848133.column
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience

You are asking who to trust and honestly, we can't tell you. We can ask you to trust the scientific processes, that which has developed a flu shot in a tried and true manner, replete with regulations and procedures that have been in place and functional for nearly five decades. I read somewhere that 14,400 articles have been written about influenza vaccines, and over 1,100 clinical trials over the years. H1N1 is not a new vaccine, it is merely a different strain worked into an established vaccine making process, the same as other strains are worked into that same process every year. If it was discovered a few months earlier, it would have been in this year's seasonal flu shot and we wouldn't have had this whole parade of silliness.

In the end, talk to your doctor, not just a messageboard. Think plainly and rationally about your children and their safety during not just this flu season but as they are growing up in the world with the medicines we now have available. Try not give into the 'zinger' arguments that this celebrity or that celebrity whips out on Larry King or Oprah, but take the time to process information clearly, rationally, even coldly--devoid of emotion and then come to a conclusion 'do I know enough' to make this decision comfortably.

I wish you well with your enquiries, and of course, if you come across something quite startling, feel free to post it and we'll try to provide additional information if possible.

You need to re-write this sentence to say that this is what we know from the current evidence only. Of course, we do not know the long-term effect of mass immunization for flu and many of us who are reluctant to get vaccinated (e.g. because the western countries we come from don't do it for non-priority people) are concerned about these longer term issues.

[Anonymous]

I guess 50 years of the flu vaccine being produced essentially the same way isn't good enough to demonstrate long term effects.

And Penguinsix - well said. I wish I could be so eloquent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess 50 years of the flu vaccine being produced essentially the same way isn't good enough to demonstrate long term effects.

And Penguinsix - well said. I wish I could be so eloquent.

13:34 here. Have US citizens been mass immunized for flu for the past 50 years? Why then does it still not happen in other Western countries??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so thankful for people like you. Leaves more vaccines available for those of us that do want to protect our children from the flu, which by the way kills children and adults every year. The Flu kills more people than the vaccine every will. Take your chance. Thanks again.

Like I said ealier. Each to there own. And now are you you making this statment because you have riduculous statisitcs that back this up. It is natural to die from illnesses every year and a certain amount will. I do believe this is acceptable considering the number of people on this planet. The number of deaths related to the flus are not outragous by any means... It is what you are seeing in the media. I have yet to see or hear a news report on "Child recovers from swine flu," or Pregnant ladies symptoms of flu get better and she'll be just fine" But no, the media uses the deaths of small children, pregnant woman along with infants and old people to make everyone think oh my god there are so many people dying because of this, I have to get the vaccine. Are the number of deaths per year so much greater than the number of deaths related to drink driving accidents, or diabetis mellitus, heart disease or other chronic illnesses. If you look up the stats, Influenza out of most lists is nowhere near the top in relation to the number of deaths each year.

I understand getting the vaccine is being proactive... I guess like many other people, I have never got my yearly flu shots. I get sick for a few weeks each year, I take care of myself, and I get better. I realize some people are not so lucky and it results in death. But should I start now because the media is basically showing the public the worst of this Pandemic when in previous years people die of Influenza and it was never in the media then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so thankful for people like you. Leaves more vaccines available for those of us that do want to protect our children from the flu, which by the way kills children and adults every year. The Flu kills more people than the vaccine every will. Take your chance. Thanks again.

Like I said ealier. Each to there own. And now are you you making this statment because you have riduculous statisitcs that back this up. It is natural to die from illnesses every year and a certain amount will. I do believe this is acceptable considering the number of people on this planet. The number of deaths related to the flus are not outragous by any means... It is what you are seeing in the media. I have yet to see or hear a news report on "Child recovers from swine flu," or Pregnant ladies symptoms of flu get better and she'll be just fine" But no, the media uses the deaths of small children, pregnant woman along with infants and old people to make everyone think oh my god there are so many people dying because of this, I have to get the vaccine. Are the number of deaths per year so much greater than the number of deaths related to drink driving accidents, or diabetis mellitus, heart disease or other chronic illnesses. If you look up the stats, Influenza out of most lists is nowhere near the top in relation to the number of deaths each year.

I understand getting the vaccine is being proactive... I guess like many other people, I have never got my yearly flu shots. I get sick for a few weeks each year, I take care of myself, and I get better. I realize some people are not so lucky and it results in death. But should I start now because the media is basically showing the public the worst of this Pandemic when in previous years people die of Influenza and it was never in the media then?

I am not your previous poster, but your statement "death is natural" and losses are "acceptable" is fundamentally an anti-medicine argument. If you believe that disease is part of the natural progression of life, then why treat or cure illness at all?

As for your statement, yes the number of influenza deaths are twice the number of drunk driving deaths, about even with all automobile deaths, and about half of deaths from diabetes. You are wrong about where influenza falls on the statistics charts. It is a top-ten killer.

Finally, your solution is to take care of yourself and hope that you are not in the group of people you call "not so lucky". If your genes tell you to rely on luck for survival, then so be it. But that is maladaptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess 50 years of the flu vaccine being produced essentially the same way isn't good enough to demonstrate long term effects.

And Penguinsix - well said. I wish I could be so eloquent.

13:34 here. Have US citizens been mass immunized for flu for the past 50 years? Why then does it still not happen in other Western countries??

No, we don't get mass immunized. It has always been, and continues to be, 100% voluntary. The previous poster was referring to the 50 year track record of the vaccines. I'm sure your country has that same record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so thankful for people like you. Leaves more vaccines available for those of us that do want to protect our children from the flu, which by the way kills children and adults every year. The Flu kills more people than the vaccine every will. Take your chance. Thanks again.

Why the angry tone? You're getting your supply. You should be grateful that people are willing to share. . .

[Anonymous]

I also do not understand the need for so much anger over the choice as to whether to vaccinate. Every person mentioned who has taken an anti-vaccination stance has been slammed. Most of them I've never even heard of. But I'll add one more person for you to insult: Bill Maher. Against flu vaccination for everybody, for a number of reasons. Not a doctor. Some people say he's not a nice guy. But he's certainly a smart guy and he has articulated some good reasons with which I happen to agree. His main point is, at the very least, the need for these vaccinations should be a legitimate subject for debate but, judging from the attacks against the OP, no such luck here.

It is true that there are a number of toxins in these vaccines that should give you pause. Just go to the CDC website and read it. These toxins may not ultimately harm you, but I personally don't want them in my body.

My husband insisted that our children be vaccinated, and so I said fine. As long as they got the shot, which contains dead strains of the disease, and not the mist. I did not want live strains of pig flu being shot into my kids' noses, so we compromised. He got vaccinated, too.\

Part of the reason why I have not (and only part) is that if you are not in a high risk group (as my children and husband are), it's such an uphill battle to get the pig flu vaccine that I'm just not willing to undertake it. If you are just a plain, 40-year-old woman, who is not pregnant, does not suffer from any auto-immune disease, and does not have HIV, it's really hard to get vaccinated.

But that's only one reason why I am not going to do it. If I were really convinced it could save my life, I'd do whatever I had to do to get it.

Here are my reasons. All anecdotal, with no science to back it up, so the only person to attack is me and the inferences I've drawn based on my experience:

Some years I've had flu shots. Other years I have not. I've never gotten the flu. This personal experience, combined with the fact that, whether it is a well-known fact or fallacy, a lot of people have told me that there is no real evidence that flu vaccine will prevent the flu, have convinced me to give up on the vaccine and just take my chances. I know, I know, a lot of you will say that "a lot of people" means nothing. But I've heard it a lot, in a variety of contexts and from a variety of sources. I think the best that can be said is that the flu vaccine may offer some protection from the flu and, if you do end up getting the flu, you may experience less severe symptoms. Go ahead, flame away.

I also note that, about 3 days after being vaccinated, my children and husband all started feeling funky -- running low fevers, congested, achy -- all low-grade flu symptoms, while I stayed healthy as a clam. I have heard that the vaccine itself can make you feel a little icky and, at least in the case of my family, that theory has been borne out. Yes, I know, it wasn't a double-blind study. Many dermatologists will still tell you that there is no scientific evidence that eating a lot of chocolate will give you zits. Because it has not been scientifically proven. That doesn't change the fact that, every time I eat a lot of chocolate, I break out. And when I eat well, my face stays clear. For some of us less enlightened morons, anecdotal evidence is enough.

Finally, I do happen to agree with Bill Maher, and another poster under attack, that I can do a better job of preventing myself from getting the flu with good nutrition, sleep, and exercise than I can with a vaccine. As I said before, and I do not mean to sound arrogant, I've never gotten the flu, ever.

And maybe this will be my unlucky year. Maybe I'll get seasonal or pig flu or both and I'll be really sorry. I'm confident that I won't die. Though I'm not so sure that, after reading this post, some of you won't wish that I do.

Peace out, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also do not understand the need for so much anger over the choice as to whether to vaccinate. Every person mentioned who has taken an anti-vaccination stance has been slammed. Most of them I've never even heard of. But I'll add one more person for you to insult: Bill Maher. Against flu vaccination for everybody, for a number of reasons. Not a doctor. Some people say he's not a nice guy. But he's certainly a smart guy and he has articulated some good reasons with which I happen to agree. His main point is, at the very least, the need for these vaccinations should be a legitimate subject for debate but, judging from the attacks against the OP, no such luck here.

It is true that there are a number of toxins in these vaccines that should give you pause. Just go to the CDC website and read it. These toxins may not ultimately harm you, but I personally don't want them in my body.

My husband insisted that our children be vaccinated, and so I said fine. As long as they got the shot, which contains dead strains of the disease, and not the mist. I did not want live strains of pig flu being shot into my kids' noses, so we compromised. He got vaccinated, too.\

Part of the reason why I have not (and only part) is that if you are not in a high risk group (as my children and husband are), it's such an uphill battle to get the pig flu vaccine that I'm just not willing to undertake it. If you are just a plain, 40-year-old woman, who is not pregnant, does not suffer from any auto-immune disease, and does not have HIV, it's really hard to get vaccinated.

But that's only one reason why I am not going to do it. If I were really convinced it could save my life, I'd do whatever I had to do to get it.

Here are my reasons. All anecdotal, with no science to back it up, so the only person to attack is me and the inferences I've drawn based on my experience:

Some years I've had flu shots. Other years I have not. I've never gotten the flu. This personal experience, combined with the fact that, whether it is a well-known fact or fallacy, a lot of people have told me that there is no real evidence that flu vaccine will prevent the flu, have convinced me to give up on the vaccine and just take my chances. I know, I know, a lot of you will say that "a lot of people" means nothing. But I've heard it a lot, in a variety of contexts and from a variety of sources. I think the best that can be said is that the flu vaccine may offer some protection from the flu and, if you do end up getting the flu, you may experience less severe symptoms. Go ahead, flame away.

I also note that, about 3 days after being vaccinated, my children and husband all started feeling funky -- running low fevers, congested, achy -- all low-grade flu symptoms, while I stayed healthy as a clam. I have heard that the vaccine itself can make you feel a little icky and, at least in the case of my family, that theory has been borne out. Yes, I know, it wasn't a double-blind study. Many dermatologists will still tell you that there is no scientific evidence that eating a lot of chocolate will give you zits. Because it has not been scientifically proven. That doesn't change the fact that, every time I eat a lot of chocolate, I break out. And when I eat well, my face stays clear. For some of us less enlightened morons, anecdotal evidence is enough.

Finally, I do happen to agree with Bill Maher, and another poster under attack, that I can do a better job of preventing myself from getting the flu with good nutrition, sleep, and exercise than I can with a vaccine. As I said before, and I do not mean to sound arrogant, I've never gotten the flu, ever.

And maybe this will be my unlucky year. Maybe I'll get seasonal or pig flu or both and I'll be really sorry. I'm confident that I won't die. Though I'm not so sure that, after reading this post, some of you won't wish that I do.

Peace out, people.

Agree on everything except Bill Maher (who really didn't help the concerned with swine-flu vax side out). I've posted before -- full disclosure is that we are fully vaccinating on a delayed schedule.

I've only had the flu once in 20 years or so. I've had tons of colds that were bad enough to complain like they were the flu, but they were not. Only once did I officially have 'flu. But I got vaccinated a few times and the side-effects were that I felt that nagging achy, fatigued, and crappy feeling of being ill for nearly a week each time. Call me crazy, but 1 flu in 20 years vs. a sure-fire faux flu (that feels an AWFUL lot like the flu) is anecdotal AND personal evidence. Enough for me.

I will say I'm more nervous not getting vaccinated with an under 6 m.o. in the house. As a neurotic new mom, my common sense has been pitted against the media fear-mongering and I second guess my decision all of the time. But i don't buy into the cocooning theory (based on specious reasoning at best plus anywhere I go, he goes), and don't want to pass the chemicals in the flu shot to my son (i'm exclusively breastfeeding him). I'm very glad that I don't have to make a decision on vaccinating him because he is too young. If he were in daycare, we might choose differently, but that is part of the reason why he is not in daycare.

I'm cautious about all germs, not just swine flu, which is why we handwash and try to practice good hygiene, get antioxidants, nutrients, and vitamins (not just C) from wise food choices, and don't treat the sun (and it's amazingly healthy Vitamin D) like the enemy but rather, allow some reasonable exposure during non-peak-burning hours. I wear my son when we're out, so anything he breathes, I breathe and produce antibodies for. (Have to hope this breastfeeding actually does SOME of what it's supposed to do. )

I'm far from being anti-vaccination. But it seems to me that we go very far out of our way to treat ourselves unnaturally when often, a natural prevention is much more effective. They're not mutually exclusive by any means. The combination of increased sanitation and vaccination is the reason, IMHO, for the eradication of many serious diseases. But many of us who wonder where to draw the line (chicken pox, seasonal flu, h1n1, rotavirus, etc) are balancing real fears vs. real benefits and trying to make a risk to benefit decision that is based on our own child's situation.

I am with you that it's amazing to me that the extremists in the pro-vax side are demonizing or belittling parents like you and me who, just like those who vaccinate according to the CDC, are just trying to make the best choice for our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also do not understand the need for so much anger over the choice as to whether to vaccinate. Every person mentioned who has taken an anti-vaccination stance has been slammed. Most of them I've never even heard of. But I'll add one more person for you to insult: Bill Maher. Against flu vaccination for everybody, for a number of reasons. Not a doctor. Some people say he's not a nice guy. But he's certainly a smart guy and he has articulated some good reasons with which I happen to agree. His main point is, at the very least, the need for these vaccinations should be a legitimate subject for debate but, judging from the attacks against the OP, no such luck here.

It is true that there are a number of toxins in these vaccines that should give you pause. Just go to the CDC website and read it. These toxins may not ultimately harm you, but I personally don't want them in my body.

My husband insisted that our children be vaccinated, and so I said fine. As long as they got the shot, which contains dead strains of the disease, and not the mist. I did not want live strains of pig flu being shot into my kids' noses, so we compromised. He got vaccinated, too.\

Part of the reason why I have not (and only part) is that if you are not in a high risk group (as my children and husband are), it's such an uphill battle to get the pig flu vaccine that I'm just not willing to undertake it. If you are just a plain, 40-year-old woman, who is not pregnant, does not suffer from any auto-immune disease, and does not have HIV, it's really hard to get vaccinated.

But that's only one reason why I am not going to do it. If I were really convinced it could save my life, I'd do whatever I had to do to get it.

Here are my reasons. All anecdotal, with no science to back it up, so the only person to attack is me and the inferences I've drawn based on my experience:

Some years I've had flu shots. Other years I have not. I've never gotten the flu. This personal experience, combined with the fact that, whether it is a well-known fact or fallacy, a lot of people have told me that there is no real evidence that flu vaccine will prevent the flu, have convinced me to give up on the vaccine and just take my chances. I know, I know, a lot of you will say that "a lot of people" means nothing. But I've heard it a lot, in a variety of contexts and from a variety of sources. I think the best that can be said is that the flu vaccine may offer some protection from the flu and, if you do end up getting the flu, you may experience less severe symptoms. Go ahead, flame away.

I also note that, about 3 days after being vaccinated, my children and husband all started feeling funky -- running low fevers, congested, achy -- all low-grade flu symptoms, while I stayed healthy as a clam. I have heard that the vaccine itself can make you feel a little icky and, at least in the case of my family, that theory has been borne out. Yes, I know, it wasn't a double-blind study. Many dermatologists will still tell you that there is no scientific evidence that eating a lot of chocolate will give you zits. Because it has not been scientifically proven. That doesn't change the fact that, every time I eat a lot of chocolate, I break out. And when I eat well, my face stays clear. For some of us less enlightened morons, anecdotal evidence is enough.

Finally, I do happen to agree with Bill Maher, and another poster under attack, that I can do a better job of preventing myself from getting the flu with good nutrition, sleep, and exercise than I can with a vaccine. As I said before, and I do not mean to sound arrogant, I've never gotten the flu, ever.

And maybe this will be my unlucky year. Maybe I'll get seasonal or pig flu or both and I'll be really sorry. I'm confident that I won't die. Though I'm not so sure that, after reading this post, some of you won't wish that I do.

Peace out, people.

You use as proof something that by definition is not proof. And you do something to your children that you would not do to yourself. You don't need anyone to flame you. You actually flame yourself.


Main Entry: anecdotal evidence
Part of Speech: n
Definition: non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts
Example: This chapter provides anecdotal evidence from personal interviews, public hearings, and surveys.
Etymology: from the sense of anecdote 'unpublished narratives or details of history'

[Anonymous]

New Poster here - if you want to convince people that anti-vaccine stance is not irrational, do yourself a favor and do not quote Bill Maher.

So sick of people using Z-List celebrities for their medical advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also do not understand the need for so much anger over the choice as to whether to vaccinate. Every person mentioned who has taken an anti-vaccination stance has been slammed. Most of them I've never even heard of. But I'll add one more person for you to insult: Bill Maher. Against flu vaccination for everybody, for a number of reasons. Not a doctor. Some people say he's not a nice guy. But he's certainly a smart guy and he has articulated some good reasons with which I happen to agree. His main point is, at the very least, the need for these vaccinations should be a legitimate subject for debate but, judging from the attacks against the OP, no such luck here.

It is true that there are a number of toxins in these vaccines that should give you pause. Just go to the CDC website and read it. These toxins may not ultimately harm you, but I personally don't want them in my body.

My husband insisted that our children be vaccinated, and so I said fine. As long as they got the shot, which contains dead strains of the disease, and not the mist. I did not want live strains of pig flu being shot into my kids' noses, so we compromised. He got vaccinated, too.\

Part of the reason why I have not (and only part) is that if you are not in a high risk group (as my children and husband are), it's such an uphill battle to get the pig flu vaccine that I'm just not willing to undertake it. If you are just a plain, 40-year-old woman, who is not pregnant, does not suffer from any auto-immune disease, and does not have HIV, it's really hard to get vaccinated.

But that's only one reason why I am not going to do it. If I were really convinced it could save my life, I'd do whatever I had to do to get it.

Here are my reasons. All anecdotal, with no science to back it up, so the only person to attack is me and the inferences I've drawn based on my experience:

Some years I've had flu shots. Other years I have not. I've never gotten the flu. This personal experience, combined with the fact that, whether it is a well-known fact or fallacy, a lot of people have told me that there is no real evidence that flu vaccine will prevent the flu, have convinced me to give up on the vaccine and just take my chances. I know, I know, a lot of you will say that "a lot of people" means nothing. But I've heard it a lot, in a variety of contexts and from a variety of sources. I think the best that can be said is that the flu vaccine may offer some protection from the flu and, if you do end up getting the flu, you may experience less severe symptoms. Go ahead, flame away.

I also note that, about 3 days after being vaccinated, my children and husband all started feeling funky -- running low fevers, congested, achy -- all low-grade flu symptoms, while I stayed healthy as a clam. I have heard that the vaccine itself can make you feel a little icky and, at least in the case of my family, that theory has been borne out. Yes, I know, it wasn't a double-blind study. Many dermatologists will still tell you that there is no scientific evidence that eating a lot of chocolate will give you zits. Because it has not been scientifically proven. That doesn't change the fact that, every time I eat a lot of chocolate, I break out. And when I eat well, my face stays clear. For some of us less enlightened morons, anecdotal evidence is enough.

Finally, I do happen to agree with Bill Maher, and another poster under attack, that I can do a better job of preventing myself from getting the flu with good nutrition, sleep, and exercise than I can with a vaccine. As I said before, and I do not mean to sound arrogant, I've never gotten the flu, ever.

And maybe this will be my unlucky year. Maybe I'll get seasonal or pig flu or both and I'll be really sorry. I'm confident that I won't die. Though I'm not so sure that, after reading this post, some of you won't wish that I do.

Peace out, people.

You use as proof something that by definition is not proof. And you do something to your children that you would not do to yourself. You don't need anyone to flame you. You actually flame yourself.


Main Entry: anecdotal evidence
Part of Speech: n
Definition: non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts
Example: This chapter provides anecdotal evidence from personal interviews, public hearings, and surveys.
Etymology: from the sense of anecdote 'unpublished narratives or details of history'

I admitted it was anecdotal evidence. I understand that anecdotal evidence does not equal "proof". I do not need to be lectured to.

I did something to my children that I chose not to do to myself. That makes me a bad mother? Now I think it's you that needs a course on logic. My children are in a high risk group; I'm not. And I wouldn't let them get the live vaccine. My husband wanted them vaccinated. Marital harmony is important. We compromised.

So what's your problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New Poster here - if you want to convince people that anti-vaccine stance is not irrational, do yourself a favor and do not quote Bill Maher.

So sick of people using Z-List celebrities for their medical advice.

He's a smart guy. He made some good points. What's your problem?

[Anonymous]

I've only had the flu once in 20 years or so. I've had tons of colds that were bad enough to complain like they were the flu, but they were not. Only once did I officially have 'flu. But I got vaccinated a few times and the side-effects were that I felt that nagging achy, fatigued, and crappy feeling of being ill for nearly a week each time. Call me crazy, but 1 flu in 20 years vs. a sure-fire faux flu (that feels an AWFUL lot like the flu) is anecdotal AND personal evidence. Enough for me.

EXACTLY. There is no scientific proof that flu vaccine will prevent flu, but an awful lot of anecdotal evidence that it sure will make you feel like shit for a few days.

And we're being flamed? By people posing as logical and reasonable and scientific?

Please.

[Anonymous]

You use as proof something that by definition is not proof. And you do something to your children that you would not do to yourself. You don't need anyone to flame you. You actually flame yourself.

This is what I don't get. I could understand some anger directed at parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids, as kids are in a high risk group. I don't agree with the anger, but I can understand why some may feel indignant.

But here, I'm just talking about a personal choice I made for myself, taking into account anecdotal evidence with respect to the side effects from the flu vaccine, weighed in conjunction with the fact that I have a strong immune system and healthy habits that protect me from the flu, the scientific fact that flu vaccine is pretty hit-or-miss at protecting you from the flu, and the fact that even if I do get pig flu, I am not going to die from it.

So, let me ask you this: even if you disagree with my reasoning -- you think anecdotal evidence is worth nothing & that the flu vaccine protects 100% of the time & no habits can beat the protection of the flu vaccine. OK. For the sake of argument only, say I concede all of this.

Why the anger? Who I am hurting, or assuming a risk of harm for, other than myself? You don't think I have a right to make such a personal decision, even if it does come back to bite me? Is that what you're pissed about? You're a stranger so concerned with my well-being that you're mad at me for not taking better care of myself?? Let me suggest that you are overstepping, if this is the case. Unless you love me dearly, you have no right or reason to be angry with me for assuming a calculated risk . . . of getting the flu.

Or do you have some convoluted theory that, by not getting vaccinated, my risk of getting the flu increases, and if I get the flu, I could pass it to someone, and therefore my not getting vaccinated is morally wrong? Is that what you're pissed about?? Well, that sucks for you, then. We are a germ-ridden society. If you don't want to catch germs from others, I suggest you remain confined to your house. I don't have a moral obligation to get a vaccine that is not proven to protect from the flu so that you can feel better about your chances of getting the flu. Sorry, darlin', but that just ain't how the world works.