Would love to hear your opinions on this.

I for one am all for this vaccine. I think a killed vaccine virus (not the nasal spray) is a wonderful thing. I do not understand the big d&^* deal about the H1N1. If they had gotten it made a little quicker last season, it would have been in the combined "normal" flu vaccine and no one would have been the wiser. However, now everyone (gen public) thinks it is the devil. People don't want to get the vaccine - they think it could cause more harm than the actual flu. How - I'm just not sure. Do we blame the Jenny McCarthy's of this world? And why does everyone think autism comes from the flu vaccine? Haven't studies debunked all of that?

Would love to hear opinions and thoughts...

People are stupid. Seriously. Look at the recent studies that show that 95% of doctors plan to get the flu shot for themselves, but something like 40% of moms will get it for their kids. Disconnect, much? A lot of doctors also won't take the time and effort to educate patients about it... I spend probably 5-10 minutes with each patient who declines it, to find out what is holding them back and try to debunk their myths and fears. It's a big time investment, but I believe in the shot, so I do it. Plenty of people don't have that time to spend, which is another whole issue.

You know what is completely frightening to me? I have a friend who is slighly "crunchy" read - misinformed - said her military doctor (she's a spouse) said the flu vaccine would do more harm than good. She praises this review! Ugh. It makes me so angry to hear things like this! It is literally IMPOSSIBLE to go through medical school and not learn the correct information about vaccines and how a killed vaccine won't hurt you. This friend is pregnant and her doctor advised her AGAINST getting the vaccine. I really do get angry about this kind of stuff!

Oh dear. There is even some evidence now that getting the flu while pregnant puts your baby at a higher risk of schizophrenia. Plus pregnant women are at a much higher risk of getting seriously ill from h1n1 than the general public. Argh! They even make thimerosal-free vaccines if mercury is a concern.

I was first in line to get a flu shot. I'll be darned if I take the flu home to my babies.

I totally learned that in Psych last phase! It's why winter births are associated with higher rates of schizo, because moms contracting the flu for some reason correlate with having schizophrenic children.

Yes yes! I feel like a raving lunatic about vaccines, but there is just so much misinformation out there it just boggles my mind. Ugh.

I spent part of my career in the Pharmaceutical industry and let me just say that the cause for concern IS somewhat real.

And while it's probably libel for me to name any company specifically, let's just say that it will be a cold day in hell before I EVER take flu mist.

I do not get angry or frustrated about this. I have found that the patients who already trust and know me are willing to accept my recommendations about vaccines and other things. However, with those that I do not have that basic trust with, it is almost a waste of time to try and talk them into it. It is similar to the breast feeding/bottle feeding thing, people pretty much have their minds made up before they see me. If people have questions, I will spend time addressing those. If they do not have questions but decline the vaccines, I supply them with websites (cdc.gov, aap.org, vaccineinformation.org) and have them sign a vaccine waiver. After all, it is up to the patient to accept or decline whatever portion of the medical care we offer.

That's a really good perspective on things, kpzr! I think it is all the news articles like this one http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/20/california.whooping.cough/index.html?hpt=T1

And then of course, all the studies showing the mortality rates from flu for pregnant women etc. etc. And all the false beliefs about it etc.

I just let it all get to me too much.

Path - the flu mist is supposedly more effective for the non-immunocomprised pop from my understanding, but I'll have to claim ignorance on the pharm makings behind it. All I know is the killed vaccine is pretty much harmless. It's the one I always get anyways. I've never had the mist, although I hear a rumor it is the most frequently given in the military. I may get it in the future (as long as I'm not preggo again)!

I get so mad about the vaccine naysayers, I can't even talk about it. I should take a page from kpzr's book and learn to live with it! If you're interested in the whole vaccine-autism "controversy", I highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Autisms-False-Prophets-Science-Medicine/dp/0231146361.

I've been a Scientist for over ten years now, and did lab research the 10 years prior to that, including research in infectious diseases which I'm back to doing now. In other words, I KNOW good "science" when I see it so with that said, take it at your own risk. Maybe this is a an "I'm not an MD" thing which is perfectly cool!

RE: Path - No - it's a "I'll be in the military thing" and I'll just have to take what they give me! HA! Has nothing to do with your knowledge base at all. You most definitely know more than me, but I just don't have much control over what type of vaccine they give me in the future when I'm active duty, and I hear the mist is the most frequently given there.

nbp - Thanks for the book recommendation! I will likely order it, as this is a topic I'd really like to expand my knowledge base on. For some reason - the sheep mentality of the general public really fascinates me. I'm kind of a news junkie in general!

Opps, my Bad! Just at least try to ask for the shot! Or maybe not, that shot hurt like hell!!!

Do you have any public information that explains your concerns? As much as I appreciate an opinion, it would be nice for everyone to review the information themselves and assess it.

I read the pro vaccine book "Vaccinated" by Paul Offit, and while it wasn't his intent to scare people about vaccines or the industry... he did scare me. I didn't spend a great deal of time in research or grad school, but I was alarmed by the studies (so few, so limited) he gave to establish their safety.

It was also very startling that he shared so much about the corruption historically seen in the industry (pressure to release a vax when scientists didn’t feel sufficient safety studies had been run, etc.) and then gave no indication that there are any new regulations or protocols established to protect against that happening now or in the future.

And until I read his book, I don't ever remember hearing anything about cancer being viral and animal cancer viruses being transmissible to humans. He said a test was run to prove that a certain vax didn’t cause cancer, but he didn’t give much detail on it. I sure hope (assume) there are more or better studies he could’ve (should’ve) cited.

I still need to go back and pull the studies he cited, and read them myself. Maybe he’s just not a good writer? Or maybe he’s not very scientifically minded, or just doesn’t know how to establish his position from a scientific standpoint?

From a historical perspective, the book was a very enjoyable read overall!

I was wondering if there is a set of studies that "they" give out to doctors and med students regarding vax's (or maybe a textbook or something)? Is there a way I, or any other average person, could get those titles?

If I were you I'd look at the research first-hand. Are you familiar with pubmed? I vastly prefer going over the studies myself rather than reading a book where someone has cherry-picked their favorites then rambled on and on to prove a point. No, I'm not much of a reader outside of textbooks and journal articles.

If you haven't used it before, try pubmed.org. You can filter for review articles and also for free full-text articles. It is a great way to find peer-reviewed papers from multiple sources.

"Corruption" is hardly the word I'd use for what I've observed with my own eyes. I think the word "criminal" is a better choice.

As for pubmed, it's a GREAT resource and I use it everyday in my current position andhave used it since about 1988. But the huge assumption people make regarding the legitimacy of the articles there, is that the "peer reviewed" data you're reading hasn't been "enhanced" to prove or disprove a particular hypothesis.

Where there's big money to be made and or prestige to be had, corruption isn't far away.

I was fortunate to work for very ethical researchers.

I certainly don't assume that nothing has been "enhanced." I know from my studies that many things are published with questionable methods, questionable results, and illogical conclusions. Sadly, you wouldn't know it unless you were in the particular field and knew why other methods were typically used. There were also people doing almost identical research to mine and getting opposite results. It happens. Corruption is out there, as are subconscious biases, but there is also honest research going on, and honest variation. To that extent, I agree that wrong information can be found. I still think peer-reviewed journals are an improvement over most sources.

Aside from getting a PhD in the area of interest, this is the best way I can think of to look into a scientific topic. It certainly beats reading books full of opinions.

So was I when I worked in Academia, EXTREMELY fortunate and in my current position, STILL fortunate ethical research is being conducted. But IMHO big Pharma is profit first, science second based on my work for 3 different companies. Does this mean nothing credible is being conducted at pharmaceutical companies? Of course not, but it's in my nature NOT to trust people so strongly motivated by money, as is so glaringing the case for people I kno/kneww who work in Big Pharma.

Yaz is being recalled? Avandia was recalled? Hormone replacement therapy is NOT for EVERY post menopausal woman (DUH!!), I obviously haven't done research in all these areas and certainly don't need a PhD to understand a few things. I live by ONE standard with VERY few exceptions when it comes to drugs and drug products, if a drug hasn't been around for at least 10 years, I ain't interested in taking it. And some of that would be me speaking from the "I studied Pharmacology in grad school" perspective.

I question EVERYTHING, because in my mind that's what ALL real Scientists do. And my military background says "trust, but verify" is truly the way to go when it comes to research!

I definitely agree that everything should be questioned. I wasn't saying you needed more degrees. EarthSky seemed frustrated by the book, and my comment was for her sake - that the solution for her may not be to fully understand it all, but to compile more current research. Slanted as it may be, she should be able draw some reasonable conclusions from it. Better than a more-slanted book anyway. I actually haven't read the book, I'm just suspicious of those sorts of books.

I'm glad people working in research are so skeptical. I've only worked under NIH and DOD grants, and my experience is limited. I am sure the stakes are VERY different when work is funded by pharmaceutical companies.

I didn’t mean to indicate that the book was the only thing I’d read on the subject – just that I was shocked it was so disturbing. Did I mention that this book was in support of vaccines (he wants all kids vaxed according to the current vax schedule)? Although I suppose cherry picking happens on both sides of all issues. I just couldn’t believe he’d write so poorly as to undo his own argument (at least for people who expect more or better studies/references). I don’t know if that makes any sense?

I thought a book by a doctor would give a concise outline of the info that all medical doctors are supplied with when they are taught about vaccines – safety, efficacy, etc. Then I could look up all the articles to read them and have them for myself.

So I do prefer to read the original journal articles, but I haven’t been able to get all the ones that I want (full text). It seems there is a hefty charge for many of them, and its disappointing when it turns out to be a weak reference and a waste of the $. I thought you had to be affiliated with a Univ or something to get full, free access to pubmed (any full text you’re looking for?), so it’s good to know something must have changed. That’s going to be a goldmine of info! Thanks for the tip!

No, before I was in school I filtered for free full-text so I wouldn't get my hopes up reading abstracts I couldn't get articles for.

Sad, but there are a lot of articles you'd have to pay for. You can still find some great ones for free. Glad you already know about pubmed - not much else to say! Unless you want to go for that PhD in immunology and come back and educate us... someone really needs to get on solving this whole vaccination controversy already.

I thought you meant pubmed gave access to all full-text articles now. Too good to be true. You understand how dashing it is to the soul to be denied -what sounds like- an excellent paper!

And the PhD - you hear me! With where I live today, I have to choose between non Tier-1 schools. But DH did ask me if we should look at homes near one of them. I suppose once I deliver baby #2 I can look at that again more seriously. A little daunting since I've been out of the race "so long", but that's why I stick around here - y'all make it happen w/MDs, so anything is possible.

Who would ever fund anything more on vaccines? LOL

I can't tell if this is a rhetorical question or not, but my work supports many PI's who do research on vaccines.

And through my employers, I have unrestricted access to Pubmed!

For those yearning for full articles on Pubmed - my med school offers a ton of full articles through their subscriptions on Pubmed, and those that aren't free - they will order for you and send the article to your email. I'm sure other med schools are the same!

So med students...check with your schools!

Pre-meds...think of it as a giant database full of presents upon starting your first year...ok, not really, but hopefully you laughed at that one.

you can go to any med school or hospital library to get full access to things like pubmed. then you can email the article to yourself.

most med schools have remote access so if you are a med student, you can get it from home. my school got me access to everything but up to date from home.

I have a 90% success rate with getting patients to take the flu shot. Anyone who says no, I spend about 5 minutes to understand why. 36,000 died from the flu in the US last season. If you have time to be sick for 1 week, with fevers to 102, shaking chills, coughing until you feel like your head will pop off, every muscle in your body hurts, and you feel like you will die, if you have time to be out of work for two weeks, out of school etc, then fine. If not, get the flu shot. With this and a few more facts, I have a pretty good success rate.

All you have to do is see one 20 year old otherwise healthy college student, in the ICU with family around the bed, getting last rites, to realize, it could have been prevented with a flu shot. Yes, my kids get them every year. I may like the patient, but I don't love them like my own kids. If I had any concerns, I would not have my own kids get the shot.

Don't forget the Tdap. We have had over 700 cases of pertussis in our state so far this year. Indicated for everyone!

I agree-usually telling patients I have vaccinated my 2 year old helps them decide!