Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[TraumaRN]

The studies posted were about pregnancies in general, with a small group of high risk pregnancies.

As of yet nobody has posted a peer reviewed study of the flu vaccine in high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages.

And look you refuse to provide the same!!! SHOW US PROOF YOUR CLAIM.

As far as I can tell you are just an antivaxxer.

Show us proof of your claim. Show us proof of your claim.

 

[DrPizza]

The studies posted were about pregnancies in general, with a small group of high risk pregnancies.

As of yet nobody has posted a peer reviewed study of the flu vaccine in high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages.

NO. THey were not studies about pregnancies "in general" - they were studies that looked at a large variety of subfactors and concluded that the flu vaccine had no problems correlated to ANY of those factors.

pregnant and in their 40's - no significant difference
pregnant and in their 30's - no significant difference
pregnant and in their 20's - no significant difference
pregnant and black - no significant difference
pregnant and white - no significant difference
pregnant and Asian - no significant difference
pregnant and Catholic - no significant difference
pregnant and Protestant - no significant difference
****pregnant and high risk - no significant difference
****pregnant and multiple previous miscarriages - no significant difference.


And, the population size was large enough for it to be statistically valid research.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You didn't read those studies, you have no ability to discern what is "small" when you haven't read them. Furthermore, why would those results be statistically insignificant? Oh yeah, you didn't read those studies, and you don't even understand statistics.

Why are the CDC, ACIP, ACOG, etc all liars about the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy?

I'm thinking he's doing it for the fun of trolling and I have to say he's dedicated

I'm not sure how someone doesn't know about sets and logic can turn on a computer and function very well. He must be pulling our leg.

 

[abj13]

I'm thinking he's doing it for the fun of trolling and I have to say he's dedicated

Oh of course he's a troll, that's why I'm so certain he's been banned in the past as someone else. Nobody can be this intellectually dishonest and still be able to live with oneself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

NO. THey were not studies about pregnancies "in general" - they were studies that looked at a large variety of subfactors and concluded that the flu vaccine had no problems correlated to ANY of the factors.

It's OK. Pregnancies have been looked as a subset of massive and wonderfully inclusive data sets. He's upset because in all that data which would include high risk pregnancies, racial components, various disease states, and on and on there's no specific mention of high risk pregnancies as a problem. That data is combed for correlation then causation doesn't matter to him. The myriad factors which aren't listed as not being a factor is what he's on about, and that's what he clings to. Irrational, sure. Illogical you bet, but it's his only out.

 

[Texashiker]

You didn't read those studies, you have no ability to discern what is "small" when you haven't read them.

You yourself said 5.56%,,, or somewhere around there.

That is so small of a sample it is not even worth mentioning,

NO. THey were not studies about pregnancies "in general" - they were studies that looked at a large variety of subfactors and concluded that the flu vaccine had no problems correlated to ANY of those factors.

One of the studies you cited had a group of what, 10% with a history of high risk pregnancies.

abj13 mentioned 5.56 high risk.

If I mentioned a 10% group of a study you would laugh at me. You are probably laughing anyway, but I stand by my words.

My stance is simple, I want to see a peer reviewed study of women with a history of miscarriages. Not 5 studies, not 10 studies,,, just one. Not where high risk made up 5%, 10% or even 20%. Lets see a study where the "primary" group was high risk pregnancies.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[abj13]

You yourself said 5.56%,,, or somewhere around there.

That is so small of a sample it is not even worth mentioning,

One of the studies you cited had a group of what, 10%.

If I mentioned a 10% group of a study you would laugh at me.

Oh, so you ran the statistics on the percentages in those papers, and found them to be too small to draw conclusions? Show me your data. What is the statistical power you calculated that is necessary to find/not find a difference?

It was 20-25% of all women in those studies had a history of spontaneous abortion.

Then again, you don't understand statistics, so you don't even know what statistical power is. Better yet, why are the CDC, ACIP, ACOG, etc all liars about the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy?

 

[Moonbeam]

It's OK. Pregnancies have been looked as a subset of massive and wonderfully inclusive data sets. He's upset because in all that data which would include high risk pregnancies, racial components, various disease states, and on and on there's no specific mention of high risk pregnancies as a problem. That data is combed for correlation then causation doesn't matter to him. The myriad factors which aren't listed as not being a factor is what he's on about, and that's what he clings to. Irrational, sure. Illogical you bet, but it's his only out.

No it isn't. If you could produce the exact studies he wants, he would find further reasons to doubt. A mother's instinct is being shunted aside and that scares him. He will continue to feel a it's wrong to violate a woman's rights, which it is, of course, even though this is not a case of it.

 

[TraumaRN]

You yourself said 5.56%,,, or somewhere around there.

That is so small of a sample it is not even worth mentioning,

Your clear lack of understanding of basic statistics is so obvious here.

So if a study looked at a drug that causes vomiting in 5.56% of the patients...and that study looked at 20,000 patients...that would be approximately 1,112 patients with vomiting. And given the sample size and if you controlled for all other factors, then that IS a statistically significant percentage.

If the same drugs with the same controls was in place and it only looked at 20 patients...so only 1 patient had vomiting. Well that would mean nothing statistically because your sample size is too small.

Get it?? I tried to make it simple with real easy numbers for you.

In the case that DrPizza is referring to, the sample IS large enough.

 

[Texashiker]

Oh, so you ran the statistics on the percentages in those papers, and found them to be too small to draw conclusions? Show me your data. What is the statistical power you calculated that is necessary to find/not find a difference?

you said you do not have a study, why are you still posting?

In the case that DrPizza is referring to, the sample IS large enough.

I respectfully disagree.

Is a 10% or even 20% sample large enough to get a new drug approved?

Is anyone going to step forward and say 20% of the people we tested this vaccine on were not infected? Chances are they would be laughed at by the scientific community.

What is a reasonable study group? I would say at least 75% or 80%. Isn't 75% - 80% a good number for herd immunity? So lets use those numbers.

I'll tell you what, lets make it easy. Lets drop that 75% - 80% to 50%.

Does anyone have a peer reviewed study where 50% of the pregnant women had a history of miscarriages?

 

[abj13]

you said you do not have a study, why are you still posting?

I respectfully disagree.

Is a 10% or even 20% sample large enough to get a new drug approved?

Is anyone going to step forward and say 20% of the people we tested this vaccine on were not infected? Chances are they would be laughed at by the scientific community.

What is a reasonable study group? I would say at least 75% or 80%. Isn't 75% - 80% a good number for herd immunity? So lets use those numbers.

Wow, you claim you like science, but you don't even understand the idea of statistical power? How unsurprising. There is a difference between a sample size (number of people tested) versus your outcome (not infected). In fact the difference is so simple, its downright sad you could somehow confuse the two as analogous items.

75-80%? Based on what statistical power calculation? You're just making up numbers... keep moving those goalposts back. And don't even talk about herd immunity, that concept doesn't even apply here. We're talking about exposure to a vaccine leading to an adverse effect, using the term "herd immunity" shows you don't even know what you are talking about, and are pulling out terms you don't even understand.

Here's three studies:

Moro PL, Museru OI, Broder K, Cragan J, Zheteyeva Y, Tepper N, Revzina N, Lewis P, Arana J, Barash F, Kissin D, Vellozzi C.Safety of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Live Attenuated Monovalent Vaccine in Pregnant Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;122(6):1271-8.

Chambers CD, Johnson D, Xu R, Luo Y, Louik C, Mitchell AA, Schatz M, Jones KL; OTIS Collaborative Research Group.Risks and safety of pandemic h1n1 influenza vaccine in pregnancy: birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, and small for gestational age infants. Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5026-32.

Oppermann M, Fritzsche J, Weber-Schoendorfer C, Keller-Stanislawski B, Allignol A, Meister R, Schaefer C.Vaccine. A(H1N1)v2009: a controlled observational prospective cohort study on vaccine safety in pregnancy.2012 Jun 22;30(30):4445-52.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you refuse to read them whatsoever. Better yet, why are the CDC, ACIP, ACOG, etc all liars about the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy?

 

[TraumaRN]

you said you do not have a study, why are you still posting?




I respectfully disagree.

Is a 10% or even 20% sample large enough to get a new drug approved?

Is anyone going to step forward and say 20% of the people we tested this vaccine on were not infected? Chances are they would be laughed at by the scientific community.

What is a reasonable study group? I would say at least 75% or 80%. Isn't 75% - 80% a good number for herd immunity? So lets use those numbers.

I'll tell you what, lets make it easy. Lets drop that 75% - 80% to 50%.

Does anyone have a peer reviewed study where 50% of the pregnant women had a history of miscarriages?

Why are you still posting troll? You've posted NO studies at all.

Moreover LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Your lack of understanding statistics AT ALL is so profoundly hilarious to me.

The percent doesn't matter if your sample size is too small. And your reasonable sample size depends on what you are studying. Generally studies involving people are best if you have at least 1,000 people, preferably more if possible and depending on what you are studying.


Moreover look at your pathetic assholish self moving the goalposts AGAIN. You are such scum.

Moreover SHOW US PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM. SHOW US PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM.

 

[Moonbeam]

you said you do not have a study, why are you still posting?




I respectfully disagree.

Is a 10% or even 20% sample large enough to get a new drug approved?

Is anyone going to step forward and say 20% of the people we tested this vaccine on were not infected? Chances are they would be laughed at by the scientific community.

What is a reasonable study group? I would say at least 75% or 80%. Isn't 75% - 80% a good number for herd immunity? So lets use those numbers.

I'll tell you what, lets make it easy. Lets drop that 75% - 80% to 50%.

Does anyone have a peer reviewed study where 50% of the pregnant women had a history of miscarriages?

You are not educated enough to ask questions, Just accept what you are told,

 

[lotus503]

I was hopeful in the hours I was away from the thread texas would have come to his senses. Doomed for disappointment I guess

 

[glenn1]

You yourself said 5.56%,,, or somewhere around there.

That is so small of a sample it is not even worth mentioning,




One of the studies you cited had a group of what, 10% with a history of high risk pregnancies.

abj13 mentioned 5.56 high risk.

If I mentioned a 10% group of a study you would laugh at me. You are probably laughing anyway, but I stand by my words.

My stance is simple, I want to see a peer reviewed study of women with a history of miscarriages. Not 5 studies, not 10 studies,,, just one. Not where high risk made up 5%, 10% or even 20%. Lets see a study where the "primary" group was high risk pregnancies.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Texashiker]

Here's three studies:

Moro PL, Museru OI, Broder K, Cragan J, Zheteyeva Y, Tepper N, Revzina N, Lewis P, Arana J, Barash F, Kissin D, Vellozzi C.Safety of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Live Attenuated Monovalent Vaccine in Pregnant Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Dec;122(6):1271-8.

Is that a power point presentation?

Chambers CD, Johnson D, Xu R, Luo Y, Louik C, Mitchell AA, Schatz M, Jones KL; OTIS Collaborative Research Group.Risks and safety of pandemic h1n1 influenza vaccine in pregnancy: birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, and small for gestational age infants. Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5026-32.

No search results found in google except this thread.

Oppermann M, Fritzsche J, Weber-Schoendorfer C, Keller-Stanislawski B, Allignol A, Meister R, Schaefer C.Vaccine. A(H1N1)v2009: a controlled observational prospective cohort study on vaccine safety in pregnancy.2012 Jun 22;30(30):4445-52.

1329 control subjects,,,, really?

the test was of 1,329 subjects? I am seriously laughing at you.

Why are you still posting troll? You've posted NO studies at all.

If there is nothing, how can I post something?

I was hopeful in the hours I was away from the thread texas would have come to his senses. Doomed for disappointment I guess

it is not me you should be worried about.

You should be worried about these so called health professionals who make blanket statements using very small study groups.

Thank you.

Besides abj13 and TraumaRN post, that is the funnest thing I have seen all day.

 

[glenn1]

you said you do not have a study, why are you still posting?

I respectfully disagree.

Is a 10% or even 20% sample large enough to get a new drug approved?

Is anyone going to step forward and say 20% of the people we tested this vaccine on were not infected? Chances are they would be laughed at by the scientific community.

What is a reasonable study group? I would say at least 75% or 80%. Isn't 75% - 80% a good number for herd immunity? So lets use those numbers.

I'll tell you what, lets make it easy. Lets drop that 75% - 80% to 50%.

Does anyone have a peer reviewed study where 50% of the pregnant women had a history of miscarriages?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are not educated enough to ask questions, Just accept what you are told,

Heaven forbid he should do the latter, however when people who are authorities on a subject (the CDC in this case) make a judgement based on accumulated data gathered by rather extraordinary means it should occur that perhaps there's a basis for credibility and rather then investigate.

My opinion.

 

[abj13]

Is that a power point presentation?

You think the official journal of the ACOG is a power point presentation? Oh I forgot, you don't read peer reviewed literature.

No search results found in google except this thread.

Can you even read a scientific citation? Its from the peer-reviewed journal called Vaccine. Again, I forgot, you don't read scientific literature.

1329 control subjects,,,, really?
the test was of 1,329 subjects? I am seriously laughing at you.

HAHAHAHHAA, you don't understand what a controlled observational prospective cohort study is do you?

Two days later you are actually starting to look at the studies? Downright hilarious. What happened to defending your crap story stolen off of an anti-vaccine website that used bad science? Better yet, why are the CDC, ACIP, ACOG, etc all liars about the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy?

 

[TraumaRN]

1329 control subjects,,,, really?

the test was of 1,329 subjects? I am seriously laughing at you.





If there is nothing, how can I post something?




it is not me you should be worried about.

You should be worried about these so called health professionals who make blanket statements using very small study groups.



Thank you.

Besides abj13 and TraumaRN post, that is the funnest thing I have seen all day.

1300 people in a study is a pretty good sample size given the type of the study.

So nothing huh to post huh?? Then simply admit you don't have any evidence to back up your claim and drop it.

Moreover, you call me a "so called health professional" I know my qualifications, are you saying/implying I'm lying about my job and that I really don't know what I'm talking about? What are your qualifications? At least I have a bachelor's degree in science in a health related field.

In the meantime I'll keep saying SHOW US PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM.

You have nothing. Quite honestly you should be banned at this point.

 

[Texashiker]

are you saying implying I'm lying about my job

Certainly not.

If you say you are an RN, then I respect that.

and that I really don't know what I'm talking about?

Not at all.



We use studies to help prove or disprove a point. Professionals are supposed to base their judgements and decisions on those studies.

There are no studies on the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages. However, we can make an educated decision with the evidence we have on hand.

But without a peer reviewed study all we are really doing is speculating.

Don't women deserve more than speculation?

 

[abj13]

We use studies to help prove or disprove a point. Professionals are supposed to base their judgements and decisions on those studies.

There are no studies on the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages. However, we can make an educated decision with the evidence we have on hand.

But without a peer reviewed study all we are really doing is speculating.

Don't women deserve more than speculation?

So the CDC, ACIP, AAP, ACOG, WHO, ECDC all made their recommendations on speculation and are liars when it comes to their statement that the vaccine is safe in pregnancy and is recommended in ALL pregnancies?

No matter how much you deny, there are several studies, as shown in this thread (let's not forget: Moro PL, Broder K, Zheteyeva Y, Walton K, Rohan P, Sutherland A, Guh A, Haber P, Destefano F, Vellozzi C.Adverse events in pregnant women following administration of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine and live attenuated influenza vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1990-2009. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;204(2):146.)

The vaccine is safe, including in women with a history of spontaneous abortion. The woman in this thread made an uneducated decision and should have sought expert opinion instead of some midwife who doesn't have clue. Heck her primary physician refused to write what she wanted, rightfully so.

 

[TheVrolok]

I was hopeful in the hours I was away from the thread texas would have come to his senses. Doomed for disappointment I guess

I respectfully disagree. I have returned hours later to find much enjoyment. More affirmation that TH has absolutely no understand of medicine or science but vehemently continues to defend his completely ignorant position. It's absolute gold. He's an obvious troll, always has been. Why he's allowed to continue these absurd threads is beyond me .. oh wait, as I've been saying for years, without these types of trolls, AT would be long since dead. They keep the activity up. A necessary evil?

 

[TraumaRN]

Certainly not.

If you say you are an RN, then I respect that.




Not at all.



We use studies to help prove or disprove a point. Professionals are supposed to base their judgements and decisions on those studies.

There are no studies on the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages. However, we can make an educated decision with the evidence we have on hand.

But without a peer reviewed study all we are really doing is speculating.

Don't women deserve more than speculation?

Nice backtracking there. You use the word "so called health professional" Doesn't take a genius to figure out the implication.

I do base my patient care on evidence based nursing and medicine. And given that I clearly understand the research far better then you do, I can safely say I have no problem recommending a flu vaccine to a pregnant woman with a history of miscarriage and who is currently a high risk pregnancy.

I base this decision on the numerous studies that have shown no risk of adverse side effects to ALL pregnant women. What they do show is a much higher risk of increased pregnancy complications including miscarriage if a pregnant woman is infected with influenza.

You can try and ignore these studies or be obtuse or act like you don't understand the studies but they are there and you can't avoid that. Facts are true whether you believe them or not.

Another way I use research in my job is related to trauma care, such as using the drug etomidate as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation for patient with traumatic head injuries because it doesn't raise intracranial pressure and doesn't mess with the MAP(mean arterial pressure)

We know this from research, and from reading studies and applying them to clinical practice. Moreover, like any good science educated person I am willing to change my mind when things change, so if the research showed some danger to a certain subgroup of pregnant women who received a flu vaccine then obviously it would be worthful to investigate further, however NO SUCH EVIDENCE has been found.

Consider CPR, the guidelines have completely changed in the last 10 years, it's no longer ABC, but CAB, and rescue breathing isn't even recommended anymore for cardiac arrest on any level layperson to advanced hospital provider unless you have an advanced airway in place and even then the focus is still on good quality CPR. Hell on an advanced level we only use vasopression and epinephrine for asystolic cardiac rhythms now, which is a massive change since I began as a nurse nearly 7 years ago.

What I'm driving at is that when the research suggests a change in a plan of care, then things change fairly rapidly. However, regarding high risk for miscarriage pregnancies getting flu vaccines there is no evidence, no reason to change the recommendations that ALL PREGNANT WOMEN GET VACCINATED AGAINST FLU.

Again I'll finish with SHOW US PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM.

 

[Texashiker]

Nice backtracking there. You use the word "so called health professional" Doesn't take a genius to figure out the implication.

I am trying not to offend anyone.

As I have posted in various threads, the weak minded resort to insults.

<snip>

Again I'll finish with SHOW US PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM.

http://www.examiner.com/article/massive-increase-miscarriages-from-flu-vaccine-ncow-claims

Documentation states that between 2009 and 2010 the flu vaccinations have increased Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS) fetal death reports by 4,250 percent.

I am not here to debate whether the flu vaccine is safe or not, as it has been shown to be safe for pregnant women.

However, I am here to debate the link in the opening post.

Are there enough studies to prove the flu vaccine is safe for women who have exhibited a history of miscarriages? All I have asked for is one study. And so far not a single study has been posted. Not studies about pregnancy in general, but rather studies in women who have a history of miscarriages.