Flu shots
It's that time of the year again, the time when people unsure on whether or not they should get a flu shot consult their friends on the internet, and are told that something really terrible happened to someone because of a flu shot, and that flu shots are just a conspiracy perpetrated by the government, and they should definitely not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES get one.
A real example, cut and pasted straight from my Facebook feed:
"Please don't take it! I know someone that had an alergic reaction to it and is in a wheelchair the rest of their life in there 40's. Perfect health prior. If you eat healthy and take supplements you don't need it. It's another way for population control."
I have a few issues with this, apart from the obvious spelling and grammar errors. (I realize my grammar is sometimes atrocious, and I use way too many commas, and am generally being a pot pointing out the color of a similarly-colored kettle. Now you don't have to feel the need to point that particular hypocrisy out to me. There, wasn't that nice of me to save you the trouble?) First let me just point out that I've spent the last couple of years attending college, and will complete the requirements for my Bachelor of Science degree in Health Studies with an emphasis on Community Health Education in just a few days. That's actually not super relevant here, because I'm not really going to tell you anything about flu shots that you couldn't find on the CDC website, but I'm just really happy about it, and it seems like as good a time as any to brag.
First of all, dude, Facebook is not really a great place to go for your health education information. Your health should not be determined based on how many of your friends "like" your post. If you want to make life decisions by polling your friends, that's fine, but take tax advice from tax professionals, legal advice from legal professionals, and health advice from health professionals. If you must use the internet to obtain this advice, there are a variety of reputable organizations that provide advice for free. Do be sure you pick a reputable one though! Governmental resources are actually a good place to start.
Secondly, anecdote is not the singular of data. The whole "I have a friend and this thing happened" schtick was great back before we had the internet and would be forced to visit a professional and pay money in order to get scientifically valid advice about your particular issue. But we do have the internet, and whole bodies of knowledge available at our fingertips with very little effort required. Now, do I think the internet is a good substitute for medical advice? Well, sometimes, but that's not the point - what it is a good substitute for is anecdotal evidence. Scientific evidence trumps anecdotal evidence. Every. Single. Time.
Now, we run into a couple of issues here. "This bit of health advice turned out to be wrong!" is a common refrain, and it's true, that has happened. Our understanding of the way the human body works has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 100 years, and it's still growing. We're always doing the best we can with the information we have. The good news is that our information is getting better and better, so our best just keeps getting better. Now, is there someone out there right now following health advice that is the current industry standard which could be demonstrably improved upon? Certainly. Is there someone out there right now who is taking a medication that we will later know does more harm than good? Almost certainly. Does that mean we should eschew the last 100 years of medical improvements in favor of the advice of someone who is not an expert in any form of medicine? Almost certainly not.
Another issue we run into when we're looking at the differences between scientific vs. anecdotal evidence is one of repeatability. Flu shots have been heavily studied. So many people get them that we have a HUGE sample size. Every time someone gets a flu shot they are instructed to report any averse reactions to their doctor, and people do. In the lion's share of cases, the issue they have isn't actually caused by the flu shot, and we know this because we study it. Over the last 35 years we have done a huge number of studies on the flu shot. Comparing illness and symptom rates among people who did and did not get the flu shots, and looking for any sort of statistical correlation that could suggest causation. There are a few things that positively correlated with obtaining a flu shot, but unless you're allergic to eggs or running a fever, they are statistically insignificant. Now, if something happens to you after getting a flu shot, you'll probably never want to get another one, which makes perfect sense. I got food poisoning eating at Panda Express a couple of years back and I still don't eat there anymore. I may never. Now, it's entirely possible that it was the meal I ate 12 hours earlier that caused the food poisoning, I'll never know, but I'm not going back any time soon, as is my right. I think it's perfectly fine if you eat there though. (Unless you have high blood pressure, there's a shit-ton of sodium in their food)
But the biggest issue I have with the vehemently anti-flu-shot crowd is the conspiracy angle. I get it, I don't always trust the government either. I watched the fricking X-files religiously as a teenager, I'm certain that my government is keeping things from me. You don't want to trust the FDA, the USDA, the FBI, the CIA, I get it. But the CDC? Seriously? These are the brightest public health people we've got. They don't hire secret-conspiracy keepers, they hire public health professionals. Let me tell you, nobody goes into freaking epidemiology for the money or the fame. They go into it because they like to solve puzzles, are interested in health, and are good at statistics. Are they fallible? Of course they are, they're human. But they are not drug-company shills, they are scientists. I'm nowhere near qualified to work at that level, but even at my level we're taught to be inherently distrustful of drug companies, and to think critically about who funded what study. This is half the reason we have the CDC, to make sure that scientific rigor, rather than drug company money, is getting us accurate information on disease prevention.
I've been getting my flu shot every year for quite some time now, and I haven't gotten the flu once since I started getting it. Nothing in the last sentence should influence your decision to get a flu shot, it's pure anecdote. The CDC is recommending that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot, provided they don't have a fever, aren't allergic to eggs, and have never had a severe reaction to a previous flu shot. (Info on the seasonal flu is conveniently located here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm) That's the sentence you should pay attention to. If that sounds like you, I would recommend that you get a flu shot.
If you would rather take the risk of getting the flu than get a shot, that's fine. If you can't handle the 2 days with a sore arm, and that's enough to deter you, that's also fine. I believe you'd be making the wrong choice in either instance, but it's your choice to make. If you don't want to get the flu shot because someone you know knows someone who something bad happened to within 2 weeks of getting a flu shot, I recommend a statistics class. But take it after the flu season is over, classrooms are notorious for their germ-sharing properties, and I wouldn't want you screwing with herd immunity.
A real example, cut and pasted straight from my Facebook feed:
"Please don't take it! I know someone that had an alergic reaction to it and is in a wheelchair the rest of their life in there 40's. Perfect health prior. If you eat healthy and take supplements you don't need it. It's another way for population control."
I have a few issues with this, apart from the obvious spelling and grammar errors. (I realize my grammar is sometimes atrocious, and I use way too many commas, and am generally being a pot pointing out the color of a similarly-colored kettle. Now you don't have to feel the need to point that particular hypocrisy out to me. There, wasn't that nice of me to save you the trouble?) First let me just point out that I've spent the last couple of years attending college, and will complete the requirements for my Bachelor of Science degree in Health Studies with an emphasis on Community Health Education in just a few days. That's actually not super relevant here, because I'm not really going to tell you anything about flu shots that you couldn't find on the CDC website, but I'm just really happy about it, and it seems like as good a time as any to brag.
First of all, dude, Facebook is not really a great place to go for your health education information. Your health should not be determined based on how many of your friends "like" your post. If you want to make life decisions by polling your friends, that's fine, but take tax advice from tax professionals, legal advice from legal professionals, and health advice from health professionals. If you must use the internet to obtain this advice, there are a variety of reputable organizations that provide advice for free. Do be sure you pick a reputable one though! Governmental resources are actually a good place to start.
Secondly, anecdote is not the singular of data. The whole "I have a friend and this thing happened" schtick was great back before we had the internet and would be forced to visit a professional and pay money in order to get scientifically valid advice about your particular issue. But we do have the internet, and whole bodies of knowledge available at our fingertips with very little effort required. Now, do I think the internet is a good substitute for medical advice? Well, sometimes, but that's not the point - what it is a good substitute for is anecdotal evidence. Scientific evidence trumps anecdotal evidence. Every. Single. Time.
Now, we run into a couple of issues here. "This bit of health advice turned out to be wrong!" is a common refrain, and it's true, that has happened. Our understanding of the way the human body works has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 100 years, and it's still growing. We're always doing the best we can with the information we have. The good news is that our information is getting better and better, so our best just keeps getting better. Now, is there someone out there right now following health advice that is the current industry standard which could be demonstrably improved upon? Certainly. Is there someone out there right now who is taking a medication that we will later know does more harm than good? Almost certainly. Does that mean we should eschew the last 100 years of medical improvements in favor of the advice of someone who is not an expert in any form of medicine? Almost certainly not.
Another issue we run into when we're looking at the differences between scientific vs. anecdotal evidence is one of repeatability. Flu shots have been heavily studied. So many people get them that we have a HUGE sample size. Every time someone gets a flu shot they are instructed to report any averse reactions to their doctor, and people do. In the lion's share of cases, the issue they have isn't actually caused by the flu shot, and we know this because we study it. Over the last 35 years we have done a huge number of studies on the flu shot. Comparing illness and symptom rates among people who did and did not get the flu shots, and looking for any sort of statistical correlation that could suggest causation. There are a few things that positively correlated with obtaining a flu shot, but unless you're allergic to eggs or running a fever, they are statistically insignificant. Now, if something happens to you after getting a flu shot, you'll probably never want to get another one, which makes perfect sense. I got food poisoning eating at Panda Express a couple of years back and I still don't eat there anymore. I may never. Now, it's entirely possible that it was the meal I ate 12 hours earlier that caused the food poisoning, I'll never know, but I'm not going back any time soon, as is my right. I think it's perfectly fine if you eat there though. (Unless you have high blood pressure, there's a shit-ton of sodium in their food)
But the biggest issue I have with the vehemently anti-flu-shot crowd is the conspiracy angle. I get it, I don't always trust the government either. I watched the fricking X-files religiously as a teenager, I'm certain that my government is keeping things from me. You don't want to trust the FDA, the USDA, the FBI, the CIA, I get it. But the CDC? Seriously? These are the brightest public health people we've got. They don't hire secret-conspiracy keepers, they hire public health professionals. Let me tell you, nobody goes into freaking epidemiology for the money or the fame. They go into it because they like to solve puzzles, are interested in health, and are good at statistics. Are they fallible? Of course they are, they're human. But they are not drug-company shills, they are scientists. I'm nowhere near qualified to work at that level, but even at my level we're taught to be inherently distrustful of drug companies, and to think critically about who funded what study. This is half the reason we have the CDC, to make sure that scientific rigor, rather than drug company money, is getting us accurate information on disease prevention.
I've been getting my flu shot every year for quite some time now, and I haven't gotten the flu once since I started getting it. Nothing in the last sentence should influence your decision to get a flu shot, it's pure anecdote. The CDC is recommending that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot, provided they don't have a fever, aren't allergic to eggs, and have never had a severe reaction to a previous flu shot. (Info on the seasonal flu is conveniently located here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm) That's the sentence you should pay attention to. If that sounds like you, I would recommend that you get a flu shot.
If you would rather take the risk of getting the flu than get a shot, that's fine. If you can't handle the 2 days with a sore arm, and that's enough to deter you, that's also fine. I believe you'd be making the wrong choice in either instance, but it's your choice to make. If you don't want to get the flu shot because someone you know knows someone who something bad happened to within 2 weeks of getting a flu shot, I recommend a statistics class. But take it after the flu season is over, classrooms are notorious for their germ-sharing properties, and I wouldn't want you screwing with herd immunity.