remorw, the site you linked to has a serious anti-science bias, which makes all their articles suspect. On their home page, they tout articles that are anti-GMO and anti-genetic engineering; an article by Dr. Mercola, a well-known crank; and one that suggests intuition surpasses science. Not the sort of place for reliable science news. They have an extreme political agenda and they are not a peer-reviewed publication.
It’s entirely possible the article you linked to is valid – I am not qualified to determine that – but it would be well to consider the source and look for additional research before swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.
Hi, I agree with you about doing additional research and i encourage everyone to do that. I also think just listening to the ads and frankly the opinions of some people in the medical field and swallowing it hook line and sinker is problematic.
However the article does reference the New England Journal and I do believe that qualifies as a peer-reviewed publication. It is a tad old, but nothing in any more recent studies that I have found contradict their #'s.
I think the 2 biggest misleading pieces of information out there (or lack of it) is
#1) the lack of discussion in physicians offices over the efficacy (50%) and protection period of the vaccine years (5 years according to CDC and in another study, no documented protection after 3 years). It’s a very informal survey with a low ‘n’ but out of everyone I’ve asked who has had this vaccine, not 1 person was told about the these factors at all. this is particularly troublesome when people in their 50’s are being encouraged to get this vaccine.
and #2 is the ‘1 in 3 people will get it’ (even the CDC has this on their website but doesn’t cite where they reached this conclusion). The New England Journal prediction at the time was 10-20% and I’ve not found anything that suggests anything higher.
Shingles is serious, serious ‘stuff’ (would rather use a different word) and my heart goes out to anyone suffering from it. But in my opinion there needs to be more serious and in-depth conversations about the timing and usage of this vaccine. My prediction is that we will look back and have significant large numbers of people who were given this vaccine prematurely and/or with a significant lack of full disclosure.
The risk may be greater for those over sixty, but I had it much younger. My doctor said she’d seen cases in teenagers. I had a milder case than many of those described here, but it was awful. I recommend the vaccine.
I just had a shingles vaccine last week and I was told quite clearly that its effectiveness was about 50% and it would last for 5 years. I was even given a handout with everything clearly explained. I have absolutely no regrets about getting it and I am appalled and disgusted at the gross harm the anti-vaccine nutjobs are doing to gullible people’s health in this country.
The CDC actually says the effectiveness is reduced after 5 years, not that protection vanishes entirely - which is actually pretty typical of ANY vaccine.
Who is encouraging people in their 50’s to get this? The CDC, along with others, are encouraging those 60 and over. It’savailable for those as young as 50, but that’s not the same as “encouraging” it.
Honestly, you’ve got two errors already which makes me dubious about the rest of your claims.
You are allowed to say “shit” in this forum if you feel the need to do so. We’re all adults here (well, maybe a few teens, too, but I’m sure they’ve heard naughty words before).
And what Terrible Thing do you think will happen to someone who gets the vaccine once at the age of 60, as opposed to someone who never gets it at all?
No one is claiming the vaccine is perfect protection, no vaccine ever is. However, given the pain and the possible long-term effects of a shingles outbreak (unrelenting pain and/or blindness) simply reducing the chances of either getting it or suffering side effects is worthwhile.
I am not an “anti-vaccine nutjob” (anti-vaxxer, etc.). I am not opposed to vaccines.
I’m glad you were given that information by your doctor so you could make an informed decision. However I do know that people are going to their doctor, asking about this vaccine because of the ad, and not being given this information. That’s my reason for posting this.
I’m not going to ask anyone’s age here, but I don’t mind stating mine. I’m 48 and have had doctors tell me that I should get this vaccine when I turn 50 (and therefore eligible per FDA). I don’t know how many other people are being told this.
But based upon my reading, I am questioning this advise and think others should as well. If your doctor is well informed on this topic, great. But unfortunately not everyone has a well informed doctor.
In response to Broomstick:
Regarding the 5 years, the link you provided says " In adults vaccinated at age 60 years or older, protection from the vaccine decreases within the first 5 years after vaccination. Protection beyond 5 years is uncertain""
Regarding who is encouraging this . . . I answered this in response to someone else. Doctors are. Patients see the commercial, go into the doc’s office, and are encouraged to get it if they are over 50. It’s happened to me and other people I know. You may think I’m making this up, but I’m not. (as I mentioned I’m not 50 yet but already docs are suggesting I get this as soon as I am eligible).
Yes, shingles is serious shit. There, I said it. Being new to this board didn’t know if by saying it my post would be blocked (some boards do that).
And I never said someone 60 or older shouldn’t get this. I wanted to make the point that, yes, there are doctors offices where the amount of time the vaccine can protect someone for is not being discussed. As I mentioned in another response, if your doc is informed on this topic and has given you detailed information on this so you can in turn make an informed decsiion, great!!! But that’s not happening everywhere.
My GP, a very conscientious type, has told me at my last two (mid-50s) physicals that “you’ll hear all kinds of people saying you should get a shingles vax at 50, but the good advice is to wait until 60.”
So I believe the poster’s claim, on that point anyway.
“Uncertain” is not the same thing as “non-existent”. It is perfectly normal for vaccine effectiveness to wane after a number of years, that’s why so many vaccines have boosters.
In this case, it’s probably a combination of lack of research, lack of experience with a relatively new vaccine, and the fact that peoples’ immune response changes with age.
However, it is very unlikely that someone vaccinated will have NO protection after 5 years, they just can’t predict how much or how little, in part because individuals vary in their immune response.
I anticipate that not only we will shortly have more information, but a future booster will be developed/recommended.
On the other hand, I asked my doc about getting this at 50 and he told me to wait. So yes, the response is variable. Yes, I’ve seen the commercials, which invariably say “If you’re over 50 ask your doctor”. A commercial isn’t a doctor.
[qyote]Yes, shingles is serious shit. There, I said it. Being new to this board didn’t know if by saying it my post would be blocked (some boards do that).
[/quote]
Hey, nothing wrong with being sure. Actually, I wish more people were that cautious.
Yes. I had a case about 12 years ago, and have recently been having mild symptoms. Since I’m well over 60, with diabetic neuropathy, I cannot afford additional nerve damage.
I didn’t mean to imply that you personally were a nutjob, and I apologize if I gave that impression.
I just turned 60. I got an email from my doctor’s office three days after my birthday telling me that I due for the shingles vaccine. It may even have been automated, based on my birth date. My doctor is part of a medical foundation that uses web based technology extensively for patient communication.
I agree that based on my understanding of the topic, 50 is too early to get a vaccine. It wasn’t an issue in my case. But I would certainly look askance at anyone who rejects the vaccine entirely. There’s no basis for that, and if given a choice between getting at 50 and not getting it all, I’d take it early. It would still do more good than harm, based on what I know. And shingles doesn’t always occur after 60, as Dendarii Dame noted. In any individual, there may be risk factors that would indicate early vaccination. One’s personal physician would be best qualified to make that decision.
Glad your doc told you to wait at 50. I believe the original person who started this thread was 55 and was being advised to get it. So yes, the response is variable. So that’s part of why I’ve raised this topic. You are correct in that a commercial isn’t a doctor.
However, Given there is no booster the variation on recommendations when people see their doctor is a problem. Hopefully through this conversation we are helping others take a closer look at this.
If you are suggesting that I am an “anti-vaxxer”, that is not the case. If you are not suggesting that, I apologize for being defensive.
However I do have concerns with inconsistencies in messaging about age recomendations, efficacy and duration of this vaccine. That was the point of my original post. If I did not convey that clearly, my apologies.
Thanks. I apologize for perhaps being too defensive in my reaction. I think we’re all trying to do the same thing, discuss this topic and raise awareness.
My 86 year old step mother has had shingles since June of last year. They’ve tried treating it, but she is in a lot of pain every day. I haven’t thought to ask her if she ever got the vaccine, but I am guessing not. Neither she nor my father put a lot of stock in doctors. It’s too bad, she will likely suffer from this until she’s dead.
It’s true that people over 60 will see their risk of contracting shingles drop by 50% if they are vaccinated. So the vaccine is not super-protective, but anything I can do to significantly cut my changes of getting this disease sounds highly worthwhile.
Moreover it’s estimated that the odds of getting post-herpetic neuralgia (the often severe pain encountered secondary to shingles) are cut by 67% in those who are vaccinated. And if you do get shingles or PHN after being vaccinated, symptoms are often milder.
My grandmother had a similar experience, she kept asking what is this rash and it was diagnosed as shingles, but she didn’t have pain only a itchy discomfort.
I suppose, like anything, it’s possible to have mild forms of the illness.
Well, I’ve just entered the target age for the shingles vaccination, and I’m trying to figure out logically what is best to do. And I’m not sure if I’m combining the various factors properly, so I’m tossing this out here for opinions.
“Facts” I’ve been given:
Everyone who has had chicken pox already is infected with the virus.
If you don’t know if you’ve had chicken pox you may or may not have the virus already (any guesses on percentages, since I’m in the uncertain group?) and, of course, even if you don’t currently have it you can contract it in the future.
“Up to” 30% of the people who have the virus will eventually get shingles.
Shingles cases vary in severity, from minor to near suicide-inspiring levels of pains.
Some percentage (how many?) of people continue to suffer from some level (how bad? how easily or not controlled?) of lingering pain.
People infected with the virus who get the vaccination are only half as likely to get shingles.
Apparently the induced immunity gradually goes away over time, and is ‘uncertain’ after 5 years.
If you get the vaccination within 24 hours of first experiencing a shingles outbreak, it will reduce the severity of the outbreak. (How much?)
Assuming that to be mostly correct (or at least in line with what we know now) I can see two courses of action:
A) Get the vaccination.
Downside: This will cost about $200 (if your insurance doesn’t cover it) and has the usual small level of unpleasant side effects all vaccinations seem to have. (Minor shingles outbreak, some pain, etc.)
Expected benefit: