Something to consider about H1N1 vaccinations

[ShopSmart]

For entire article go to:
http://vran.org/in-the-news/swine-flu-vaccine-a-public-health-experiment/

Excerpt...

Swine Flu Vaccine – A Public Health Experiment
What do human brain and nerve tissues, Gulf War Syndrome, some health supplements and GlaxoSmithKline’s new swine flu vaccine adjuvant all have in common? The answer: squalene. Its presence in fatty tissues and supplements is generally benign or beneficial; its presence in GSK’s vaccine is morbid.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) holds the contract to supply Canada’s pandemic H1N1 vaccine – a vaccine containing an unlicensed additive, specifically the AS03 squalene based adjuvant. AS03 is designed to stimulate a dramatically increased immune response which results in less vaccine antigen being required in each vaccine dose.

“Canada will likely use adjuvanted swine flu vaccine,” says Dr. David Butler-Jones, head of the Public Health Agency of Canada. Neither Canada nor the U.S. has licensed flu vaccines containing adjuvants. So adding one would erect regulatory hurdles that would either require additional clinical trials – prolonging time to vaccine delivery – or a decision to use the product under ‘emergency use’ authorizations.”

[Whiplash7828]

/lock thread :eek:

[ji_howa]

The material you quote is from a biased organization.

No scientific evidence, or logic needed, just fear mongering. Why don't you list some impartial data for your argument?

I requested the non-adjuvant version... but we don't have any here in Canada so I got the regular h1n1 flu shot, and I am still alive.

So my n = 1 sample size shows the adjuvant vaccine is safe... if it applies to me, it MUST apply to everyone else too.

[ji_howa]

Oh look, a report by the world health organization on squalene

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/

The article is not as sensational, but may be slightly more credible.

[deejayspinz]

The material you quote is from a biased organization.

No scientific evidence, or logic needed, just fear mongering. Why don't you list some impartial data for your argument?

I requested the non-adjuvant version... but we don't have any here in Canada so I got the regular h1n1 flu shot, and I am still alive.

So my n = 1 sample size shows the adjuvant vaccine is safe... if it applies to me, it MUST apply to everyone else too.

Yes of course, now that you've told us all that you are still alive a week after the shot, I'm definitely going out and getting it! Whew! Thanks so much for performing those clinical trials that have not been done. Call it whatever you want, but there's facts out there. The only fear mongering Im hearing are all those govt ads telling us all how we need to get the shot... Some reading if interested...

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1419%3Aalert-canadians-toxic-ingredients-in-the-arepanrix-h1n1-vaccine-harm-your-health&catid=41%3Ahighlighted-news&Itemid=105&lang=en

[ji_howa]

Obviously, you missed the sarcasm in my original post. I was comparing my n = 1 sample to the articles you are quoting, which are also opinion with no scientific evidence.

Yes... continue quoting from biased websites.

Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred to get the non-adjuvant version, but the small risks with the adjuvanted version are still less than the potential complications arising from getting the flu itself.

I was working Sick Kids all this week - a lot of people have swine flu, we are not swabbing people anymore because it will be all positive. For me, it would have been inevitable that I will catch it, so the vaccine was a must. Seeing how prevalent it is, I think the risk in the general population, especially if you have kids, is very high as well.

Yes of course, now that you've told us all that you are still alive a week after the shot, I'm definitely going out and getting it! Whew! Thanks so much for performing those clinical trials that have not been done. Call it whatever you want, but there's facts out there. The only fear mongering Im hearing are all those govt ads telling us all how we need to get the shot... Some reading if interested...

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1419%3Aalert-canadians-toxic-ingredients-in-the-arepanrix-h1n1-vaccine-harm-your-health&catid=41%3Ahighlighted-news&Itemid=105&lang=en

[Redro]

Something to consider for swine flu.

Deaths from swine flu worldwide: 5000
Source- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091023/ap_on_re_eu/un_who_swine_flu
Fri Oct 23, 12:06 pm ET

GENEVA – Nearly 5,000 people have reportedly died from swine flu since it emerged this year and developed into a global epidemic, the World Health Organization said Friday.


Deaths from regular flu worldwide: 250,000 to 500,000
Source- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/
Seasonal epidemics

Influenza epidemics occur yearly during autumn and winter in temperate regions. Illnesses result in hospitalizations and deaths mainly among high-risk groups (the very young, elderly or chronically ill). Worldwide, these annual epidemics result in about three to five million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths. Most deaths associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among people age 65 or older. In some tropical countries, influenza viruses circulate throughout the year with one or two peaks during rainy seasons.


Watching people go crazy: PRICELESS

[jcon]

Deaths from regular flu worldwide: 250,000 to 500,000
Source- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/


Most of whom are over 65.

H1N1 has been killing seemingly healthy, young people.

Please get the shot, when you can, and don't spread this deadly disease to others.

[Redro]

Most of whom are over 65.

H1N1 has been killing seemingly healthy, young people.

Please get the shot, when you can, and don't spread this deadly disease to others.

Not true, 50% of h1n1 deaths are from people over 50 years old. Sure a 13 year old died last week because the media told us to scare and control us but how many more children die from regular flu every year.

Hell I almost died from a required hepatitis b vaccination when I was in elementary school and got a fever of 41c within 2 days of getting the shot. Was in sick kids and completely out from what I remember, I sure as heck never wanted to take the crap they inject me with ever since.

[The Rochester Mirkins]

If you are going to listen to someone who is a self proclaimed "expert" try listening to Jenny Mccarthy. Her resume boasts the ability to look good naked (airbrushed) in a magazine. That puts her at the top of the list for internet experts.

[jcon]

Not true...

Please tell me what I wrote that was not true?

[ShopSmart]

Not true, 50% of h1n1 deaths are from people over 50 years old. Sure a 13 year old died last week because the media told us to scare and control us but how many more children die from regular flu every year.

Hell I almost died from a required hepatitis b vaccination when I was in elementary school and got a fever of 41c within 2 days of getting the shot. Was in sick kids and completely out from what I remember, I sure as heck never wanted to take the crap they inject me with ever since.

The school system gave me a vaccination when I was in 11 I believe to supposedly protect me from the mumps, rubella, etc. and I actually got a full blown case of the mumps the same year and gave it to my sister. I was like WTF? So for people who say it's safe...how the heck do you know for sure?

Not everyone's body and immune systems will react the same. Who knows how the virus will react or mutate once it's inside each and every person? You're spreading it even more with a global vaccination. Now you're giving it wings and exposing to all sorts of different people and different immune systems...

The other thing is that the people who are getting the shot and develop flu like symptoms afterwards may even be spreading it even more. It could actually be endangering at risk people who may otherwise never come into contact with it.

Here's an archived article at the link below....If you think you're taking a chance with swine flu - you're also taking a chance with the vaccination.

http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=30&db=12&C0=735

[jcon]

From the article:

the fear of GBS should not dissuade people (seniors, at least) because the risk of dying from not getting the shot is 10,000 times greater.

--------

It concerns me that such a very few vocal, unqualified 'experts' seem to be blurring facts around this issue.

The chance of you dying from H1N1 is far greater than the possible side effects.

[dchabby]

Most of whom are over 65.

H1N1 has been killing seemingly healthy, young people.

Please get the shot, when you can, and don't spread this deadly disease to others.


Ummm..why should people who get the shot worry about catching it from people who dont..they are protected are they not ??

[longitude]

I"ll pass the shots.

[D-Roc]

This is hardly a "deadly" disease.

[hagbard]

The material you quote is from a biased organization.

No scientific evidence, or logic needed, just fear mongering. Why don't you list some impartial data for your argument?

I requested the non-adjuvant version... but we don't have any here in Canada so I got the regular h1n1 flu shot, and I am still alive.

So my n = 1 sample size shows the adjuvant vaccine is safe... if it applies to me, it MUST apply to everyone else too.

Get back to us in a year or two. You'll probably still be alive, but let us know how your health is. This is a big experiment to see if there really is a connection between Gulf War Syndrome and squalene.

[hagbard]

Obviously, you missed the sarcasm in my original post. I was comparing my n = 1 sample to the articles you are quoting, which are also opinion with no scientific evidence.

Yes... continue quoting from biased websites.

Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred to get the non-adjuvant version, but the small risks with the adjuvanted version are still less than the potential complications arising from getting the flu itself.

I was working Sick Kids all this week - a lot of people have swine flu, we are not swabbing people anymore because it will be all positive. For me, it would have been inevitable that I will catch it, so the vaccine was a must. Seeing how prevalent it is, I think the risk in the general population, especially if you have kids, is very high as well.

Not everyone who comes into contact with the flu will catch it, that is, ever get to the point where they'll display symptoms. Could be wrong, but that's how I understand it.

[Whiplash7828]

Get back to us in a year or two. You'll probably still be alive, but let us know how your health is. This is a big experiment to see if there really is a connection between Gulf War Syndrome and squalene.

dear god....lol....this is almost comical.

you mean squalene....the substance we all produce naturally in our bodies is going to make us sick?? :confused:
They have concluded years ago that potato chips contain trans fat that leads to heart disease and yet people still chomp away... ;)

give me a break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squalene

[hagbard]

dear god....lol....this is almost comical.

you mean squalene....the substance we all produce naturally in our bodies is going to make us sick?? :confused:
They have concluded years ago that potato chips contain trans fat that leads to heart disease and yet people still chomp away... ;)

give me a break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squalene

Our bodies also produce vitamin D, you can get sick from taking too much of that. Or how about insulin?

[Whiplash7828]

Our bodies also produce vitamin D, you can get sick from taking too much of that. Or how about insulin?

exactly...so do you have data to back up the squalene overdose present in the vaccine?

[hagbard]

exactly...so do you have data to back up the squalene overdose present in the vaccine?

Do you have otherwise? Its your choice. If you trust the people behind the vaccine, go for it. I'm skeptical. Its part of my nature. I think time will tell.

[sixer]

Lots of ridiculous people in this thread.

Doctors agree in regards to the adjuvent vaccine and and that the components in them have been used in many vaccines and found to be safe. Squalene is a normal metabolite found in everyone's blood at all times. Tocopherol is vitamin E. Polysorbate is in all kinds of things we consume, including ice cream. Thimerosal is a preservative to maintain vaccine sterility, and the mercury in it is bonded to an ethyl group (not a methyl group, like the mercury in fish), so your body excretes it right away and there are no health problems. All existing data points to the vaccine and adjuvant being safe.

Great blog entry here. The links to his sources are posted within his discussion:
http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/RobBreakenridge/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10069082

[ShopSmart]

You gotta know how this thread is going to end up. Like any other thread with people on the one side that try to justify their behaviour in order to make themselves feel better about their decision after the fact.

I know lots of people who have never even got the flu. Why the heck would they run out and get a vaccination? What if this flu is no different from any other flu out there?

Whatever happened to bird flu? Whatever happened to SARS? We were told those were pandemics too.

The media hypes things up and puts the fear into people so that people who are impressionable will run out like sheep and be herded into doing things out of fear which will put big $$ into the hands of big business. It's like a tax on the stupid except you get no benefit out of it at all.

It's all such a disgusting display of stupidity, fear, greed and absolute hypocrisy. In the US they're actually using the live virus in an inhalable version of the vaccine. WTF? I repeat WTF?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/swine.flu.vaccine/index.html

Now you're exposing healthy people who may not otherwise come into contact with the flu and spreading it en masse. What a massive frickin experimental disaster. It's unnatural. And for what? The flu kills thousands of people each year and has been for ages.

So that a bunch of pharamaceutical companies, and so that those who were in the know could buy their stock?

Even if the vaccine was effective, what about the poor people in countries that can't afford to vaccinate? So you now you take millions of people in the West, give them the live virus and then let them travel all over the world like business as usual, and who gives a *ck about anyone in Africa or Asia that they come into contact with? It's all f*cked up. What about THEIR kids?

[ShopSmart]

Lots of ridiculous people in this thread.

Doctors agree in regards to the adjuvent vaccine and and that the components in them have been used in many vaccines and found to be safe. Squalene is a normal metabolite found in everyone's blood at all times. Tocopherol is vitamin E. Polysorbate is in all kinds of things we consume, including ice cream. Thimerosal is a preservative to maintain vaccine sterility, and the mercury in it is bonded to an ethyl group (not a methyl group, like the mercury in fish), so your body excretes it right away and there are no health problems. All existing data points to the vaccine and adjuvant being safe.

Great blog entry here. The links to his sources are posted within his discussion:
http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/RobBreakenridge/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10069082


If the doctors and scientists are so smart, how come they haven't cured the common cold? Or cancer? Just because people went to med school or work in a lab doesn't mean they have enough intuition and practical experience to know what is safe or not safe for us. i.e. overusage of antibiotics leading to superbugs, etc.

[abstract808]

::rolleyes::

[ji_howa]

Actually, with the current screening processes set up for cancer we are effectively curing cancers before they become a problem. All cancers in the early stages can be cured simply by removing it, with the right screening, we can cure almost 100% of cervical cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer.

The over use of antibiotics was mainly caused by the agricultural industry putting it into animal feed to improve livestock yields.

I don't understand why you are so skeptical... medicine as a profession, was made to improve the health, and cure the ailments of the people. What possible sinister motive could we have? Sure we cannot foresee all consequences such as that with thalidomide, or swine flu vaccine circa 1976 or hepatitis C via transfusions, but as a profession, we learn from our mistakes so that they will not occur in the future.

Other industries too have made mistakes too, like global warming, toxic dumping, asbestos... we are all human and cannot see the future, but do our best in the present.

If you were unfortunate enough to get a lump in the breast, I sure hope you seek care from the medical profession where we can actually CURE you and not run off to some sketchy country where they will practice their "natural" cures on you. 3 months and $100,000 poorer when you return, I sure hope that cancer has not become incurable.

Trust me, it takes a lot of learning to become a doctor and there are many things to take into consideration with new medications and new vaccine. You should read up a few subjects before posting to avoid looking ignorant, here is a start, oh it is wikipedia, so should be comprehensible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#Attenuated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance#Role_of_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic



If the doctors and scientists are so smart, how come they haven't cured the common cold? Or cancer? Just because people went to med school or work in a lab doesn't mean they have enough intuition and practical experience to know what is safe or not safe for us. i.e. overusage of antibiotics leading to superbugs, etc.

[hagbard]

Lots of ridiculous people in this thread.

Doctors agree in regards to the adjuvent vaccine and and that the components in them have been used in many vaccines and found to be safe.

No they don't. If you took a poll, and the doctors were being honest, you'd find many if not most are not going to get the shot. My doctor isn't. My wife might (but only because she thinks it might prevent her bringing it home from work with her). In fact, I suggest everyone here ASK their doctor not only if they recommend getting the shot, but if they too are getting it. You might be surprised.

[Whiplash7828]

No they don't. If you took a poll, and the doctors were being honest, you'd find many if not most are not going to get the shot. My doctor isn't. My wife might (but only because she thinks it might prevent her bringing it home from work with her). In fact, I suggest everyone here ASK their doctor not only if they recommend getting the shot, but if they too are getting it. You might be surprised.

You do realize that if the doctor is a healthy middle-aged adult he may choose to pass on the vaccine....that does not mean he won't recommend it to children or pregnant women...

If I was single and did not have children under the age of 5 at home I would not get it either....but I do....so I will...

[jcon]

I know lots of people who have never even got the flu. Why the heck would they run out and get a vaccination?


Even if the vaccine was effective, what about the poor people in countries that can't afford to vaccinate? So you now you take millions of people in the West, give them the live virus and then let them travel all over the world like business as usual, and who gives a *ck about anyone in Africa or Asia that they come into contact with? It's all f*cked up. What about THEIR kids?

I know lots of people who have never been in a car accident and yet they STILL wear their seatbelt. Crazy!


Actually, if you bothered to read the news, Canada is sending all extra vaccines to countries that can not afford it.

[CSK'sMom]

No they don't. If you took a poll, and the doctors were being honest, you'd find many if not most are not going to get the shot. My doctor isn't. My wife might (but only because she thinks it might prevent her bringing it home from work with her). In fact, I suggest everyone here ASK their doctor not only if they recommend getting the shot, but if they too are getting it. You might be surprised.

Well my doc is getting it, she's doing her 3 teens/young adults as well. My kids ped. and her husband who's a OB/GYN is getting it. Hubby's doc is getting it as well. All are telling us we need to get this vaccine. So definitely no surprises here... :rolleyes:

[D-Roc]

Well my doc is getting it, she's doing her 3 teens/young adults as well. My kids ped. and her husband who's a OB/GYN is getting it. Hubby's doc is getting it as well. All are telling us we need to get this vaccine. So definitely no surprises here... :rolleyes:


And Doctors are never wrong of course.:rolleyes:

[getmail99]

I don't understand why you are so skeptical... medicine as a profession, was made to improve the health, and cure the ailments of the people. What possible sinister motive could we have?


In an ideal world.


Sure we cannot foresee all consequences such as that with thalidomide, or swine flu vaccine circa 1976 or hepatitis C via transfusions, but as a profession, we learn from our mistakes so that they will not occur in the future.


Your list is a bit short.


Other industries too have made mistakes too, like global warming, toxic dumping, asbestos... we are all human and cannot see the future, but do our best in the present.


So....... excuse or what?


If you were unfortunate enough to get a lump in the breast, I sure hope you seek care from the medical profession where we can actually CURE you and not run off to some sketchy country where they will practice their "natural" cures on you. 3 months and $100,000 poorer when you return, I sure hope that cancer has not become incurable.


I can also list illness that can be cured by other alternative medicine but not conventional Western medicine.


Trust me,


See the mistakes above? Are you sure this H1N1 vaccine is not a mistake?

Not long ago, doctors still tell me Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil is good. Look at some 2006 old sites still say Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil is good.


it takes a lot of learning to become a doctor and there are many things to take into consideration with new medications and new vaccine. You should read up a few subjects before posting to avoid looking ignorant, here is a start, oh it is wikipedia, so should be comprehensible.


How about this paper.

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

The author tries to point out that
"The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations."

However, the author used the wrong data. He compared the data from Montreal and La Capitale Nationale, Quebec City.

Do you think this is a "mistake"? You need a long distance call to Quebec City!

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/vap/tale-of-two-cities-20070307.htm

Of course, whistle blowers are called "conspiracy theory". It is good that there are some whistle blower doctors.

[ji_howa]

So you are saying doctors do not want what is best for the patient, you want me to list every single adverse event ever in the history medicine, and exonerate all other professions of all their wrong doings...

I listed the other examples because nothing is 100% safe, but a risk vs. benefit consideration. Given the best data available, the vaccine should be safe. This is data based on multiple studies, and done with good scientific methodology.

You quote 1 study: Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations

Which in it self is flawed, as a medical community we do what is called a META-ANALYSIS which takes in to account all the studies.

Where is the meta-analysis that shows an association between PDD and Immunizations? It doesn't exist, the only data is from isolated small studies.

And you are quoting from biased websites...

Your lack of understanding of proper scientific process means I cannot explain things to you with logic and reason.

So don't do anything you do not want to, don't immunize your kids, don't take medications, don't come seeking help when you get cancer or have a heart attack or stroke... and let your kids be vulnerable to all the potential complications such as pneumonia, hearing loss, meningitis, sterility, shingles, liver failure, tetnus.

Good luck


In an ideal world.



Your list is a bit short.



So....... excuse or what?



I can also list illness that can be cured by other alternative medicine but not conventional Western medicine.



See the mistakes above? Are you sure this H1N1 vaccine is not a mistake?

Not long ago, doctors still tell me Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil is good. Look at some 2006 old sites still say Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil is good.



How about this paper.

Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139

The author tries to point out that
"The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations."

However, the author used the wrong data. He compared the data from Montreal and La Capitale Nationale, Quebec City.

Do you think this is a "mistake"? You need a long distance call to Quebec City!

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/vap/tale-of-two-cities-20070307.htm

Of course, whistle blowers are called "conspiracy theory". It is good that there are some whistle blower doctors.

[Shiifty]

A relative of mine and her three daughters just got H1N1, brought home from school. It came on rapidly, with aches and fevers of 102-104 F. Nothing different from a regular flu, although, the symptoms sound more severe than a typical flu.

I don't get the seasonal flu shot because it's a guess as to which strain will be common during the following year. However the H1N1 virus is different -- we know the dominant flu strain going around this season is H1N1! While it may not be more deadly than the common flu, it is more virulent and will likely infect more people than the typical flu.

My wife is pregnant and got the shot, and I'll be getting it as soon as it's available to lower risk people. Since the flu is deadlier to infants, I'll be getting the seasonal flu also shot to ensure I don't bring anything home...

The vaccine itself has been used for years (same manufacturing method as seasonal flu shots). And for those who fear the adjuvant, get the non-adjuvant version. Really, this seems like a no-brainer... :confused:

[getmail99]

So you are saying doctors do not want what is best for the patient, you want me to list every single adverse event ever in the history medicine, and exonerate all other professions of all their wrong doings...

I listed the other examples because nothing is 100% safe, but a risk vs. benefit consideration. Given the best data available, the vaccine should be safe. This is data based on multiple studies, and done with good scientific methodology.

You quote 1 study: Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations

Which in it self is flawed, as a medical community we do what is called a META-ANALYSIS which takes in to account all the studies.

Where is the meta-analysis that shows an association between PDD and Immunizations? It doesn't exist, the only data is from isolated small studies.

And you are quoting from biased websites...

Your lack of understanding of proper scientific process means I cannot explain things to you with logic and reason.

So don't do anything you do not want to, don't immunize your kids, don't take medications, don't come seeking help when you get cancer or have a heart attack or stroke... and let your kids be vulnerable to all the potential complications such as pneumonia, hearing loss, meningitis, sterility, shingles, liver failure, tetnus.

Good luck

LOL, the problem is not the doctors. See, there are some whistle blower doctors. The problem is the medical community.

Oh, then please withdraw the paper. Unfortunately, a lot of research papers referred to this flawed study. By the way, I had also published paper in journal during my graduate study. Not only MDs are "educated" people. Though, I don't mind reading wikipedia which is more comprehensible as you suggested in the previous post. Oh, I must be one of those stupid patients that he/she doesn't understand proper scientific process, no need to explain things to he/she with logic and reason. Blame the patients.

Of course, whistle blower's website is biased. BTW, my profession's ethic code code put a big emphasis on whistle blowers.

[S U]

So you are saying doctors do not want what is best for the patient,

I don't think that this is a fair comment to make.

It takes a certain kind of person to go into the medical profession - one that is knowledgeable and compassionate. If a doctor did not want whats best for a patient......how could he/she do this everyday of their lives?

We're all here, concerned, and wanting what's best.
I think there are many out there that truly believe in studies that have been done on H1N1 vaccine. And then, there are those that want more proof.

Let's not attack one another here for posting opinions.
There are many people out there that are still sitting on the fence as to whether or not to get this shot.
Posting valuable opinions, rather than slaps to the face, are what will help make decisions.

[TheDude79]

LOL, the problem is not the doctors. See, there are some whistle blower doctors. The problem is the medical community.

As much as I don't want to feed the bear.......

No, the problem is people who purport to understand things that are outside of their realm of expertise. This goes equally for doctors, lay people, and others with some degree of medical or scientific expertise. The internet allows people to speak about issues in authoritative looking manners, even if they don't have the goods to back up their opinions.

Generally I'm of the opinion that if you don't fully understand something, you should defer to the opinion of independent experts. I'm not going to debate the specifics of the safety of the H1N1 vaccine because I don't understand them, and I highly doubt that anyone on these forums fully understands them either (even the doctors and med students who post here). What I do understand is that the vast majority of the medical experts on the flu and public health are recommending the vaccine, so I got the shot. Doctors with dissenting opinions are in the minority and are also generally from a different field of study or practice than the flu experts. As a rational person, I looked all of the information that was available to me. Upon review I decided, even though the risk of future health problems is non-zero, that the risk was outwieghed by the benefits to myself and my family. I'm not going to worry that my soon to be born child might grow a sixth toe on his/her right foot, because if my pregnant wife dies of H1N1 it's a moot point anyways.

Also, another point of discussion. Doctors with a dissenting opinion usually aren't "whistle blowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistle_blower)". A whistle blower typically comes from within an organization and possesses inside knowledge of fact that contradicts the organization's public view of that fact. For example, if a key WHO doctor came out saying "the vaccine is ineffective" based on some insider knowledge of the WHO and its processes, she'd be a whistleblower. Some doctor in Missouri who has a blog and opposes the vaccine is not a whistleblower, but a person who has a dissenting opinion. I haven't seen *any* whistle blowers regarding the H1N1 vaccine, but feel free to post one for our reference if you have a reputable source.

[ji_howa]

LOL, the problem is not the doctors. See, there are some whistle blower doctors. The problem is the medical community.

Oh, then please withdraw the paper. Unfortunately, a lot of research papers referred to this flawed study. By the way, I had also published paper in journal during my graduate study. Not only MDs are "educated" people. Though, I don't mind reading wikipedia which is more comprehensible as you suggested in the previous post. Oh, I must be one of those stupid patients that he/she doesn't understand proper scientific process, no need to explain things to he/she with logic and reason. Blame the patients.

Of course, whistle blower's website is biased. BTW, my profession's ethic code code put a big emphasis on whistle blowers.

The medical community is made up of doctors, so what is the problem you are referring to? Is there a conspiracy?

If you have published papers before, then you are aware of the cochrane review? Then read http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004407.html which should put an end to all your arguments about the MMR vaccine.

So bottom line:
1. nothing in life is 100%
2. with the best of what we know, the vaccine is safe, but something unknown could manifest in the future
3. the risks associated with the vaccine both known and unknown are far less than the consequences of catching the flu.
4. we can reduce the burden on the public health system by getting vaccinated, which will reduce overall visits to EDs and admission to hospitals.
5. the medical profession is not out to "get" you.

[hagbard]

As much as I don't want to feed the bear.......

No, the problem is people who purport to understand things that are outside of their realm of expertise. This goes equally for doctors, lay people, and others with some degree of medical or scientific expertise. The internet allows people to speak about issues in authoritative looking manners, even if they don't have the goods to back up their opinions.

Generally I'm of the opinion that if you don't fully understand something, you should defer to the opinion of independent experts. I'm not going to debate the specifics of the safety of the H1N1 vaccine because I don't understand them, and I highly doubt that anyone on these forums fully understands them either (even the doctors and med students who post here). What I do understand is that the vast majority of the medical experts on the flu and public health are recommending the vaccine, so I got the shot. Doctors with dissenting opinions are in the minority and are also generally from a different field of study or practice than the flu experts. As a rational person, I looked all of the information that was available to me. Upon review I decided, even though the risk of future health problems is non-zero, that the risk was outwieghed by the benefits to myself and my family. I'm not going to worry that my soon to be born child might grow a sixth toe on his/her right foot, because if my pregnant wife dies of H1N1 it's a moot point anyways.

Also, another point of discussion. Doctors with a dissenting opinion usually aren't "whistle blowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistle_blower)". A whistle blower typically comes from within an organization and possesses inside knowledge of fact that contradicts the organization's public view of that fact. For example, if a key WHO doctor came out saying "the vaccine is ineffective" based on some insider knowledge of the WHO and its processes, she'd be a whistleblower. Some doctor in Missouri who has a blog and opposes the vaccine is not a whistleblower, but a person who has a dissenting opinion. I haven't seen *any* whistle blowers regarding the H1N1 vaccine, but feel free to post one for our reference if you have a reputable source.

Very well reasoned argument. Unfortunately, the "experts" often get it wrong, and the people with training more often then not aren't experts on all areas of medicine. They, like the rest of us, go but what is common knowledge at the time.

[thelefteyeguy]

As much as I don't want to feed the bear.......

No, the problem is people who purport to understand things that are outside of their realm of expertise. This goes equally for doctors, lay people, and others with some degree of medical or scientific expertise. The internet allows people to speak about issues in authoritative looking manners, even if they don't have the goods to back up their opinions.

Generally I'm of the opinion that if you don't fully understand something, you should defer to the opinion of independent experts. I'm not going to debate the specifics of the safety of the H1N1 vaccine because I don't understand them, and I highly doubt that anyone on these forums fully understands them either (even the doctors and med students who post here). What I do understand is that the vast majority of the medical experts on the flu and public health are recommending the vaccine, so I got the shot. Doctors with dissenting opinions are in the minority and are also generally from a different field of study or practice than the flu experts. As a rational person, I looked all of the information that was available to me. Upon review I decided, even though the risk of future health problems is non-zero, that the risk was outwieghed by the benefits to myself and my family. I'm not going to worry that my soon to be born child might grow a sixth toe on his/her right foot, because if my pregnant wife dies of H1N1 it's a moot point anyways.

Also, another point of discussion. Doctors with a dissenting opinion usually aren't "whistle blowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistle_blower)". A whistle blower typically comes from within an organization and possesses inside knowledge of fact that contradicts the organization's public view of that fact. For example, if a key WHO doctor came out saying "the vaccine is ineffective" based on some insider knowledge of the WHO and its processes, she'd be a whistleblower. Some doctor in Missouri who has a blog and opposes the vaccine is not a whistleblower, but a person who has a dissenting opinion. I haven't seen *any* whistle blowers regarding the H1N1 vaccine, but feel free to post one for our reference if you have a reputable source.

well spoken.

Nothing is risk free. I was on the fence for a long time for my 2 year old. This vaccine got pushed through quite fast. And in my opinion that's a lot of risk. Govt guarantees mean nothing because in a few years we'll have another batch of liars.

However, knowing full well that giving the amount of info I do have, and the known risk, and weighting that if my daughter did get sick and I choose not to vaccinate her inspite of our doctors recommendation...i wouldnt be able to live with myself if anything happened.

im going forward with the vaccination

[Shiifty]

Very well reasoned argument. Unfortunately, the "experts" often get it wrong, and the people with training more often then not aren't experts on all areas of medicine. They, like the rest of us, go but what is common knowledge at the time.
Saying experts often get it wrong is exaggeration. Realistically, I would say "occasionally", or optimistically, "rarely".

No one is an expert in everything. We have people who are proficient in their field, who are called "experts". Most research done today is collaborative -- people who are experts in different fields working together for a single goal. Especially in medicine.

Published research is peer reviewed. This means results aren't published unless reviewed by "experts". It's not just the results that are reviewed, but the methodology. And I never take one single review as conclusive, especially for something new -- no one should! But if independent research from various organizations reach the same conclusion, then I am happy.

Even medicines that have undergone extensive clinical trials and are approved, can be found to have extensive issues later on. I would never take a "new" medicine until it's been on the market for a lengthy time. However this vaccine is not new, as it's made the same way as the seasonal flu vaccine. The adjuvants and in particular thimersal have been tested and found safe in the doses used. From the (scientific) reading I've done of this vaccine (and vaccines in general), I'm confident this vaccine is safe.

[TheDude79]

Very well reasoned argument. Unfortunately, the "experts" often get it wrong, and the people with training more often then not aren't experts on all areas of medicine. They, like the rest of us, go but what is common knowledge at the time.

The key point to realize is that the "experts" (your quotes not mine) get it wrong less often than non-experts. If you're a member of the non-expert group when it comes to a certain decision, it's usually in your best interest to listen to the expert's recommendations. Sure the expert might get it wrong, but they're more able to assess the available information and make a better informed decision.

In this case, the experts aren't your family doctor, a nurse or some other alternative health professional, but the doctors who specialize in public health and flu vaccines. These people study pandemics and the flu, and are best equipped to make the public recommendations. My wife visits a chiropractor who is *adamant* that people not get the vaccine, even though he has very little background in the subject matter at hand. As a "doctor" he feels that he is entitled to represent himself as an expert on the matter. Some people just accept this, and take his words as expert opinion as equally reputable as the public health doctors. It's no surprise that there is a lot of confusion out there, as a quite a few well respected professionals speak outside of their realm of knowledge and purport to be experts on the subject when really they're not.

[hagbard]

Sorry, I'm not very trusting. If there's reason for doubt, I use extreme caution. My wife, OTOH, jumped right in and got the shot (don't go getting the idea she's a true believer in the vaccine, she isn't. But she, like many other parents, was afraid of catching it and bringing it home). And to state again, I've never been healthier since I stopped getting my yearly flu shot three years ago, I don't want to blow that.

[BeeBee]

If you have published papers before, then you are aware of the cochrane review? Then read http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004407.html which should put an end to all your arguments about the MMR vaccine.


... you mean this? (from your link.)

Authors' conclusions

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

How does this end arguments regarding the MMR vaccine?

[BeeBee]

Sticking with N1N1, here's a couple of links from Cochrane:

http://blogs.ft.com/healthblog/2009/09/11/interview-dr-tom-jefferson-and-pandemic-flu-vaccines/

Tom Jefferson is a medically trained epidemiologist and Cochrane reviewer who has a specialist research interest in the effectiveness of vaccinations.

"The question you are really asking is - how effective are seasonal vaccines? And our reviews either show no effect or limited effect, and poor data."

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html

"Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

Children and the elderly are the two age groups that appear to have the most complications following an influenza infection. Influenza has a viral origin and often results in an acute respiratory illness affecting the lower or upper parts respiratory tract, or both. Viruses are mainly of two subtypes (A or B) and spread periodically during the autumn-winter months.
Many other viruses however, can also cause illness of the respiratory tract.

Diffusion and severity of the disease could be very different during different epidemics. Efforts to contain epidemic diffusion rely mainly on widespread vaccination. Recent policy from several internationally-recognised institutions, recommend immunisation of healthy children between 6 and 23 month of age (together with their contacts) as a public health measure.

The review authors found that in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus (82% of illnesses were prevented) than injected vaccines made from the killed virus (59%). Neither type was particularly good at preventing 'flu-like illness' caused by other types of viruses (33% and 36% respectively). In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. It was not possible to analyse the safety of vaccines from the studies due to the lack of standardisation in the information given but very little information was found on the safety of inactivated vaccines, the most commonly used vaccine, in young children."

[sixer]

^ Too many blogs on the net that aren't credible and here's just another case of that.

[ji_howa]

The argument was MMR caused developmental delay... the review shows there is no evidence to support that from the 139 studies. So where are those anti-vaccine websites getting their data? And is that data valid at all?

If you read the entire article, they mention the harm caused to children who were not vaccinated, and ended up getting the illness, and consequences of the illness. Even if there were adverse events of the vaccine not captured in the studies, they are of far smaller magnitude of not vaccinating, and catching the illness, otherwise it would be seen in the studies.

Sorry that is as simple as I can make it, hopefully not confusing?

... you mean this? (from your link.)

Authors' conclusions

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

How does this end arguments regarding the MMR vaccine?

[ji_howa]

1. the blog is NOT from cochrane, stop trying to give it false credibility

2. obviously there is not data for h1n1... the vaccine is too new.

3. that article you posted is for the regular influenza vaccine, not h1n1. You can't imply the h1n1 vaccine is not effective just because the regular vaccine is not proven to be effective for kids under 2. Sorry, you really can't consider it objective evidence when you try to infer something for the general population based on something different in a select population.



Sticking with N1N1, here's a couple of links from Cochrane:

http://blogs.ft.com/healthblog/2009/09/11/interview-dr-tom-jefferson-and-pandemic-flu-vaccines/

Tom Jefferson is a medically trained epidemiologist and Cochrane reviewer who has a specialist research interest in the effectiveness of vaccinations.

"The question you are really asking is - how effective are seasonal vaccines? And our reviews either show no effect or limited effect, and poor data."

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004879.html

"Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

Children and the elderly are the two age groups that appear to have the most complications following an influenza infection. Influenza has a viral origin and often results in an acute respiratory illness affecting the lower or upper parts respiratory tract, or both. Viruses are mainly of two subtypes (A or B) and spread periodically during the autumn-winter months.
Many other viruses however, can also cause illness of the respiratory tract.

Diffusion and severity of the disease could be very different during different epidemics. Efforts to contain epidemic diffusion rely mainly on widespread vaccination. Recent policy from several internationally-recognised institutions, recommend immunisation of healthy children between 6 and 23 month of age (together with their contacts) as a public health measure.

The review authors found that in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus (82% of illnesses were prevented) than injected vaccines made from the killed virus (59%). Neither type was particularly good at preventing 'flu-like illness' caused by other types of viruses (33% and 36% respectively). In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. It was not possible to analyse the safety of vaccines from the studies due to the lack of standardisation in the information given but very little information was found on the safety of inactivated vaccines, the most commonly used vaccine, in young children."

[BeeBee]

^ Too many blogs on the net that aren't credible and here's just another case of that.

Here's how I got to the previous link.

http://www.cochrane.org/influenza/press.html

Interview: Dr Tom Jefferson and pandemic flu vaccines
6 August 2009

[BeeBee]

If you have published papers before, then you are aware of the cochrane review? Then read http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004407.html which should put an end to all your arguments about the MMR vaccine.



Authors' conclusions

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."


The argument was MMR caused developmental delay... the review shows there is no evidence to support that from the 139 studies. So where are those anti-vaccine websites getting their data? And is that data valid at all?

If you read the entire article, they mention the harm caused to children who were not vaccinated, and ended up getting the illness, and consequences of the illness. Even if there were adverse events of the vaccine not captured in the studies, they are of far smaller magnitude of not vaccinating, and catching the illness, otherwise it would be seen in the studies.

Sorry that is as simple as I can make it, hopefully not confusing?

This is the Cochrane review that you quoted yourself. Vaccine works, but you are arguing against ppl questioning vaccine safety and you are ignoring the conclusion of the authors that you are quoting? (the part in bold)

[BeeBee]

1. the blog is NOT from cochrane, stop trying to give it false credibility

2. obviously there is not data for h1n1... the vaccine is too new.

3. that article you posted is for the regular influenza vaccine, not h1n1. You can't imply the h1n1 vaccine is not effective just because the regular vaccine is not proven to be effective for kids under 2. Sorry, you really can't consider it objective evidence when you try to infer something for the general population based on something different in a select population.

The blog is a direct link from Cochrane. The person interviewed is from Cochrane.

Here's how I got to the previous link.

http://www.cochrane.org/influenza/press.html

Interview: Dr Tom Jefferson and pandemic flu vaccines
6 August 2009

Tom Jefferson is a medically trained epidemiologist and Cochrane reviewer who has a specialist research interest in the effectiveness of vaccinations.

You raised an important issue here. There is no data on H1N1. But it is distributed based on assumptions of past influenza vaccines. They are the same "family" of flu vaccines.

[ji_howa]

This is the Cochrane review that you quoted yourself. Vaccine works, but you are arguing against ppl questioning vaccine safety and you are ignoring the conclusion of the authors that you are quoting? (the part in bold)

Not arguing against people who question vaccine safety, but those that claim an association between developmental delay and MMR. You can question anything you want, but to pass off false information as evidence to support an opinion is not helpful.

The safety of H1N1 has been tested... the initial trial was small, but it was done. Also since so many countries have been using it over the last few months, we have much firmer data on safety. Trials for efficacy take longer to do given the nature of observation and data collection as well as comparing to cohorts not vaccinated. You can't design a trail to look at both safety and efficacy in such a short amount of time.

True we don't know the long term consequences of H1N1, and there is always the small possibility of adverse events, but based on the data we have now, it is more beneficial to receive if you are an at risk population.

Of course we can all turn to zombies tomorrow because of the vaccine, but common sense tells us this is unlikely - any arguments for other long term effects would have the same plausibility.

[bltman]

Part of the failure of seasonal flu vaccine is the guess work as to which flu strains will be the ones circulating during flu season. If the guess is wrong, the vaccines obviously do not work as well. This problem is not present in the H1N1 vaccine.

[hagbard]

If the guess is wrong, the vaccines obviously do not work as well.

Won't work at all.

[JAC]

Won't work at all.

Stop spouting nonsense. Vaccines will also confer partial immunity to related strains.

[hagbard]

Stop spouting nonsense. Vaccines will also confer partial immunity to related strains.

They won't even give full immunity to the strain their made for. They don't offer any protection to "related" strains.

[slim_shady]

Won't work at all.

They don't offer any protection to "related" strains.

Congrats on graduating Med School... what campus did you go to again?

[hagbard]

Congrats on graduating Med School... what campus did you go to again?

Just asked my wife, she went to UBC Med School, she says pretty much the same. As she just said, the proteins need to match and "similar" isn't close enough. Which med school did you attend?

[bltman]

Those of you from Ontario have very short memories.

In winter 1999-2000 emergency rooms in Ontario (especially Toronto) were swelling with patients with long wait times and occasional shut downs. The blame from the media and the opposition parties fell on Mike Harris and his cut backs in health care spending but much of the overcrowding came from people who showed up at emergency rooms with flu like illness.

The next season Ontario decided to adopt free annual flu vaccination for the entire population and not just for those over 65.

The impact of Ontario’s free vaccination strategy was examined with the result identified here: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050211

[Chr1s]

Personally, I don't believe in 'flushots,' and their 'effectiveness.'

I've had the flu shot twice in my life (doctors recommendation) and each time I got really ,really sick a day or two after. Of course, as the experts state, it wasn't because of the flushoot that I got ill, as that is merely anecdotal evidence. :rolleyes:

It's my health, my healthcare, and I do not perceive the risk of 'catching' the flu and flu complication to outweigh the long-term risk of the flushot and the artificial stimulation of my immune system in this case.

Instead, I educate myself and my family about the value of nutrition of food and herbs, value of sunshine and vitamin D3, Omega 3 fat balance, proper diet, importance of sleep and rest, sinus irrigation, and what to do when you feel even a bit rundown.

Also, a simple request of people who drive, who are easily observable and guilty of this; GET YOUR FINGER OUT OF YOUR NOSE! Then people wonder why they get 'sick,' either cold, sinus infection or a virus directly inserted. Too bad they pick out the mucous membrane which offers some protection. :D

[slim_shady]

Which med school did you attend?

Unlike you, I'm not spouting opinion as medical fact... nice try.

By all means though, don't hesitate to share a reputable link corroborating your "proteins need to match" statement... I'm interested in learning more about it.

[hagbard]

Unlike you, I'm not spouting opinion as medical fact... nice try.

By all means though, don't hesitate to share a reputable link corroborating your "proteins need to match" statement... I'm interested in learning more about it.

Try not selectively quoting, you asked me which medical school I went to. I replied:

"Just asked my wife, she went to UBC Med School, she says pretty much the same. As she just said, the proteins need to match and "similar" isn't close enough. Which med school did you attend?"

You got an answer from someone who went to medical school, which is what you wanted. Why don't you provide a link that proves that vaccines are effective against unrelated flu viruses. Now, stop pretending you know anything. :o

[JAC]

Try not selectively quoting, you asked me which medical school I went to. I replied:

"Just asked my wife, she went to UBC Med School, she says pretty much the same. As she just said, the proteins need to match and "similar" isn't close enough. Which med school did you attend?"

You got an answer from someone who went to medical school, which is what you wanted. Why don't you provide a link that proves that vaccines are effective against unrelated flu viruses. Now, stop pretending you know anything. :o

Oh, so your wife must be a virologist? Or perhaps an epidemiologist? Or is she just another GP passing on bad information?

Obviously a vaccine would not provide antibodies for an unrelated virus. Why would you even demand proof that it does?

I'm not even going to attempt to explain to you the concept of partial immunity. You can Google that at your leisure. Your wife's simplistic dismissal of "matching proteins" makes me wonder if she even graduated.

Now sure, no flu vaccine is perfect. In fact, some years they misguess entirely. But the years they get it right makes it worthwhile. According to the CDC:

Among healthy adults, influenza vaccine can prevent 70% to 90% of influenza-specific illness. Among the elderly, the vaccine reduces severe illnesses and complications by up to 60%, and deaths by 80%.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/index.html

Ultimately, until you can post a legitimate study that proves the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits, you (and your wife) are doing yourselves and others a disservice by propagating FUD. You should probably just shut up.

[hagbard]

Oh, so your wife must be a virologist? Or perhaps an epidemiologist? Or is she just another GP passing on bad information?

Obviously a vaccine would not provide antibodies for an unrelated virus. Why would you even demand proof that it does?

I'm not even going to attempt to explain to you the concept of partial immunity. You can Google that at your leisure. Your wife's simplistic dismissal of "matching proteins" makes me wonder if she even graduated.

Now sure, no flu vaccine is perfect. In fact, some years they misguess entirely. But the years they get it right makes it worthwhile. According to the CDC:

Among healthy adults, influenza vaccine can prevent 70% to 90% of influenza-specific illness. Among the elderly, the vaccine reduces severe illnesses and complications by up to 60%, and deaths by 80%.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/index.html

Ultimately, until you can post a legitimate study that proves the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits, you (and your wife) are doing yourselves and others a disservice by propagating FUD. You should probably just shut up.

Or maybe you should take a basic reading course.

[BeeBee]

Among healthy adults, influenza vaccine can prevent 70% to 90% of influenza-specific illness. Among the elderly, the vaccine reduces severe illnesses and complications by up to 60%, and deaths by 80%.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/index.html

Wow, 80% death reduction among the elderly. Those are very bold and amazing numbers from WHO. A bit different from what I've been reading from Cochrane and this article below:


The impact of Ontario’s free vaccination strategy was examined with the result identified here: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050211

I question some of the numbers that this article shows, but the following findings from this article contradicts WHO's view of the effectiveness of flu vaccine in the elderly:

"the findings suggest that in elderly populations, increasing vaccination levels were not associated with decreases in influenza-associated outcomes, and may have even been associated with increased risk of mortality and hospitalizations."

[bltman]

I question some of the numbers that this article shows, but the following findings from this article contradicts WHO's view of the effectiveness of flu vaccine in the elderly:

"the findings suggest that in elderly populations, increasing vaccination levels were not associated with decreases in influenza-associated outcomes, and may have even been associated with increased risk of mortality and hospitalizations."

So you reject the portions of the article that you disagree with but accept the portions of the article that you agree with? You can't selectivley use portions of the article you support while ignoring the rest as inaccurate.

That said, you failed to note the previous few lines in the article that talk about the controversy surrounding this very issue and the part that says the article does not resolve the debate. The authors provide footnotes to studies that supports the WHO view and also footnotes to applicable studies that examine why this may not be accurate.

[nosnoop]

Whom would you turn to for treatment and advice when you have appendicitis or pneumonia? Would you ask the bloggers and "internet expert" for help? So I just find it mind boggling that, in case of vaccinations, your doctors suddenly should not be trusted?

Here are a few things to consider:
1. Even though the actual number of deaths are not as many as seasonal flu, one needs to be aware that many H1N1 victims were previously young and healthy, or with treatable medical condition such as asthma. In US, 540 kids have died from H1N1, many without any serious medical conditions.
H1N1 is NOT your regular flu.

2. Talk to any doctors who work in the ICU, and get some idea of what's going on. And you will hear stories after stories of how some previously healthy individual just crashing with respiratory failure within days of the flu; many ending up in mechanical ventilation within hours of presenting to the emergency department. Some would survive, some (http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/swineflu/article/725530--h1n1-suspected-in-ottawa-prof-s-death) would not.

3. Apart from acute respiratory failure, the other killer was secondary infection. Some would come down with very severe pneumonia after seemingly gotten better initially.

4. The fact is no matter how you calculate the percentage, the number of victims are real. And most if not all of them will NOT die if vaccination was available to them! Many of the hundreds and thousands hospitalization from H1N1 would not happen either. It is just so tragic to see the young and the pregnant women not making it, when you know that a vaccine is now available.

5. Some complain about lack of clinical trials. The fact is the manufacturing of flu vaccine has been well established for so many years. Only the viral antigen part is different. We are more interested in how effective (seroconversion rate etc) the vaccine is, rather than the safety aspect from the trials. We really don't expect any unusual side effects as long as the manufacturing was OK. And the real world experience of the vaccine has proved that it is very safe and effective.

6. Most of us have no problem giving chickenpox live vaccine to our kids. And we know chicken pox can kill 50-90 healthy kids in US every year. So why do we react differently with a vaccine which can prevent hundreds and thousands of deaths?

7. Right now, there is no way to predict who would get a mild disease, and who would get very very sick. We know some are extra high risk, like <2 yrs old, pregnant woman or asthmatic patients. But we know it can also happen to anyone. So if you or your loved one come down with flu symptoms, ask your doctor for Tamiflu. It is free and no longer restricted to patients with high risk. You doctor can prescribe Tamiflu to anyone coming down with flu.

[hagbard]

So I just find it mind boggling that, in case of vaccinations, your doctors suddenly should not be trusted?



I do, he doesn't recommend it, and I'm not getting it (though the decision is mine).

[BeeBee]

I question some of the numbers that this article shows, but the following findings from this article contradicts WHO's view of the effectiveness of flu vaccine in the elderly:

"the findings suggest that in elderly populations, increasing vaccination levels were not associated with decreases in influenza-associated outcomes, and may have even been associated with increased risk of mortality and hospitalizations."


That said, you failed to note the previous few lines in the article that talk about the controversy surrounding this very issue and the part that says the article does not resolve the debate. The authors provide footnotes to studies that supports the WHO view and also footnotes to applicable studies that examine why this may not be accurate.

Alright, let look at the paragraph in question:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050211#pmed-0050211-b002

"Although many studies have found that for years with good vaccine match, influenza vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations and mortality in the elderly [2,3], the true extent of vaccine effectiveness versus the effects of healthy user biases has been the subject of much recent debate [6–9]. This study does not resolve that debate, however, the findings suggest that in elderly populations, increasing vaccination levels were not associated with decreases in influenza-associated outcomes, and may have even been associated with increased risk of mortality and hospitalizations. Potential explanations include immune senescence, or a decline in immune responsiveness with advancing age [37–40], and uncontrolled confounding. In working age adults, the effectiveness of influenza vaccines for preventing influenza infection and health care use is less controversial, and the results from this study are consistent with this literature [4,5]. While previous studies have failed to demonstrate reductions in hospitalizations among working age adults [41,42] and in health care use among children [5], the findings from this study suggest that increasing population-level vaccine uptake in these age groups may be associated with substantial reductions in these outcomes."


So weather the findings that the authors mentioned are from their article alone or from their review of the pros and cons articles, 'this findings' does not quite support their own conclusion from their research.


So you reject the portions of the article that you disagree with but accept the portions of the article that you agree with? You can't selectivley use portions of the article you support while ignoring the rest as inaccurate.


Hey, I am just pointing out some statements that I find contradictory. You make your own decision with whatever you agree.

Btw, I also read the article (2) that the authors quoted supporting the effectiveness of vaccine in the elderly... It's worth a read. (Read the author's conclusion, Plain Language Summary, Feedback, and Reply.)

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004876/frame.html

[hagbard]

...not for those sleeple who submit to the superior knowledge of their physicians.

Dr. Mercola speaks with Dr. Larry Palevsky, board-certified pediatrician.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx


*

[slim_shady]

...not for those sleeple who submit to the superior knowledge of their physicians.

Dr. Mercola speaks with Dr. Larry Palevsky, board-certified pediatrician.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx

I love it -- you start by putting down physicians by making a crack people who believe their "superior knowledge"... then you follow it up by posting a link to a physician that just happens to share your beliefs. Priceless! :lol:

[hagbard]

I love it -- you start by putting down physicians by making a crack people who believe their "superior knowledge"... then you follow it up by posting a link to a physician that just happens to share your beliefs. Priceless! :lol:

But like I said, I didn't post it for you 'rational' folks but for us crazies, so you should ignore it. :o

[Shiifty]

...not for those sleeple who submit to the superior knowledge of their physicians.

Dr. Mercola speaks with Dr. Larry Palevsky, board-certified pediatrician.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx

He sounds like a person who is trying to gain exposure/funding for his research. There are ALWAYS going to be some professionals for and against. Unfortunately he is spinning true statements to gain a following.

For example: Herd immunity busted -- he says that herd immunity doesn't prevent contracting the virus. No kidding! Herd immunity prevents rapid spreading of the disease and contains it to smaller regions, ultimately reducing the overall number of infections.

He also says polio and smallpox were reduced because of other reasons post WW2, not vaccines. I'm sure there are other reasons for reductions in addition to vaccinations, such as better treatments, antibiotics, etc., but vaccinations certainly helped, and smallpox couldn't have been eradicated without mass vaccination.

Adjuvants: He states that aluminum and sqaulene impair the immune system without stating how. They are used to boost the immune response, but he says they damage the immune system. Sqaulene is already present in our body...

He does raise a couple interesting questions, such as the immune response of natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity and mentions the risks associated with the disease must be weighed vs. the vaccine.

Some references backing up his wild statements would have been great.

[Shiifty]

Keeping back on topic -- parenting! :cheesygri

Recent data from the CDC for flu activity in the USA: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

H1N1 has been associated with the majority of flu activity (at least 75%). In particular, the number of pediatric deaths is higher than the previous seasonal averages, and we haven't even reached the start of the regular flu season. For a normal season, at this time, we should just start to see deaths associated with the flu.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2009-2010/images/IPD44_small.gif

You can see the first H1N1 wave from the spring, then the second wave in the fall which is still going up. Unfortunately we are going to see a larger number of child deaths this year due to H1N1.

This is entirely preventable with the vaccination! While the chances of a child dying from H1N1 is still small, it IS preventable and should strongly be considered especially for children who are at risk...

[SparrowSavvy]

The media hypes things up and puts the fear into people so that people who are impressionable will run out like sheep and be herded into doing things out of fear which will put big $$ into the hands of big business. It's like a tax on the stupid except you get no benefit out of it at all.

What a massive frickin experimental disaster. It's unnatural. And for what? The flu kills thousands of people each year and has been for ages.

So that a bunch of pharamaceutical companies, and so that those who were in the know could buy their stock?

Even if the vaccine was effective, what about the poor people in countries that can't afford to vaccinate? So you now you take millions of people in the West, give them the live virus and then let them travel all over the world like business as usual, and who gives a *ck about anyone in Africa or Asia that they come into contact with? It's all f*cked up. What about THEIR kids?

I agree. Of course the Canadian Gov. has a massive marketing Campaign- 'Everyone Get the Shot...(because we don't want to waste the millions of dollars that we paid to GSK, and that would make us look bad.).'

Also, I read an article in the paper that they set up these certain number and location of clinics to help keep track of who and how many people get the vaccine. Then they are able to see if there are any side effects after a week or two. I smell... guinea pigs!....
So get the shot, and then we'll see if anything bad happens to you.:|

[ji_howa]

I agree. Of course the Canadian Gov. has a massive marketing Campaign- 'Everyone Get the Shot...(because we don't want to waste the millions of dollars that we paid to GSK, and that would make us look bad.).'

Also, I read an article in the paper that they set up these certain number and location of clinics to help keep track of who and how many people get the vaccine. Then they are able to see if there are any side effects after a week or two. I smell... guinea pigs!....
So get the shot, and then we'll see if anything bad happens to you.:|

It has been 2 weeks since I got the shot, and other than the constant explosive diarrhea and the 3rd arm growing out my torso, things are fine.

Most kids with this flu do fine, high fever and cough x few days, but a few do become very ill. If your kid has asthma or diabetes you should consider giving them the shot if they have not gotten it already as they are at higher risk of getting complications.

It is better to prevent the enemy we do know - the flu, then worry about potential side-effects when all the data point to the shot being safe. If there was a major side-effect, we would know about it by know, several millions of people around the world have been vaccinated already.

[SparrowSavvy]

If there was a major side-effect, we would know about it by know, several millions of people around the world have been vaccinated already.

....because these people have been our 'testers', before the 'rest of us' go out and get it.

Doesn't it seem experimental when in the labs they are basically saying 'we haven't done any thorough tests, but ok, let's cross our fingers and hope this works!'?

Though, not to sound like a hypocrite, and I realize I am not a DR., but yes, if your child has a health condition it perhaps it may be better for them to get the shot. But I don't see any reasons that perfectly healthy people would absolutely need it. IMHO to help ward off illness, eat healthy, exercise, try to keep stress levels to a minimum, and get plenty of rest. And if you do get sick, make sure you drink lots of fluids, and rest.

[SparrowSavvy]

other than the constant explosive diarrhea and the 3rd arm growing out my torso, things are fine.


Y'know..there's a shot for that. :cheesygri

[BeeBee]

Keeping back on topic -- parenting! :cheesygri

Recent data from the CDC for flu activity in the USA:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/


Thanks for the link. That's a good place to read and learn more about flu.


This is entirely preventable with the vaccination! While the chances of a child dying from H1N1 is still small, it IS preventable and should strongly be considered especially for children who are at risk...

The vaccine can help prevent the flu for many people, but people have to know that the flu is not entirely preventable even when you get the vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm

"Children

A 4-year randomized, placebo-controlled trial of children aged 1-15 years found vaccine effectiveness ranging from 77% to 91%, following only one dose of vaccine given to previously unvaccinated children (Neuzil, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, 2001).

Another 2-year study of children aged 6-24 months found that the vaccine was 66% effective against laboratory-confirmed influenza in year 1 of the study. Only children who were fully vaccinated (i.e. had either 2 doses if not previously vaccinated, or 1 dose if previously vaccinated) versus unvaccinated children were included in the analysis. In the other year, few cases of influenza occurred, making it difficult to assess the vaccine’s effectiveness.

A study of influenza vaccine effectiveness among >5,000 children aged 6-23 months found vaccine effectiveness of 49% against clinically diagnosed pneumonia or influenza among fully vaccinated children (Ritzwoller, Pediatrics 2005).

All of these studies together suggest substantial benefit from influenza vaccination of children."

[nosnoop]

Also, I read an article in the paper that they set up these certain number and location of clinics to help keep track of who and how many people get the vaccine. Then they are able to see if there are any side effects after a week or two. I smell... guinea pigs!....
So get the shot, and then we'll see if anything bad happens to you.:|

[sigh] That's called post-market surveillance and data gathering. It is valuable in analysis for such an unprecedented massive immunization program. This is the first pandemic in history where a vaccine is available to combat it. And much valuable information can be found from studying its effect - particularly if the current vaccine manufacturing process is too slow/late to fight against a pandemic.

And adverse event after any medication is reportable, whether the vaccine/medication has been out for 1 week or a decade.

[nosnoop]

Dr. Mercola speaks with Dr. Larry Palevsky, board-certified pediatrician.

And you forgot to mention that Dr. Palevsky is also a co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association and Past–President of the American Holistic Medical Association.

So he has converted his practice to holistic/alternative medicine. And am I surprised by his converted stance on vaccination? Not a single bit.

[nosnoop]

But I don't see any reasons that perfectly healthy people would absolutely need it. IMHO to help ward off illness, eat healthy, exercise, try to keep stress levels to a minimum, and get plenty of rest. And if you do get sick, make sure you drink lots of fluids, and rest.

What you said is true for your regular seasonal flu.
But this particular H1N1 flu is different. Some previously perfectly healthy and often young individuals can develop very severe complications within days of infection, sometimes fatal. Although the percentage of that happening is not high, but since the flu is so prevalent, we are talking about hundreds of deaths and ICU admissions for these healthy people. And the vaccine is there to prevent these tragedies; and yes, it works.

Every year, the seasonal flu vaccine is an educated guess as to which flu would be prevalent that season, and as BeeBee pointed out, it may not be effective if the flu strain turned out to be different. This time, it is no guess work. It can prevent almost all cases of flu at this point (close to 100% of all flu isolated now are of H1N1). In a way, this is the most effective flu vaccine that we have ever had.

[D-Roc]

They are finally admitting (reported on 680) that the Swine Flu is no where near as fatal as the seasonal flu.

[hagbard]

They are finally admitting (reported on 680) that the Swine Flu is no where near as fatal as the seasonal flu.

H1N1 no deadlier than regular flu: top doctor
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/swine-flu/story.html?id=2226094

Which is what many of us have been saying all along.

[hagbard]

And you forgot to mention that Dr. Palevsky is also a co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association and Past–President of the American Holistic Medical Association.

So he has converted his practice to holistic/alternative medicine. And am I surprised by his converted stance on vaccination? Not a single bit.

Oh my, the horror! :o

[D-Roc]

H1N1 no deadlier than regular flu: top doctor
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/swine-flu/story.html?id=2226094

Which is what many of us have been saying all along.

I have been saying that too.

[nosnoop]

H1N1 no deadlier than regular flu: top doctor
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/swine-flu/story.html?id=2226094
Which is what many of us have been saying all along.

Yes, this has been known for a while. Many of the older age groups, which are usually hit hard by seasonal flu, are partially immune to H1N1 because of the 1957 pandemic and many years of widely circulating H1N1 seasonal flu prior to 1957.
From your article above:
"The number of deaths is not alarming," Dr. Brown said. "What's unsettling is the sudden deaths, such as the two Ontario children who died within days of one another in late October and the 38-year-old University of Ottawa professor who died Wednesday, three days after being admitted to hospital."

"When you look and see who is dying . . . those are the people where you shake your head, because those are people who normally don't fall from flu," Dr. Brown said.


And that has been what I have been saying all along.

[nosnoop]

Oh my, the horror! :o

Sure. When someone has a conflicting dual role, and make a statement, he should have made it clear (or the article should have made it clear) that he was speaking from a holistic practitioner's point of view, rather than a pediatrician's point of view.

[CSK'sMom]

An interesting read in regards to how the "numbers" of H1N1 vs. seasonal flu don't tell the whole story because of how they are calculated.

By The Canadian Press, cbc.ca, Updated: November 16, 2009 10:46 AMH1N1's true toll not shown by death tally

Are you confused by the swine flu numbers? Wondering why public health officials are making such a fuss about a virus that has so far killed so few people?

You aren't alone.

After all, seasonal flu kills between 4,000 to 8,000 Canadians and between 250,000 and 500,000 people worldwide each year. Yet as of late last week, seven months into the current outbreak, the H1N1 influenza A virus had killed 161 Canadians and an estimated 6,260 people around the globe.

Critics of Canada's pandemic response point to the discrepancy between those sets of numbers and question the full-court press.

But as tempting as it is to compare those two sets of figures and conclude that H1N1 is much ado about nada, you shouldn't. The two sets of numbers count different things, experts say.

"You might as well compare the number of flu deaths with the number of Subarus sold in Canada," said Jordan Ellenberg, an associate professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin who explained the problem in an article published online in Slate Magazine earlier this year.

"If you want to compare the number of confirmed deaths to seasonal flu to the number of confirmed deaths from H1N1, OK, you can do that," he said in an interview. "But what you can't do is compare the number of certified deaths on one side to the best estimate of the full number of deaths on the other side."

Seasonal flu's death toll is an estimate

The tally of confirmed H1N1 deaths captures the few times someone who caught the bug died from it after testing positive for it. The seasonal flu numbers are estimates, mathematical calculations aimed at capturing all the deaths influenza had a hand in.

The frequent attempts to equate the two vex Kumanan Wilson.

Wilson is an expert in public health policy, as well as an internal medicine physician at the Ottawa Health Research Institute. He readily admits he never sees anyone die of seasonal flu — a common claim that drives infectious-disease experts crazy.

Wilson is, however, seeing the destructive power of the current pandemic strain of influenza.

"Nobody has seen a flu season like this on the ground level," he said. "If you talk to any frontline worker, they've never seen anything like this. And we keep getting told this is nothing."

Emergency departments "are filled. All the children's hospitals are filled. Family docs I talk to say, 'Oh my God, I've never seen so many flu cases,' " Wilson added.

Wilson said it is "disingenuous" to criticize the response to the pandemic by comparing its low death toll with the substantially higher estimates of seasonal flu deaths. "I feel it underplays the significance of this."

But what is the difference between counting confirmed flu deaths one by one and estimating seasonal flu death tolls? The answer lies in the way flu kills and the way statisticians try to capture that effect.

Infection kills few directly

Influenza does kill some people directly. The phenomenon is sometimes seen in cases of the pandemic strain of H1N1 flu: Some victims develop an aggressive and ultimately fatal viral pneumonia.

But generally that number is small. A 2007 study of looking at 10 years of influenza deaths in Canada reported that deaths directly attributed to flu made up only eight per cent of all influenza-related deaths in a given year.

In most cases, influenza contributes to or hastens death. A bout of flu can trigger a heart attack in someone with heart disease. But the cause of death is likely to be listed as a heart attack.

Other times flu weakens the immune system of, say, an 80-year-old. Bacteria seize the opportunity and a pneumonia develops. The cause of death may be bacterial pneumonia, but the pneumonia wouldn't have occurred had the person not caught the flu.

A lot of seasonal flu doesn't get captured in official reports of deaths and hospitalizations. Not everyone dies in hospital. Hospitals don't always test for influenza. And if they do, if the test isn't done early enough in the infection, it may come back negative.

The 2007 study, led by Dena Schanzer of the Public Health Agency of Canada, estimated 12.5 deaths were attributable to flu for every certified flu death from 1990 to 1999, on average.

Public health researchers come up with figures like that by plotting curves of annual flu outbreaks against what is known, from long-term study, about how many people die on average each week of the year. When you lay the two curves over each other, you see deaths rise when flu hits.

Some of the excess mortality, as it is called, may be due to other factors, like poor winter driving conditions. But some of the excess is due to influenza. And over the years, public health researchers have worked out ways to calculate the portion of those extra deaths for which flu is to blame.

Mathematical models

"We try to isolate the amount that we can attribute to influenza, using our mathematical models," explains Dr. Jeff Kwong of Toronto's Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

Some people question the tactic. But Ellenberg said it's a valid approach.

"If somebody gets in a car crash and they bring them to the hospital and they die, you would say, 'Hey, that person was killed in a car crash,' " he explained. "And if somebody was like 'No, when they were in the car they were alive. They died of blood loss in the hospital,' that would be a little ridiculous, right?"

Often, though, there can be considerable lag time between an outbreak and the attempts to quantify its impact. It takes time for vital statistics to be processed. Kwong said it may be 2011 or so before Canadian researchers can come up with a good estimate of what has happened this year with H1N1.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control decided not to wait.

Last week they released new estimates of the toll H1N1 has taken in the United States. Their calculations, the methods for which are explained on the CDC's website, nearly quadrupled their estimate of how many Americans have died from the virus. They now peg it at 3,900.

Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC's centre for immunization and respiratory diseases, said the agency knew focusing on lab-confirmed cases was painting a "very incomplete" picture of the problem.

Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones, doesn't think the discrepancy will be as big here. "No test will capture 100 per cent [of cases]. But certainly we believe we're much closer to the actual number here in Canada."

But influenza expert Dr. Allison McGeer said she isn't sure how many cases are being missed. She knows the tests aren't sensitive enough to pick up all cases. But are they missing 15 per cent or 35 per cent? She can't tell, she said.

Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch, a modelling expert, isn't sure how much it matters at this point.

"If all this effort goes to save hundreds or a few thousand lives, that's still hundreds or a few thousand lives that have been saved," he said. "If these are preventable deaths, which I think is pretty clear many of them are, we should try to prevent them.

[nosnoop]

An interesting read in regards to how the "numbers" of H1N1 vs. seasonal flu don't tell the whole story because of how they are calculated.
..... Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch, a modelling expert, isn't sure how much it matters at this point.
"If all this effort goes to save hundreds or a few thousand lives, that's still hundreds or a few thousand lives that have been saved," he said. "If these are preventable deaths, which I think is pretty clear many of them are, we should try to prevent them.

How very true. We have a vaccine which can hit this flu dead on, and many lives can be saved.

[hagbard]

Sure. When someone has a conflicting dual role, and make a statement, he should have made it clear (or the article should have made it clear) that he was speaking from a holistic practitioner's point of view, rather than a pediatrician's point of view.

He's a practicing pediatrician. The article obviously states both, or you wouldn't be pointing it out. I think we'd all be better off if physicians took a more proactive approach to health.

[hagbard]

Yes, this has been known for a while. Many of the older age groups, which are usually hit hard by seasonal flu, are partially immune to H1N1 because of the 1957 pandemic and many years of widely circulating H1N1 seasonal flu prior to 1957.
From your article above:

They knew that back when they were predicting thousands of deaths.

And that has been what I have been saying all along.

Still doubt that those claimed have died from H1N1 are going to turn out to be that in the end.

And as for this flu being different than any other, balderdash. What usually kills people isn't the flu infection, its the complications that follow from it and the effect on pre-existing conditions. That's with H1N1 AND with seasonal flu, some thing.

[nosnoop]

They knew that back when they were predicting thousands of deaths.

No, they did not. Nobody knew how much immunity can be conferred from previous infections, let alone something which happened 30 to 40 years ago. Just like they initially did not know if last years flu vaccine, which contain a H1N1 component, could have any effect on this pandemic strain; and as it turned out, it had zero effect.

Still doubt that those claimed have died from H1N1 are going to turn out to be that in the end.


On the contrary, most H1N1 deaths are well documented (test positive, or autopsy). On the other hand, seasonal flu death figures are just calculated from mathematical models and are seldom proven.

And as for this flu being different than any other, balderdash. What usually kills people isn't the flu infection, its the complications that follow from it and the effect on pre-existing conditions. That's with H1N1 AND with seasonal flu, some thing.

In addition to that, we are seeing rapid onset respiratory failure in some young healthy individuals; something we do NOT see in seasonal flu.

[Redro]

H1N1 no deadlier than regular flu: top doctor

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2226094

and a related article...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2227669

Man I should be a doctor, I knew this 6 months ago.

[nosnoop]

Man I should be a doctor, I knew this 6 months ago.

And if you read a few messages back before you post, you would also have known that the link to the article and discussions about it have already been posted (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/something-consider-about-h1n1-vaccinations-808147/3/#post9764446).

[hagbard]

No, they did not.

Yes, they did. Been following it from the beginning. I'm sure most here are aware of how they were blowing it up from the start.

Nobody knew how much immunity can be conferred from previous infections, let alone something which happened 30 to 40 years ago. Just like they initially did not know if last years flu vaccine, which contain a H1N1 component, could have any effect on this pandemic strain; and as it turned out, it had zero effect.

As it turn out, it has a negative effect by making one more susceptible to the H1N1.

On the contrary, most H1N1 deaths are well documented (test positive, or autopsy). On the other hand, seasonal flu death figures are just calculated from mathematical models and are seldom proven.

You'll be eating humble pie before the end this. It is going to turn out that many of these H1N1 deaths are going to be the result of something else, though H1N1 may have been present at the time.

In addition to that, we are seeing rapid onset respiratory failure in some young healthy individuals; something we do NOT see in seasonal flu.

Its an odd one. I don't think we're getting a clear picture of what's going on, nor do I think the health authorities want you to have a clear picture (they want you in line for your flu shot).

[The_dream2k]

what would happen to a newborn in contact with swine flu who's mother did not get the vaccine??

[Shiifty]

You'll be eating humble pie before the end this. It is going to turn out that many of these H1N1 deaths are going to be the result of something else, though H1N1 may have been present at the time.

No kidding. Many people die from secondary infections such as pneumonia. And many people who have died, or will die, had chronic conditions that exacerbated the infection.

They are finally admitting (reported on 680) that the Swine Flu is no where near as fatal as the seasonal flu.
True. However see my previous post that shows a increase in the number of children dying from the disease compared to the regular flu: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/something-consider-about-h1n1-vaccinations-808147/4/#post9758828

Less elderly but more children are dying from H1N1, which may be why we're not seeing an increase in overall numbers vs. seasonal flu. Remember the flu season hasn't peaked, or even started yet ...

[nosnoop]

As it turn out, it has a negative effect by making one more susceptible to the H1N1.

This may or may not be true. This comes from one single unpublished Canadian analysis, and has not been observed anywhere else in the world. Many institutions including CDC challenged its conclusion.

You'll be eating humble pie before the end this.

I am more than willing to if I am proven wrong. H1N1 victims were put to more tests than any other seasonal flu victims. In US, they have revised their death rate up 3 to 4x of previous estimates. Canada has been extra conservative in its estimates, and it is very unlikely that it would revised downwards.

Its an odd one. I don't think we're getting a clear picture of what's going on, nor do I think the health authorities want you to have a clear picture (they want you in line for your flu shot).


Actually, the picture is quite clear and the phenomenon well known. People who developed acute respiratory failure suffered from a type of cytokine storm reactions, similar to what we saw in H5N1 Avian Flu and SARS; and something we don't see in seasonal flu. Very very fortunate for us, unlike Avian Flu and SARS, very few percentage would develop this severe form of illness. But it is this group of patients that vaccine is most valuable. As even with modern technology, treatment and life support, mortality rate among these group of previously young and healthy patients is unacceptably high.

[getmail99]

I am off from RFD a few days and it seems this thread is still going strong.

Sorry to hear this nurse has a reaction to the vaccine. I hope she will be okay.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/h1n1-reaction-help-if-you-can-815399/#post9776509

Hopefully, they don't just count it as "coincident".