Swine Flu

[Barrister]

In addition, in this report you can see that the incidence of death due to pneumonia and flu hasn't changed much at all from the 1960s to now, despite the widespread use of flu vaccines since the 1990s.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf

The flu is one of those things that we will never eradicate. The vaccine has its uses for those most compromised and at risk, but it makes little sense for everyone to get the vaccine. The risk is minimal, and there's no chance of getting rid of it completely, unlike polio or smallpox.

Restated for BB's benefit.

I've looked at your post.  You're drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Your link only deals with rates, and you are stating that the rate of flu deaths has not decreased.  That DOES NOT MEAN the flu shot is ineffective.  There are too many variables at play: how many people actually get the flu shot, people are living longer, rates of other causes of death have changed.

Now if you have access to a proper epidemiological survey that shows that the rate of fatalities in people who received the flu shot is the same as in people who did not, I'll look at it.  But your link proves nothing.

[crazy canuck]

The reason the seasonal flu is not "that" effective is because we need to guess the antigens months in advance, before the start of the flu season.

The h1n1 flu vaccine, however, is a killer vaccine because we know and have the antigen in advance since April, and it has been very stable. So this criticism on h1n1 flu vaccine relayed from seasonal flu vaccine is not warranted. So the matching between the circulating flu strain and the vaccine antigen is almost perfect.

I agree, and if we hadn't already had the disease, I would have let Jeremy get it.

But if the children around him get the h1n1, they can transmit it to him through the school or the playground. And I understand he has medical complications, which puts him at a greater risk for severe complications if he catches the flu.

And dont forget.  She doesnt even know for sure if they actually got it.  They got sick with flu like symptoms which she assumes is the H1N1.  I take what Berkut said about being a free country and all but when people make dumb assed decision that can affect people around them, like this, I am wondering whether innoculations should be mandatory unless there is an express medical opinion that the shot should not be given.

[Drakken]

The reason the seasonal flu is not "that" effective is because we need to guess the antigens months in advance, before the start of the flu season.

The h1n1 flu vaccine, however, is a killer vaccine because we know and have the antigen in advance since April, and it has been very stable. So this criticism on h1n1 flu vaccine relayed from seasonal flu vaccine is not warranted. So the matching between the circulating flu strain and the vaccine antigen is almost perfect.

I agree, and if we hadn't already had the disease, I would have let Jeremy get it.

But if the children around him get the h1n1, they can transmit it to him through the school or the playground. And I understand he has medical complications, which puts him at a greater risk for severe complications if he catches the flu.

And dont forget.  She doesnt even know for sure if they actually got it.  They got sick with flu like symptoms which she assumes is the H1N1.  I take what Berkut said about being a free country and all but when people make dumb assed decision that can affect people around them, like this, I am wondering whether innoculations should be mandatory unless there is an express medical opinion that the shot should not be given.

Although I agree with you in principle, it would be much harder to sell than, say, a smallpox or some other lethal pandemic making a return. To most laymen, h1n1 flu is just another flu, and they react as if it were one when, in fact, the reason why other flu strains are only "seasonal flus" is because we have acquired immunity against them in the first place. 95% of us don't have it at all for the h1n1 (except people who have withstood the 1957 h1n1 pandemic and are stil alive today), which makes it much easily transmissible, and people tend to "forget" that or choose not to care.

Nowadays, pseudoskeptical people, legitimate doubters, and cuckoos with silly beliefs alike can all find "credible information" supporting their findings with a wisk of a finger through the internet. In fact, I'd say that this is one of the first time since the Scopes Monkey Trial that pseudoscience has totally won the popular "hearts and minds" battle against science, with potentially deadly consequences for our societies.

If the same vaccine had been available in 1918, people would have sold their mother to have one without a doubt. Man, doctors even went as far as to inject plasma coming from people ill from the Spanish flu as a sort of proto-vaccine to innoculate healthy patients.

[Maximus]

/eats popcorn

Mass hysteria would be even funnier if it wasn't so deadly.

[Barrister]

Meri, doing some quick internet research on proper studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccines actually turned up this interesting article in Yi's favourite magazine, The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

Now it spends much more time focusing in on the very small minority who think flu vaccines are ineffective, but all-in-all it is a good overview on the difficulties of measuring efficacy.

The most interesting part I found was on page 2:

"Tom Jefferson has taken a lot of heat just for saying, 'Here's the evidence: it's not very good,'" says Majumdar. "The reaction has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies." Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies." Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.

Why is this part interesting?  The biggest critic of current research says that of 4 properly conducted studies, 2 show no result, and 2 show a benefit in children.

At worst the vaccine is useless, at best it will help your kids.  You have nothing to lose, and lots to gain.

[Drakken]

Barrister, I have lots of things to state on this Atlantic article, but sadly I don't have the time.

Let's say that Tom Jefferson has the reputation of having a VERY... binary vision  of what should constitute vaccine efficiency, to the point that people have coined the term "methodolatry" to comment his abrasive style and very all-or-nothing approach on vaccination.

So much in fact that he has become among infectiologists akind to what Duesberg is to the HIV/AIDS science community - a raving lunatic without any credibility. To Tom Jefferson, flu vaccines are basically medical marketing scams.

I have commented lots this article on the EUOT. I even went as far as to read his infamous Cochrane Collaboration paper made... in 1999.

[Maximus]

Barrister, I have lots of things to state on this Atlantic article, but sadly I don't have the time.

Let's say that Tom Jefferson has the reputation of having a VERY... binary vision  of what should constitute vaccine efficiency, so much in fact that he has become among infectiologists akind to what Duesberg is to the HIV/AIDS science community - a raving loon. To Tom Jefferson, flu vaccines are basically medical marketing scams.

I have commented lots this article on the EUOT. I even went as far as to read his infamous Cochrane Collaboration paper made... in 1999.

Don't tell me you're involved in the infection community too.

[Drakken]

Barrister, I have lots of things to state on this Atlantic article, but sadly I don't have the time.

Let's say that Tom Jefferson has the reputation of having a VERY... binary vision  of what should constitute vaccine efficiency, so much in fact that he has become among infectiologists akind to what Duesberg is to the HIV/AIDS science community - a raving loon. To Tom Jefferson, flu vaccines are basically medical marketing scams.

I have commented lots this article on the EUOT. I even went as far as to read his infamous Cochrane Collaboration paper made... in 1999.

Don't tell me you're involved in the infection community too.

No, it is just that as skeptic and as proponent of the scientific method and science-based medicine, the anti-flu vaccine kool-aid literally drives me nuts. I have read what they present as "evidence" that the flu vaccine is a sham, and I wasn't convinced at all compared to the mountain of scientific evidence that the flu vaccine is effective, safe, and  a good tool in healthcare. In fact, it drives me to agree with crazy canuck and advocate mandatory vaccination.

Is it 100% safe and 100% effective all the time, every time? No. Thus, according to Tom Jefferson, this "proves" that the vaccine is bullshit and fraudulent.  But no scientific nor healthcare providers ever argued it was such. The limitations of flu vaccination are, in fact, very well known to the scientific community, but it is undeniable it works. 

[Ed Anger]

/eats popcorn

Mass hysteria would be even funnier if it wasn't so deadly.

I've enjoyed this thread. 

[DocDoom7]

Pass on the normal vaccine.  Flu = 3-4 days home from work watching Blurays and playing Fallout 3.  Flu Shot for me = sore arm for a few days and an annoying cold.   Undecided on Swine vaccine, not even sure if its even around by me yet.  County isn't providing it to us social workers (and they ran out of the normal shot anyways before my building was up ... oops).   Don't have any underlying health concerns and I'm not in the danger age range, so I'm unconcerned.  Based on the results of the individuals at work and their children that have had it, for me Swine Flu will = 5 days or so of Blu Ray and Fallout 3

[DocDoom7]

Though I wonder if the universal vaccine is ever completed if we'll have mandatory vaccinations.  Would you need to do a mass vaccination of pigs/poultry as well just to make sure something crazy doesn't get working in them and slip around the universal human vaccine? 

[merithyn]

Meri, doing some quick internet research on proper studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccines actually turned up this interesting article in Yi's favourite magazine, The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

Now it spends much more time focusing in on the very small minority who think flu vaccines are ineffective, but all-in-all it is a good overview on the difficulties of measuring efficacy.

The most interesting part I found was on page 2:

"Tom Jefferson has taken a lot of heat just for saying, 'Here's the evidence: it's not very good,'" says Majumdar. "The reaction has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies." Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies." Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.

Why is this part interesting?  The biggest critic of current research says that of 4 properly conducted studies, 2 show no result, and 2 show a benefit in children.

At worst the vaccine is useless, at best it will help your kids.  You have nothing to lose, and lots to gain.

I've never argued that the flu vaccine is ineffective. I believe that it's very effective, when done correctly (i.e. the right strains are inoculated at the right times). What I argue is the need of it in healthy individuals.

See, that's just it. I don't have a problem with vaccines. My kids are up-to-date on the necessary shots, and I strongly advocate for those with compromised immune systems to get the shots that will help them get through another cold and flu season. But I don't buy that just because we have a shot for something we should use it. There are vaccines for illnesses that are nothing but an inconvenience, like chickenpox and the regular seasonal flu. I don't think that those are a good idea, because, especially with the chickenpox vaccine, getting the disease is usually a more effective way to avoid bigger issues later in life.

I don't have a problem with people getting them if that's what they'd prefer. I just don't happen to believe that they're necessary, and take issue with those who argue otherwise. Smallpox kills, mumps cause sterility, tetanus saves lives every day. Those are necessary shots. Not getting a 24-hour flu or a bout of spots isn't.

[merithyn]

No, it is just that as skeptic and as proponent of the scientific method and science-based medicine, the anti-flu vaccine kool-aid literally drives me nuts. I have read what they present as "evidence" that the flu vaccine is a sham, and I wasn't convinced at all compared to the mountain of scientific evidence that the flu vaccine is effective, safe, and  a good tool in healthcare. In fact, it drives me to agree with crazy canuck and advocate mandatory vaccination.

Is it 100% safe and 100% effective all the time, every time? No. Thus, according to Tom Jefferson, this "proves" that the vaccine is bullshit and fraudulent.  But no scientific nor healthcare providers ever argued it was such. The limitations of flu vaccination are, in fact, very well known to the scientific community, but it is undeniable it works. 

I agree that Tom Jefferson is a nutcase. Is part of it a marketing scam? Only as much as any other drug pushing is by pharmaceutical companies. It's an effective way to avoid the flu. It's just non-essential for 95% of the population if the point is to avoid death, and in the end it just isn't as effective in the long run as actually getting the disease. (And that comes straight from my doctor's mouth. His argument is that if you can avoid the disease, why not do so?)

[Berkut]

Well, apparently this Saturday was not soon enough - Jake appears to have the flu.

[Malthus]

Well, apparently this Saturday was not soon enough - Jake appears to have the flu.

Oh man, that sucks. 

Carl is lining up today, the first day it is offered - I hope it is not too much of a circus at the clinic.