QuoteAddress swine flu vaccine fears, doctor urges
Last Updated: Monday, September 14, 2009 | 4:14 PM ET
In a poll of 1,000 Canadians conducted in late August, only 45 per cent of respondents said they planned to get the vaccine and an equal percentage said they would not take the shot. In a poll of 1,000 Canadians conducted in late August, only 45 per cent of respondents said they planned to get the vaccine and an equal percentage said they would not take the shot. (Greg Baker/AP Photo)The federal government needs to reassure the public that it will track the swine flu vaccine's safety and effectiveness, an Ottawa health policy researcher says.
Some Canadians at high risk of getting swine flu have said they don't trust the vaccine enough to get the shot.
"People will refuse to take the vaccine if they don't have confidence in how the vaccine is being rolled out," said Dr. Kumanan Wilson, a doctor of internal medicine at the Ottawa Hospital and Canada Research Chair in public health policy at the University of Ottawa.
Wilson worries that fear of the vaccine could undermine government flu prevention programs. That also concerns Dr. Lindy Sampson, chief of infectious diseases and head of pandemic planning at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa.
"Having the vaccine and being able to distribute it will be a very key part of our response," she said, adding that Canada has a solid record when it comes to the safety and efficacy of the vaccines it produces and distributes.
"The government will not put forth a vaccine that is not safe and I think we need to get that message out."
Pregnant women, health-care workers, those living in northern and remote communities and people under age 65 with chronic health conditions are expected to be targeted first when the vaccine is released in Canada in November.
Arwin Widmer-Bobick is pregnant, but doesn't plan to get the vaccine. She asked her doctor about it, and he told her he didn't have enough information to recommend whether she should get it or not. After talking to her midwife, who recommended the vaccine, she still decided not to get the shot.
'People will refuse to take the vaccine if they don't have confidence in how the vaccine is being rolled out,' warned Dr. Kumanan Wilson. 'People will refuse to take the vaccine if they don't have confidence in how the vaccine is being rolled out,' warned Dr. Kumanan Wilson. (CBC)"Myself and a lot of other pregnant women I know are questioning ... what the real facts are," she said. "In terms of the vaccine itself and being a guinea pig ... how do I calculate that risk?"
Widmer-Bobick isn't the only one who has concerns. In a poll of 1,000 Canadians conducted in late August, only 45 per cent of respondents said they planned to get the vaccine and an equal percentage said they would not take the shot. The poll was commissioned by the Canadian Press and conducted by Harris-Decima.
Wilson said many people have bad memories of the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Hundreds of people in the U.S. came down with Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder that causes paralysis, and 25 people died before the vaccine was pulled from use. Wilson said scientists still don't know exactly what went wrong with that vaccine.
In addition, only 30 per cent of Canadians typically even get the seasonal flu vaccine.
There are also public concerns about the safety of an additive in the swine flu vaccine called an adjuvant that is intended to help boost a person's immunity to the flu.
Internet spreads fear
Wilson said vaccine production is much safer now than it was in 1976. But there is also an anti-vaccine movement spreading fears across the internet, and public officials must wage a better campaign against those negative messages when it comes to the swine flu vaccine, he said.
"It's going to be a very safe vaccine but we just have to take measures to ensure that it's as safe as possible and the safety is being monitored. And this needs to be communicated to the public," he added.
A spokesperson for the Public Health Agency of Canada said the government has a monitoring program in place with the Influenza Research Network to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
Wilson said public health officials need to better publicize that and be up front about how they will evaluate any concerns that are brought up and how potential adverse effects are being reported and tracked. They also need to be clear about what they do and don't know in order to earn public trust, he added.
Meanwhile, Widmer-Bobick said she remains confident about her decision not to get the flu shot, because there are antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu to treat swine flu.
"If I get a fever, I'm going to my doctor's office and I'm going to get the antiviral," she said, "and I'm quite confident that that is both safe and effective, which is something I can't say about the vaccine at this moment."
Just mind-bogging. :huh:
And in Quebec, two pseudo-experts, Jean-Jacques Crèvecoeur and Cyrinne ben Mamou, make credulous people pay 20$ to assist a conference in which they argue that
the OMS is organizing the genocide of millions of people through contaminated vaccines. Just wowwwwwwwwww... :bleeding:
Added to that e-mails are circulating dubious documents, either taken out of context or doctored, to feed the big pharma conspiracy. And people buy this bull. One has only to read the comments on the CBC websites to see that quite a few people will refuse to take the vaccine and put themselves and their loved ones in danger by fear of being poisoned.
First I've heard of it.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:23:44 AM
First I've heard of it.
Good for you if have been spared. But in Quebec, it has literally exploded.
So much, in fact, that I wouldn't be in disagreement, if the next h1n1 wave is strong enough, if the Quebec Public Health Care decided in favour of compulsory vaccination for all.
From this year's "The Amazing Meeting 7" a panel discussion on the Anti-Vax movement. This is old hat and predates the MMR anti-vax bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap_0uQDbZl4
I'll have to go to TAM once in my life, especially since it is in Las Vegas. :wub:
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 10:29:51 AM
I'll have to go to TAM once in my life, especially since it is in Las Vegas. :wub:
They have TAM london as well. Though, this year it sold out almost immediately.
The way the vaccine was created is shady at best. Barely has been tested & the company making it as requested immunity (no idea if they got it tho). I don't mind getting vaccinated but they need to test the damn thing, first.
Can we bring down Harper over this? :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 10:46:19 AM
The way the vaccine was created is shady at best. Barely has been tested & the company make it as requested immunity (no idea if they got it tho). I don't mind getting vaccinated but they need to test the damn thing, first.
Why? It is basically the same flu vaccine we get every year, and it has been proven to be secure. Of course it's being tested and monitored, like every flu vaccine since it exists.
The only difference is that, in season flu vaccination, we have to guesstimate which strain will be the dominant flu in the next flu season. This time, however, we already know which strain to protect ourselves from, and the strain hasn't been reported to have mutated enough to be dissimilar from the first wave.
I'm not going to get the regular flu vaccine. I'm not 80.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 10:46:19 AM
The way the vaccine was created is shady at best. Barely has been tested & the company making it as requested immunity (no idea if they got it tho). I don't mind getting vaccinated but they need to test the damn thing, first.
Most of the news articles here in Ontario are critical of how long the vaccine is taking to get here - noting that in the US they are already getting it.
See, the problem here is that a "well tested" vaccine will prove too late, should there be as expected a fall outbreak of the flu. It's already fall now ...
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 10:52:06 AM
I'm not going to get the regular flu vaccine. I'm not 80.
No, but don't visit your
grandparents, who are 80. Plus also all the little children around you. :rolleyes:
Vaccination is not just to immunize, but to stop the propagation to more vulnerable people.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:52:34 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 10:46:19 AM
The way the vaccine was created is shady at best. Barely has been tested & the company making it as requested immunity (no idea if they got it tho). I don't mind getting vaccinated but they need to test the damn thing, first.
Most of the news articles here in Ontario are critical of how long the vaccine is taking to get here - noting that in the US they are already getting it.
See, the problem here is that a "well tested" vaccine will prove too late, should there be as expected a fall outbreak of the flu. It's already fall now ...
Indeed, but the debate lies on whether we should use a vaccine with or without adjuvant. It's expediency vs quantity. At least it remains a sane debate.
In Quebec, though, the debate is whether the vaccine is lethal, dangerous and part of the the BPhC(tm) to poison the population. Asinine would be an understatement.
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 10:52:06 AM
I'm not going to get the regular flu vaccine. I'm not 80.
So-called "herd immunity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Dunno what the math is like for flu vaccine on this.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 10:46:19 AM
The way the vaccine was created is shady at best. Barely has been tested & the company making it as requested immunity (no idea if they got it tho). I don't mind getting vaccinated but they need to test the damn thing, first.
The thing about flu vaccines is that the epedemic is over by the time the vaccine is fully tested. As Drakken said, the vaccine is basically identical to previous vaccines but being subtly different from the previous ones making it suitable for the present vaccine.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:56:54 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 10:52:06 AM
I'm not going to get the regular flu vaccine. I'm not 80.
So-called "herd immunity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Dunno what the math is like for flu vaccine on this.
Given that this strain is completely new, the only way to get immunity is either vaccination or get the flu. Don't know why, I prefer the former.
Quote from: Viking on October 07, 2009, 10:31:32 AM
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 10:29:51 AM
I'll have to go to TAM once in my life, especially since it is in Las Vegas. :wub:
They have TAM london as well. Though, this year it sold out almost immediately.
I just love Steven Novella's interventions.
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe plain rocks! :)
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 10:59:44 AM
Given that this strain is completely new, the only way to get immunity is either vaccination or get the flu. Don't know why, I prefer the former.
My point is that, by getting vaccinated even if you personally do not fear the disease, you are helping others who have reason to fear the disease by providing 'herd immunity" - i.e., you can no longer act as a vector.
This is one reason why anti-vaccination types are asses.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 11:06:02 AM
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 10:59:44 AM
Given that this strain is completely new, the only way to get immunity is either vaccination or get the flu. Don't know why, I prefer the former.
My point is that, by getting vaccinated even if you personally do not fear the disease, you are helping others who have reason to fear the disease by providing 'herd immunity" - i.e., you can no longer act as a vector.
This is one reason why anti-vaccination types are asses.
I agree.
My point is that for the h1n1 flu strain, herd immunity will come only post facto, after a significant amount of people get vaccinated or get sick, because this strain of h1n1 is an unknown one to our immune system.
Right now, the population, especially those aged 0 to 64, have no herd immunity at all against this strain. People aged 65 and older seem to have some form of immunity that makes them less likely to catch it, but the higher proportion of respiratory disease or other infection makes them more likely to be hospitalized.
And what is scary about the current h1n1 flu is that it while it is very mild in most cases, it's either that or very severe, with no middle ground. If you get to the hospital, it is usually in ICU. And in severe cases, it literally attacks the alveols in the lungs.
I'm a little worried about getting the H1N1 shot, but I do want it. I work for a hospital and while not in direct contact with patients, the hospital is encouraging all of us who work here to get the shot. I already got this year's regular flu shot at the hospital, and have been getting that yearly since I've worked here.
Quote from: KRonn on October 07, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
I'm a little worried about getting the H1N1 shot, but I do want it. I work for a hospital and while not in direct contact with patients, the hospital is encouraging all of us who work here to get the shot. I already got this year's regular flu shot at the hospital, and have been getting that yearly since I've worked here.
I've been vaccinated against the flu for the last two years, since it is supplied by my company for free. I had a runny nose and small headache the first time, and itching in my arm the second time. All these are lightweight compared to regular flu symptoms.
If you have been vaccinated with the regular flu vaccine already, why are you worried? It is the same vaccine, but with a different strain. And this time, since we know which strain, immunization is almost guaranteed. When the strain in the vaccine matches the flu strain in circulation, flu vaccines are very efficient.
I'm more worried about the h1n1 spreading in the population before enough vaccine doses are ready.
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 11:36:09 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 07, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
I'm a little worried about getting the H1N1 shot, but I do want it. I work for a hospital and while not in direct contact with patients, the hospital is encouraging all of us who work here to get the shot. I already got this year's regular flu shot at the hospital, and have been getting that yearly since I've worked here.
I've been vaccinated against the flu for the last two years, since it is supplied by my company for free. I had a runny nose and small headache the first time, and itching in my arm the second time. All these are lightweight compared to regular flu symptoms.
If you have been vaccinated with the regular flu vaccine already, why are you worried? It is the same vaccine, but with a different strain. And this time, since we know which strain, immunization is almost guaranteed. When the strain in the vaccine matches the flu strain in circulation, flu vaccines are very efficient.
I'm more worried about the h1n1 spreading in the population before enough vaccine doses are ready.
I'm not that worried, since the H1N1 vaccine isn't too different from other flu vaccines. I'm more worried about H1N1 effects and getting the vaccination in time, since young and healthy people are dying from it, though that's rare. I heard on the news that Boston area hospitals and health care facilities have started receiving the vaccine. So far it's the nasal spray that uses a live virus. The shot uses a dead virus and that's coming a bit later.
I'm gettignt eh shot becasue it's being provided by my work. if i had to go out of my way i wouldn't get it. I still think the swine flu crap is being over blown.
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 11:36:09 AM
I'm more worried about the h1n1 spreading in the population before enough vaccine doses are ready.
Another thing I am worried about is that the regular schedule of vaccination was delayed because of H1N1. For example our office employees should have recieved their shots this week, as we do every year. But that has been put on hold indefinitely.
If this is widespread then more people will become sick due to normal flu then perhaps will become infected with H1N1
Quote from: HVC on October 07, 2009, 11:51:56 AM
I'm gettignt eh shot becasue it's being provided by my work. if i had to go out of my way i wouldn't get it. I still think the swine flu crap is being over blown.
It is not because it is mostly benign that it is overblown, it is still a pandemic. But of course, it isn't the new Spanish Flu pandemic everyone feared, but it remains dangerous.
If you get a severe case and survive, it can scrap your lungs for good nonetheless. That, plus the fact that you could be a vector for infection, are all good reasons to get vaccinated.
Get vaccinated, and you don't have to worry about this strain anymore - ever.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2009, 11:53:07 AM
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 11:36:09 AM
I'm more worried about the h1n1 spreading in the population before enough vaccine doses are ready.
Another thing I am worried about is that the regular schedule of vaccination was delayed because of H1N1. For example our office employees should have recieved their shots this week, as we do every year. But that has been put on hold indefinitely.
If this is widespread then more people will become sick due to normal flu then perhaps will become infected with H1N1
Well, given that the h1n1 is now the dominant flu strain worldwide it makes sense to put all production resources for this strain in priority.
Mine for season flu was reported to next January.
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 10:25:46 AM
Good for you if have been spared. But in Quebec, it has literally exploded.
same in th US as I've heard.
Is it me or is Drakken awful defensive about this wondrous vaccine?
From an individual perspective it makes much more sense not to get the vaccine. If you take the shot, you are 70-90% protected/immune for 2-5 years. If you actually get the flu and survive (which is something like 99,995% probable) you are 100% immune for the rest of your life. Same goes for getting a shot against the "normal" flu. It is much better to actually get the flu and recover than to get the vaccination against it. On a population level, the same applies, the mass vaccinations actually diminishes the populations immune system defence.
As for the "you should get the shot to avoid infecting others"-argument, that is just crap. You can carry the virus without having symptoms, and you can transfer the virus despite being vaccined against it.
What remains is the national-economic perspective. The only one with real merit. Simply put, the economy is hurt bad if 10-20-40% of the workforce is in bed for a week with the flu. But its not really a super-compelling argument to take a vaccine that has been rushed through testing. In Sweden, we get the added benefit of some mecury injected together with the vaccine. (This due to packing. The vaccine is delivered in several-dose-bottles instead of in one-dose-packs. This means some form of protection for the vaccine is required (because of the opened bottle being non-sterile) and for some reason, mercury is chosen for this.
Something stinks in this mess. I know for a fact that Swedens deal with Glaxo-Klein-Smith requires Sweden to buy 18 million doses if and when the WHO has classed an influenza as a pandemic. I suspect other nations have similar provisions in their deals with the vaccine manufacturers. It is one of the prerequisites for being a priority country when it comes to sorting out who gets the first deliveries.
Anyway, that means that the desicion from the WHO to declare this one a pandemic meant a very very large profit for the medical companies manufacturing the vaccine.
Now...does anyone really think this AH1N1 fits the common understanding of the word "pandemic"?
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2009, 12:23:44 PM
Is it me or is Drakken awful defensive about this wondrous vaccine?
Yeah, I'm a proxy for Big Pharma, they pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars and supply me an infinite number of sexy chicks to sell you the Kool-Aid. :lol:
No, it is the fact that an audience is given on a silver platter to these excremental pieces of lies and misinformation that gets to me, especially since it can lead to millions of people getting sick, hospitalized, or dead. This isn't measles we are talking about.
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 12:40:32 PM
This isn't measles we are talking about.
No, the measles is actually dangerous, this flu is not really.
Whats with the hysteria?
It's just a flu. Some people will die, yeah. But not, as Neil would say, enough.
Quote from: Bluebook on October 07, 2009, 12:38:47 PM
From an individual perspective it makes much more sense not to get the vaccine. If you take the shot, you are 70-90% protected/immune for 2-5 years. If you actually get the flu and survive (which is something like 99,995% probable) you are 100% immune for the rest of your life. Same goes for getting a shot against the "normal" flu. It is much better to actually get the flu and recover than to get the vaccination against it. On a population level, the same applies, the mass vaccinations actually diminishes the populations immune system defence.
Gee, let me choose: get vaccinated and not worry about the flu pandemic, or get the flu on purpose to get immunized, but perhaps lose my lungs or my life in the process. This isn't some virtual game theory, dude: people get sick and potentially die in this.
As for the mass vaccination diminishing the immune system defence, yeah I guess mass vaccination against polio and smallpox decreased our collective immune defences as well. I guess smallpox would have disappeared better with vitamins and homeopathy?
I won't argue further than that. It's beyond the level of bullshit.
QuoteAs for the "you should get the shot to avoid infecting others"-argument, that is just crap. You can carry the virus without having symptoms, and you can transfer the virus despite being vaccined against it.
Vaccination significantly decreases the change of catching it in the first place. While not 100%, it is stil very high (preliminary results show around 98% for adults under 65, and 93% 65 and older, all of them with one dose). It is still better than zero, where every single people who has not already infected by h1n1 are right now.
QuoteWhat remains is the national-economic perspective. The only one with real merit. Simply put, the economy is hurt bad if 10-20-40% of the workforce is in bed for a week with the flu. But its not really a super-compelling argument to take a vaccine that has been rushed through testing. In Sweden, we get the added benefit of some mecury injected together with the vaccine. (This due to packing. The vaccine is delivered in several-dose-bottles instead of in one-dose-packs. This means some form of protection for the vaccine is required (because of the opened bottle being non-sterile) and for some reason, mercury is chosen for this.
Bullshit, rushed to testing. Have you even read this thread? It has
already been tested because it is the same flu vaccine as the seasoned flu vaccine. Current testings confirm that, as predicted, it is efficient in getting enough immune reaction. The only issue is whether we use adjuvant or not. Indeed, economic reasons enter into as well, but the main reason is that we don't want to have thousands of dead people in our morgues, and even more sick people clogging our ICU in health care facilities. Because, you know, it is a health care issue?
Quote
Something stinks in this mess. I know for a fact that Swedens deal with Glaxo-Klein-Smith requires Sweden to buy 18 million doses if and when the WHO has classed an influenza as a pandemic. I suspect other nations have similar provisions in their deals with the vaccine manufacturers. It is one of the prerequisites for being a priority country when it comes to sorting out who gets the first deliveries.
The only thing that stinks in this mess is how people are ready to cherry-pick factoids and spin it around to convince people to put their lives in danger for a silly belief proven to be falsehood.
Quote
Anyway, that means that the desicion from the WHO to declare this one a pandemic meant a very very large profit for the medical companies manufacturing the vaccine.
Enjoying the conspiracy Kool-Aid? I hope it is Fruit Punch. I love Fruit Punch. It makes the cyanide taste sweet. :tinfoil:
Quote
Now...does anyone really think this AH1N1 fits the common understanding of the word "pandemic"?
Pandemic as it spreads quickly throughout the world in a small time frame? Hell yeah. Nowhere the definition of a pandemic includes lethality, only the exponential world spreading of disease.
But of course, any other "common" definition would be moving the goalpost.
Quote from: Bluebook on October 07, 2009, 12:41:52 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 12:40:32 PM
This isn't measles we are talking about.
No, the measles is actually dangerous, this flu is not really.
Whats with the hysteria?
Measles are dangerous now because it has begun spreading again among children because some fucked-up parents decided to listen to Jenny McCarthy and not vaccinate their children, using the same logical frame you have presented, and thus decrease the herd immunity to a critical level.
The flu, not dangerous? Every flu is dangerous and kills people, both old and young. :huh:
My doctor talked me into a flu vax last year. I had exactly the same amount of flu/colds I normally do not having had a shot.( one or two, relatively mild ones like the runny nose I have now) I'm skeptical. Viruses etc mutate faster than scientists can keep up. seems like a reasonable placebo for some people though.
Flu vaccine doesn't protect against the common cold, which most people have once a year. Symptoms from both are quite alike, except that you aren't down for the count with the common cold the first few days.
And keep in mind that seasoned flu vaccines are made to protect against strains predicted to be the ones circulating during the flu season, so that they can be made before the start of the flu season. It is entirely possible you caught another strain that wasn't covered by your flu vaccine at the time. it sucks, but it can happen.
For the h1n1 flu, however, we know which strain, we have it already.
http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2009/2009_pressrelease_10087.htm
QuotePandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza Update: Initial results from first clinical trial of GSK's H1N1 adjuvanted vaccine
Issued: Monday 14 September 2009, London UK
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) today announced results from its first clinical trial assessing use of its pandemic (H1N1) adjuvanted vaccine. The results demonstrate that after one dose the candidate vaccine can provide a strong immune response which exceeds the immunogenicity criteria as defined by international licensing authorities for a pandemic influenza vaccine.
The trial, which is taking place in Germany, involves 130 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 60 years old, and has been designed to evaluate the tolerability and immunogenicity of GSK's split-virus pandemic (H1N1) adjuvanted vaccine in comparison with an unadjuvanted test study formulation.
In this trial, the antigen content of the adjuvanted vaccine is 5.25ug and in the unadjuvanted vaccine is 21ug. The antigen content of the adjuvanted vaccine is comparable to the expected final formulation of the adjuvanted vaccine of 3.75ug.
Results of the adjuvanted vaccine demonstrated that hemagglutination-inhibition titres exceeded the regulatory threshold, with a 1:40 seroconversion in more than 98% of subjects receiving the first dose. In the unadjuvanted group, 95% of the subjects reached the same threshold. These results were obtained 3 weeks following vaccination. Further characterisation of the immune response is being studied and how this may relate to prediction of efficacy.
"This trial provides encouraging data on the potential use of a single dose of our pandemic vaccine." said Jean Stephenne, President GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals. "We have shared these data with both regulatory authorities and governments who are making key decisions on urgent global public healthcare at this time. Our next step is to complete this trial, as well as 15 other studies in our clinical development programme for the vaccine."
GSK is conducting a further 15 studies in over 9000 subjects including healthy adults, the elderly and children (including infants) across Europe, Canada and the US to evaluate its pandemic (H1N1) adjuvanted vaccine. All the data from this clinical development programme will be submitted to the regulators as soon as they are available and they will also be posted on GSK's Clinical Study Register.
GSK will continue to work closely with regulators, governments and health authorities around the world, providing them with clinical data which may help them to determine the most appropriate strategy to address the H1N1 pandemic.
Further information on GSK's development of a vaccine to protect against pandemic (H1N1) 2009, including explanation of the vaccine development process and background information on adjuvants is available on: http://www.gsk.com/media/pandemic-flu.htm
To quote Penn Jillette, untested and rushed my achin' ass!
Quote from: Bluebook on October 07, 2009, 12:38:47 PM
From an individual perspective it makes much more sense not to get the vaccine. If you take the shot, you are 70-90% protected/immune for 2-5 years. If you actually get the flu and survive (which is something like 99,995% probable) you are 100% immune for the rest of your life. Same goes for getting a shot against the "normal" flu. It is much better to actually get the flu and recover than to get the vaccination against it. On a population level, the same applies, the mass vaccinations actually diminishes the populations immune system defence.
That's not true at all - you can get the flu year after year, because
it isn't the same flu. What use is it to be "forever" immune to a single seasonal strain, if there is a new one every year?
It is true than not getting diseases diminishes the population's overall immunity, but that is rather a poor reason for willingly getting diseases.
News release from GlaxoSmithKline might be biaised in favour of Big Pharma and serve to brainwash people in the conspiracy, you say?
Here's from The Lancet, which is one of the most revered Medical Research publication you can find.
http://www.thelancet.com/H1N1-flu/egmn/0c03bdf8
QuoteH1N1 Vaccine Poised to Blunt Pandemic, Model Shows
By Mitchel L. Zoler
Elsevier Global Medical News
October 05, 2009
The pandemic influenza A(H1N1) vaccine will likely have a major impact on curbing the pandemic, preventing deaths, and cutting costs even if fewer than half of all people are immunized during October or November, according to an analysis of a mathematical model published online on Oct. 5 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"Our analysis suggests that over a wide range of viral reproductive rates and pandemic growth scenarios, vaccinating up to 44% of the population can be sufficient to slow widespread viral transmission by inducing herd immunity within the population, shortening the pandemic," wrote Dr. Nayer Khazeni and her associates (www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200912150-00157v1).
Rapid rollout of the new vaccine to roughly 40%-50% of the population is critical. "Absent serious vaccine side effects, vaccination earlier in the autumn is likely to be cost-saving and avert a greater number of deaths than later vaccination," wrote Dr. Khazeni of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Stanford (California) University and her coauthors.
Their analysis used an epidemic model for a hypothetical U.S. city of 8.3 million people similar to New York. The model involved several other assumptions, which in some cases were varied as part of a sensitivity analysis. For example, the basic model assumed that 1.5 secondary infections would be caused by each primary infection, that half of the symptomatic infected people would have a period of isolation, that the incubation time would be 3 days, and that symptoms would continue for 10 days.
Running the model showed that vaccinating 40% of the people in the model city during October would slow transmission and save money, adding almost 70,000 quality-adjusted life years and saving $469 million, compared with no vaccination. Delaying the vaccination of 40% of the population until November would cut the benefit, with more than 45,000 quality-adjusted life years added and $282 million saved, compared with no vaccination. An immunization rate of 40% jibes with projections by the U.S. federal government to have 120 million vaccine doses for pandemic H1N1 available this autumn, enough to vaccinate 40% of the U.S. population.
"Our finding that earlier vaccination saves more costs and averts more deaths may be most important for those areas in which there is more rapid growth of the pandemic," the authors said.
The H1N1 models analyzed in this study reach an "important conclusion," commented Dr. Thomas A. Farley, commissioner of the New York City health department and an associate in an editorial that appears with the vaccination study (www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200912150-00154v1). "The population health benefit of administering even a vaccine of low efficacy (50%) can be substantial if the proportion of that population receiving it is high," the editorial writers noted.
Although public awareness about flu has heightened recently because of the attention paid this year to H1N1 and in past years to H5N1, vaccination rates for seasonal influenza have been "disappointing." Seasonal flu kills more than 36,000 Americans annually, but fewer than 40% of high-risk adults aged 18-64 years received vaccination in 2008, wrote Dr. Farley and his coauthor. "Health care professionals must take advantage of this heightened public awareness to educate and vaccinate a larger proportion of the population, not only for H1N1 this season, but especially for seasonal influenza."
The same research team led by Dr. Khazeni also reported analysis of a second model for vaccination and prophylaxis against a hypothetical pandemic of influenza A(H5N1), commonly known as avian flu, which "remains one of the most important international public health concerns of the 21st century."(www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200912150-00156v1) This second model also used a hypothetical U.S. city similar to New York. The H5N1 model differed from the H1N1 model. (For example, H5N1 flu is not easily transmitted but is highly lethal.)
The base case of the model showed that 2.7 million people – a third of the city's population – would become symptomatically infected, and almost 68,000 people would die if no intervention occurred.
Testing different mitigation strategies showed that the most effective plan involved stockpiling enough adjuvanted vaccine to vaccinate 40% of the population. This strategy cut the clinical attack rate by two-thirds. The vaccination strategy was coupled with existing pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical pandemic mitigation strategies devised by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This "expanded vaccination" strategy was also the most cost effective, surpassing an alternative strategy that relied on the antiviral drugs and vaccines in current U.S. stockpiles.
The analysis found that vaccinating 60% of people with a vaccine that was 80% effective would avert a pandemic. (An 80% effectiveness rate is similar to that of a well-matched seasonal influenza vaccine in adults.) A 50%-effective vaccine would require vaccinating 90% of the population, a feasible level if the current national vaccine supply is supplemented by 530 million adjuvant doses.
"Based on our assumption of 50% vaccine effectiveness, adjuvanted vaccination is a feasible, effective, and cost-effective pandemic mitigation strategy, with advantages over" nonadjuvanted vaccination, the authors said. Their findings show that "ongoing HHS efforts to increase stockpiles of adjuvant can substantially reduce the morbidity and mortality of a severe influenza pandemic."
If we ever met Drakken, I'm sneezing all over your drink.
:P
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 07, 2009, 01:42:16 PM
If we ever met Drakken, I'm sneezing all over your drink.
:P
Kool-aid, I hope? Fruit Punch Kool-aid, please. No cyanide additives. :P
I feel almost like... :berkut:
I've seen some of it. Here's a wonderful suit to have the whole leadership of socialstyrelsen fired, pretty much due to poisoning people with vaccines.
Swedish.
http://www.cmef.eu/pdf/jk.pdf
Quote from: Lucidor on October 07, 2009, 02:02:22 PM
I've seen some of it. Here's a wonderful suit to have the whole leadership of socialstyrelsen fired, pretty much due to poisoning people with vaccines.
Swedish.
http://www.cmef.eu/pdf/jk.pdf
:bleeding:
I want the last five minutes of my life back, plus a blood transfusion for my bleeding eyes.
Just that, page 31:
QuoteBEVIS: Att svininfluensa viruset och vaccinet är komponenter och täckmantel för ett biologiskt vapensystem.
(Evidence: That both the swine flu virus and the vaccine are components and covers for a biological weapon system)
Come on!!!! :lmfao:
I'm too busy to bother with vaccinations. I'm not a child, and thus don't have to worry about them.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2009, 12:23:44 PM
Is it me or is Drakken awful defensive about this wondrous vaccine?
The seduction community demands it.
Paranoid people have such wonderful grasp of the language. Does the craziness come through to you as well, Drakken?
Quote from: Lucidor on October 07, 2009, 03:19:38 PM
Paranoid people have such wonderful grasp of the language. Does the craziness come through to you as well, Drakken?
You mean in the text you have sent me?
I must admit I can picture the guy, alone in his room, scribbling on his computer like a raving maniac about the "truthiness" he has discovered, hoping to save Sweden from the poison the nanny State will force onto millions of innocents, before it is "too late"(tm), while ignoring his family or his needful wife (if he is married, he could also be a total schizo and über-nerd living in his mother's basement).
It is self-evident he has taken lots and lots of time and pain to put as much details, factoids, and data as possible to "demontrate" his point, even if his premise is ludicrous from the start. And I am certain that, in his mind, he thinks it all makes sense. Ah, the beautiful language and structure of the paranoid, fluid like drops of pus.
Because, really, if someone argues that the swine flu and the vaccine are weapons of mass destruction engineered in laboratories by the OMS and big pharma, all the while keeping a serious, blank face, either he is the greatest deadpan comedian of the planet or he is a delusional psycho to be institutionalized for various anti-mental illness treatment.
Oddly, I really want this suit to go to the tribunal, so he can ridicule himself (and his cause) in front of judges,society and the whole world before losing all credibility, being branded a vexatious litigant, and denied any further attention from the judicial system.
He declares himself a "freelance writer", for what publications has he published? Expressen?
like every year, I'm not getting the vaccine. Swine flu is not really more dangerous than other flus, unless you are in a high risk group.
Quote from: saskganesh on October 07, 2009, 08:44:07 PM
like every year, I'm not getting the vaccine. Swine flu is not really more dangerous than other flus, unless you are in a high risk group.
and the high-risk group, ironically, includes people who got the flu shot last year. For this reason I too decline.
Besides we all know that in addition to the vaccine, the government includes a tracking device that can monitor your everyday movements and hear your thoughts.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:23:44 AM
First I've heard of it.
Anti-vaccine hysteria in CAnada is everywhere:
QuoteSeptember 29, 2009
Canadian provincial authorities are rethinking flu shots because of data that link getting a seasonal flu shot to an increased risk of contracting a mild case of swine flu. Helen Branswell, medical reporter for the Canadian Press, says though not many people have seen the data, the numbers have become a part of the discussion in the public health community.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
As public health departments in this country and many other countries prepare for the flu season, they must now cope with what's being called the Canadian problem. There's evidently a study somewhere in Canada that links getting a seasonal flu shot to an increased risk of contracting swine flu, albeit a mild case. Very few people have actually seen the data, but various Canadian provincial authorities are rethinking flu shots because of it and some have actually gone beyond rethinking.
Helen Branswell, who was medical reporter for The Canadian Press, the wire service, has written about this and she joins us now from Toronto. First, Helen Branswell, what is this study that we're talking about?
Ms. HELEN BRANSWELL (Medical Reporter, Canadian Press): Well, it's almost a phantom. It's hanging out there, but as you mentioned, no one's seen it. A group from British Columbia, the British Columbia Centers for Disease Control looked at some vaccine efficacy databases that they had earlier in the year. And seemed to see - there was a higher rate of swine flu cases in people who had had a seasonal flu shot last fall than there were in people who hadn't had a seasonal flu shot last fall. So that started an investigation.
They looked at, I believe, another database. And when they continued to see this association, they asked partners in Quebec and then later Ontario to search their databases to see if this was also showing up elsewhere. And the report is that this association, which no one can really explain, is seen in the databases from British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.
SIEGEL: But it's not as though someone has now gone and published this and said, here's our finding.
Ms. BRANSWELL: Whether it's going to get published or not isn't clear until a journal decides to take it. But it has been submitted as far as I know. Yes.
SIEGEL: And whatever its position in the publication pipeline, decisions have been made on the basis of this report in Canada.
Mr. BRANSWELL: Yeah. Not very many people have seen it, but a lot of people in public health know about it and it became part of the discussion as the provinces and territorial governments in Canada were trying to figure out what to do with seasonal flu vaccine and pandemic flu vaccine delivery programs for this fall.
SIEGEL: So, what is the status right now of flu shots across Canada?
Mr. BRANSWELL: Well, we have 10 provinces and three territories and most of them have announced that they're going to be giving seasonal flu vaccine in October to people 65 and older and residents of long term care facilities. These are people who aren't at high risk of contracting H1N1, but are at high risk of seasonal flu, a bad sickness if they get seasonal flu. So they're going to give them the seasonal flu shots. But the rest of the population is being told they can't get a seasonal flu shot in the fall.
Then, in November, when our pandemic vaccine is available, they're going to vaccinate anyone who wants the pandemic vaccine then. And in January or early next year, if the studies are disproven or if it seems safe at that point to give the seasonal shots, they'll resume offering them to other people.
SIEGEL: Is it a fair criticism here to say that whatever the actual content of this British-Colombian study, word of it seems to have spread with all the scrutiny and peer review of a game of telephone?
(Soundbite of laughter)
Ms. BRANSWELL: It's a very unusual situation for an unpublished study to be influencing public policy in this way, especially as many other people who are making the decisions may not have actually seen the data.
SIEGEL: Have you heard anyone offer an immunological argument as to why getting a seasonal flu shot might in any way enhance anyone's risk of contracting swine flu?
Ms. BRANSWELL: No, no. People can't seem to come up with a reason why this would make sense. That's part of the reason I think that these results are not affecting policy at this point outside of Canada. I think people don't - can't figure out why it would be true. So, in the absence of a good biological explanation and in the absence of seeing the same effect in other data sets elsewhere, I think there's a reluctance to buy into this.
SIEGEL: Well, Helen Branswell, thank you very much for talking with us about it.
Ms. BRANSWELL: Thank you.
SIEGEL: Helen Branswell is medical reporter for the Canadian Press and she spoke to us from Toronto.
Pfft, it's no AIDS.
Quote from: Josephus on October 07, 2009, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on October 07, 2009, 08:44:07 PM
like every year, I'm not getting the vaccine. Swine flu is not really more dangerous than other flus, unless you are in a high risk group.
and the high-risk group, ironically, includes people who got the flu shot last year.
really? Well I'm avoiding it if true then.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 01:26:23 PM
That's not true at all - you can get the flu year after year, because it isn't the same flu. What use is it to be "forever" immune to a single seasonal strain, if there is a new one every year?
It is true than not getting diseases diminishes the population's overall immunity, but that is rather a poor reason for willingly getting diseases.
Well, also most vaccines even for diseases that don't mutate significantly wear off to some degree in around say 10 years or so. Though with the flu to be honest, as Malthus says, its more that the virus changes so rapidly. At least this year they know one of the strains to target. That will help a ton with effectiveness. Not knowing what strains is what makes the flu vaccines sort of crap some years.
I'm a pharmacist and I'm not getting the shot.
This vaccine has not been properly tested, and that's a fact.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 08, 2009, 03:17:15 AM
I'm a pharmacist and I'm not getting the shot.
This vaccine has not been properly tested, and that's a fact.
What are the risks?
Quote from: saskganesh on October 07, 2009, 08:44:07 PM
like every year, I'm not getting the vaccine. Swine flu is not really more dangerous than other flus, unless you are in a high risk group.
Likewise. I am still many years from being in a high risk group. Let people who really need it have it.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 08, 2009, 03:17:15 AM
I'm a pharmacist and I'm not getting the shot.
This vaccine has not been properly tested, and that's a fact.
Isn't it the same as any other flu shot, just for a particular strain?
In that case, the risk would be mostly that it wasn't effective, right? The adverse events would be the same as other flu shots - i.e., not a high percentage chance.
That being the case, I'm not sure what the downside is - a (very small) chance of adverse reactions seems a small price to pay, when there is a (reasonable) chance the stuff works. The "risk" is mostly that it won't work and so you will be risking the adverse reactions for nothing.
I don't go outside much so I'm not going to infect anyone.
Quote from: citizen k on October 07, 2009, 11:37:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 10:23:44 AM
First I've heard of it.
Anti-vaccine hysteria in CAnada is everywhere:
That's not really the same thing at all. What they are saying is that there is some unpublished epidimiological study that shows that having the seasonal vaccine increases the risk of swine flu.
To my mind it would seem very tenuous stuff given the lack of any biological mechanism to account for it (I'm thinking it is likely an artifact of the fact that people who get seasonally vaccinated are more likely to be in the 'at risk' group for swine flu, improperly taken into account in the statistics, but given that the study isn't published it is impossible to say).
I think it is bad science and bad public policy to base any descision on such stuff, but it is light-years away from claiming vaccines are some government plot.
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 12:54:16 PM
Gee, let me choose: get vaccinated and not worry about the flu pandemic, or get the flu on purpose to get immunized, but perhaps lose my lungs or my life in the process. This isn't some virtual game theory, dude: people get sick and potentially die in this.
As for the mass vaccination diminishing the immune system defence, yeah I guess mass vaccination against polio and smallpox decreased our collective immune defences as well. I guess smallpox would have disappeared better with vitamins and homeopathy?
I won't argue further than that. It's beyond the level of bullshit.
Not to diminish the quality of your arguments here, but it seems you have some very fundamental missunderstanding as to your level of protection after getting the vaccine. Now, I believe there are four different vaccines out there, and the one Sweden buys will give a 70-90 percent protection after two vaccinations. That means it is still a 10-30 percent risk of getting the flu despite getting the flu shots. You seem to be the kind of person who worrys alot, so my bet is that you will still be worrying despite the flu shot. The risk you run of getting a serious complication is calculated as something like this. Unless you are in a risk-group, you have 0,5 percent risk of getting ill enough to require medical treatment. Of those people getting ill enough to require medical treatment, 0,5 percent risk being ill enough to require artificial lung treatment (EMCO I believe its called). The people getting EMCO treatment have all survived so far. The two fatalities we have had in Sweden so far were both in the risk-group and they did not recieve EMCO treatment.
This is a numbers game. You can take the 0,5% x 0,5% x (unknown risk percentage for fatality) risk that everyone runs with this flu, or you can better your odds by adding the 70-90% protection of the flu vaccin or not. I suppose it all comes down to how paranoid you are. You should be aware though that the vaccin has
not been tested to the same level as other types of vaccines. In Sweden for example, only short-term testing has been done on 168 adults. They were given two shots and were required to report any side effects for the next seven days.
QuoteVaccination significantly decreases the change of catching it in the first place. While not 100%, it is stil very high (preliminary results show around 98% for adults under 65, and 93% 65 and older, all of them with one dose). It is still better than zero, where every single people who has not already infected by h1n1 are right now.
I suppose Canada has one of the other vaccines then, the one we get has only a 70-90% protection. And, while it is better than zero, you still have to take into consideration the small risk of serious complication and the currently unknown risk for side-effects from the vaccine, you also have to take into consideration the benefit for the individual to actually get the flu and recover.
Quote
Bullshit, rushed to testing. Have you even read this thread? It has already been tested because it is the same flu vaccine as the seasoned flu vaccine. Current testings confirm that, as predicted, it is efficient in getting enough immune reaction. The only issue is whether we use adjuvant or not. Indeed, economic reasons enter into as well, but the main reason is that we don't want to have thousands of dead people in our morgues, and even more sick people clogging our ICU in health care facilities. Because, you know, it is a health care issue?
Again, I dont know what version of the vaccine you get in Canada, but if it is the Glaxo Smith Klein-version, it was rushed through testing. And I suspect that goes for your vaccine aswell, unless your version went through long-time testing thanks to some rip in the space/time-continuum.
Quote
The only thing that stinks in this mess is how people are ready to cherry-pick factoids and spin it around to convince people to put their lives in danger for a silly belief proven to be falsehood.
On the contrary, it seems you are basing your opinion on a missunderstanding of the facts.
Quote
Pandemic as it spreads quickly throughout the world in a small time frame? Hell yeah. Nowhere the definition of a pandemic includes lethality, only the exponential world spreading of disease.
...And incidentally, that is why the WHO is discussing whether to change the definion of pandemic in the future. To avoid declaring pandemic every time a new flu emerges.
It is, perhaps, interesting to note that the lethality of this influenza is much smaller than the regular seasonal flu. The odd thing with this one is the age group of those that die or have a serious complication. The reason for this is believed to be that a variant of this strain was active in the early 1950:s, and therefore the oldest part of the population has a certain level of protection. Ironically, those individuals would not have that protection had they gotten a vaccination in the 50s.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2009, 01:26:23 PM
That's not true at all - you can get the flu year after year, because it isn't the same flu. What use is it to be "forever" immune to a single seasonal strain, if there is a new one every year?
It actually is true though. If you take the flu shot, you are protected for a year. If you get the flu, you are protected for life. And while you are fully protected only against the one strain, apparently your immune system will be more efficient at fighting similar strains aswell. Ive had this explained to me by some biomedic-researcher at work, and I might be remembering some of the details wrong as I was only listening with half an ear, but apparently there is a difference. If this means much to you and you seriously doubt what Im saying then I can probably email her for more information.
Quote
It is true than not getting diseases diminishes the population's overall immunity, but that is rather a poor reason for willingly getting diseases.
But the benefit is there to the individual aswell.
Am I imagining things or do anti-immunization nuts tend to be Republican/conservitards? I suppose it makes sense since they are among the most selfish and backwards of a given population.
psst: the vaccine was produced by the GUV'AMMINT :bleeding:
Quote from: Bluebook on October 08, 2009, 08:40:01 AM
It actually is true though. If you take the flu shot, you are protected for a year. If you get the flu, you are protected for life. And while you are fully protected only against the one strain, apparently your immune system will be more efficient at fighting similar strains aswell. Ive had this explained to me by some biomedic-researcher at work, and I might be remembering some of the details wrong as I was only listening with half an ear, but apparently there is a difference. If this means much to you and you seriously doubt what Im saying then I can probably email her for more information.
Quote
It is true than not getting diseases diminishes the population's overall immunity, but that is rather a poor reason for willingly getting diseases.
But the benefit is there to the individual aswell.
Again, this is a tiny benefit set against the fact that the flu continually mutates. If what you said was true, the flu would not be much of a problem without intervention - but it is. People can, and do, get it over and over again, in spite of the "immunity" conferred by having the disease previously.
Taking the vaccine
every year provides a much better basis of protection. The adverse events are rare and mostly minor - the main one being fainting from the needle. Weighed against the adverse effects of getting the flu, it is a no-brainer of a decision.
Plus, the added benefit is - less transmission of the disease. That means less chance of the truly at-risk population getting it. If the vaccine is (say) 80% effective, at a certain point of enough people are vaccinated - even strapping healthy people who won't suffer much from the disease - its transmission will be interrupted.
Quote from: Bluebook on October 08, 2009, 08:40:01 AM
It actually is true though. If you take the flu shot, you are protected for a year. If you get the flu, you are protected for life.
No, God no, you are not. I've had the flu several times. While the immunity may be lifelong against whatever strain you got, there will be a new variant next year.
Quote from: ulmont on October 08, 2009, 09:07:25 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on October 08, 2009, 08:40:01 AM
It actually is true though. If you take the flu shot, you are protected for a year. If you get the flu, you are protected for life.
No, God no, you are not. I've had the flu several times. While the immunity may be lifelong against whatever strain you got, there will be a new variant next year.
Note the words "new variant" in your post.
Quote from: Bluebook on October 08, 2009, 09:12:09 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 08, 2009, 09:07:25 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on October 08, 2009, 08:40:01 AM
It actually is true though. If you take the flu shot, you are protected for a year. If you get the flu, you are protected for life.
No, God no, you are not. I've had the flu several times. While the immunity may be lifelong against whatever strain you got, there will be a new variant next year.
Note the words "new variant" in your post.
Yes, I put them there. Chances of having an old variant come back next year: low. Chances of having a new vaccine against a new variant next year: high.
Quote from: ulmont on October 08, 2009, 09:07:25 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on October 08, 2009, 08:40:01 AM
It actually is true though. If you take the flu shot, you are protected for a year. If you get the flu, you are protected for life.
No, God no, you are not. I've had the flu several times. While the immunity may be lifelong against whatever strain you got, there will be a new variant next year.
You are protected pretty much identically by getting the flu or getting the shot. The reason why the shot is "only good for a year" is because the next year's flu strain is different, not because your immunity wears off in a year.
I honestly have trouble with reasoning why anyone would not want a flu vaccine. It is true that, for adults, the disease isn't life-threatening; but it is damned miserable. Set against that, the adverse events of the vaccine itself are a nothing of a nothing.
I could understand it if it was horribly expensive, but many places give it out free to the end user - we get it free at work.
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
I honestly have trouble with reasoning why anyone would not want a flu vaccine.
It causes autism and the government shouldn't tell me what to do. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
I honestly have trouble with reasoning why anyone would not want a flu vaccine. It is true that, for adults, the disease isn't life-threatening; but it is damned miserable. Set against that, the adverse events of the vaccine itself are a nothing of a nothing.
I could understand it if it was horribly expensive, but many places give it out free to the end user - we get it free at work.
I think people just *like* to be contrarian and play the "Rebel without a clue" thing. It is all emotional.
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2009, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
I honestly have trouble with reasoning why anyone would not want a flu vaccine. It is true that, for adults, the disease isn't life-threatening; but it is damned miserable. Set against that, the adverse events of the vaccine itself are a nothing of a nothing.
I could understand it if it was horribly expensive, but many places give it out free to the end user - we get it free at work.
I think people just *like* to be contrarian and play the "Rebel without a clue" thing. It is all emotional.
Damned Straight!
:P
do people still use that phrase to mean "you are so right"? after I posted it I thought this could be taken wrong.
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
I honestly have trouble with reasoning why anyone would not want a flu vaccine. It is true that, for adults, the disease isn't life-threatening; but it is damned miserable. Set against that, the adverse events of the vaccine itself are a nothing of a nothing.
I could understand it if it was horribly expensive, but many places give it out free to the end user - we get it free at work.
:yes:
Quote from: Fate on October 08, 2009, 08:45:38 AM
Am I imagining things or do anti-immunization nuts tend to be Republican/conservitards? I suppose it makes sense since they are among the most selfish and backwards of a given population.
psst: the vaccine was produced by the GUV'AMMINT :bleeding:
We're talking about Canada here.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 08, 2009, 02:01:58 PM
Damned Straight!
do people still use that phrase to mean "you are so right"? after I posted it I thought this could be taken wrong.
:D
Quote from: Drakken on October 07, 2009, 03:31:43 PMYou mean in the text you have sent me?
I must admit I can picture the guy, alone in his room, scribbling on his computer like a raving maniac about the "truthiness" he has discovered, hoping to save Sweden from the poison the nanny State will force onto millions of innocents, before it is "too late"(tm), while ignoring his family or his needful wife (if he is married, he could also be a total schizo and über-nerd living in his mother's basement).
It is self-evident he has taken lots and lots of time and pain to put as much details, factoids, and data as possible to "demontrate" his point, even if his premise is ludicrous from the start. And I am certain that, in his mind, he thinks it all makes sense. Ah, the beautiful language and structure of the paranoid, fluid like drops of pus.
Because, really, if someone argues that the swine flu and the vaccine are weapons of mass destruction engineered in laboratories by the OMS and big pharma, all the while keeping a serious, blank face, either he is the greatest deadpan comedian of the planet or he is a delusional psycho to be institutionalized for various anti-mental illness treatment.
Oddly, I really want this suit to go to the tribunal, so he can ridicule himself (and his cause) in front of judges,society and the whole world before losing all credibility, being branded a vexatious litigant, and denied any further attention from the judicial system.
He declares himself a "freelance writer", for what publications has he published? Expressen?
Wonderful analysis. I don't know if it's related, but Lambertz, the justitiekansler resigned today. Perhaps too much crazy in the mailbox? :D
Quote from: citizen k on October 08, 2009, 02:24:18 PM
We're talking about Canada here.
Who cares about Canada? :huh:
Quote from: Fate on October 08, 2009, 02:28:21 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 08, 2009, 02:24:18 PM
We're talking about Canada here.
Who cares about Canada? :huh:
Most lefties like you hold Canada up to be a model for how things should be.
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
I honestly have trouble with reasoning why anyone would not want a flu vaccine. It is true that, for adults, the disease isn't life-threatening; but it is damned miserable. Set against that, the adverse events of the vaccine itself are a nothing of a nothing.
I could understand it if it was horribly expensive, but many places give it out free to the end user - we get it free at work.
For the same reason (albeit with much less justification) that I do not take aspirin. My body should be capable of dealing with flus and the like just fine. The day that it isn't is the day I become in some small and fundamental way, "not me".
Of course, if it was a vaccine against a virus rampaging around the world with a fifty percent mortality rate, you'd see me using my not inconsiderable bulk to push myself to the front of the queue. But for flu, that comes back year after year in different, mostly non-lethal forms? It's simply not worth it. Leave the dose of vaccine that could have been used on me for someone who really needs it.
The conspiracy theorists really love going on about this swine flu vaccine.
Odd that its spread into the general population.
I won't be getting it though, as long as everyone else gets it then they can't infect me :p
Also I remember hearing that the vaccine may not be so useful- if the virus does mutate to the extent that it is dangerous a vaccine based upon it as it currently is wouldn't be much good.
The only person really pushing the vaccine is Malthus. Who, IIRC, works for a pharmaceutical firm. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
The only person really pushing the vaccine is Malthus. Who, IIRC, works for a pharmaceutical firm. :tinfoil:
He'll only get money if we all die and he has to defend the company... wait a minute
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
The only person really pushing the vaccine is Malthus. Who, IIRC, works for a pharmaceutical firm. :tinfoil:
<Fate> "Josie is a Conservatard!"</Fate>
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 03:49:33 PM
For the same reason (albeit with much less justification) that I do not take aspirin. My body should be capable of dealing with flus and the like just fine. The day that it isn't is the day I become in some small and fundamental way, "not me".
:lol:
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
The only person really pushing the vaccine is Malthus. Who, IIRC, works for a pharmaceutical firm. :tinfoil:
Hey, don't forget me! Big Pharma is arranging me a date with Bree Olson right now! :perv:
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
The only person really pushing the vaccine is Malthus. Who, IIRC, works for a pharmaceutical firm. :tinfoil:
I work for pharmaceutical companies and I'm not pushing the vaccine. :goodboy:
Quote from: Josephus on October 08, 2009, 04:44:47 PM
The only person really pushing the vaccine is Malthus. Who, IIRC, works for a pharmaceutical firm. :tinfoil:
I don't work for a pharmacuetical firm, but in a downtown law office.
Which in turn works for *many* pharmaceutical firms. :D
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 03:49:33 PM
For the same reason (albeit with much less justification) that I do not take aspirin. My body should be capable of dealing with flus and the like just fine. The day that it isn't is the day I become in some small and fundamental way, "not me".
I can respect that. It is totally crazy, and makes no sense; but hey, who isn't and what does? :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 06:04:56 PM
Which in turn works for *many* pharmaceutical firms. :D
Ah-ha! "many" pharmaceutical firms...for sure one of them is in on the scam. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 06:06:50 PM
I can respect that.
You are too kind. Rejecting modern medicine is not something that should be taken lightly.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2009, 07:01:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 06:06:50 PM
I can respect that.
You are too kind. Rejecting modern medicine is not something that should be taken lightly.
:rolleyes:
Perhaps he read the rest of my post, where I explicitly did
not reject modern medicine. :P
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 07:15:44 PM
:rolleyes:
Perhaps he read the rest of my post, where I explicitly did not reject modern medicine. :P
Sounds like you are rejecting it unless it is a life v. death case. Of course, a little preventive medicine might have gone a long way...but that's not natural. :(
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2009, 07:22:14 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 07:15:44 PM
:rolleyes:
Perhaps he read the rest of my post, where I explicitly did not reject modern medicine. :P
Sounds like you are rejecting it unless it is a life v. death case. Of course, a little preventive medicine might have gone a long way...but that's not natural. :(
Preventive medicine can go a long way. Preventive medicine that is currently 99.999999999% unneccessary for me at my age and physical level is a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Why should I add unneccessarily to the unaffordability to my country of the NHS?
As an example, I am 100% behind the compulsory vaccination of children against mumps, measles and rubella. I'd have to be insane to complain about tuberculosis jabs (not that I have had one - for some reason my Heaf Test came up with a positive result for exposure to tuberculosis, although where this was from I have never been able to figure out.) But jabs for a disease that my body should be well able to cope with? I'll pass.
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
I honestly have trouble with reasoning why anyone would not want a flu vaccine. It is true that, for adults, the disease isn't life-threatening; but it is damned miserable. Set against that, the adverse events of the vaccine itself are a nothing of a nothing.
I could understand it if it was horribly expensive, but many places give it out free to the end user - we get it free at work.
Have to use up those sickdays somehow.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
But jabs for a disease that my body should be well able to cope with? I'll pass.
Your aspirin has sharp edges?
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2009, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
But jabs for a disease that my body should be well able to cope with? I'll pass.
Your aspirin has sharp edges?
Nope, but unless I am diagnosed with a condition for which it is therapeutic (I believe it assists people vulnerable to heart conditions, for example) I see no need to dose myself up with something unneccessary. Headaches go away if you are patient enough; if they don't, you go to a doctor for a professional opinion. What's the point of unprescribed aspirin, then?
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 07:47:41 PM
Nope, but unless I am diagnosed with a condition for which it is therapeutic (I believe it assists people vulnerable to heart conditions, for example) I see no need to dose myself up with something unneccessary. Headaches go away if you are patient enough; if they don't, you go to a doctor for a professional opinion. What's the point of unprescribed aspirin, then?
I'm not sure why I would want to suffer through a headache if I can get rid of it immediately.
Another example would be that when nervous/stressed, I tend to get stomach cramps. Why should I suffer through events with stomach cramps, if there is easily accessible medication to solve my problem?
Side note, but does this mean that you also avoid things like alcohol, caffeine, etc?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 08, 2009, 03:17:15 AM
I'm a pharmacist and I'm not getting the shot.
This vaccine has not been properly tested, and that's a fact.
QuoteWHO sees a few minor side effects from H1N1 shot
(AP) GENEVA — The World Health Organization says a vaccine is the best tool against swine flu despite reports of a few minor side effects in China.
Spokesman Gregory Hartl says WHO has seen reports of four people out of 39,000 vaccinated against H1N1 in China who have had side effects like muscle cramps and headache.
Hartl says such effects are to be expected.
He says people — especially health care workers — should be encouraged to get the vaccine.
Hartl says the current formulation is among the safest vaccines that WHO has seen.
He said Tuesday that the vaccination campaign will soon move to Australia, the United States and parts of Europe.
QuoteCDC director stresses H1N1 vaccine safety
ATLANTA, Oct. 6 (UPI) -- The director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at a news briefing in Atlanta Tuesday, said the H1N1 flu vaccine is safe and effective.
"The (H1N1) flu vaccine is made as flu vaccine is made each year. By the same companies. In the same production facilities. With the same procedures. With the same safety, safeguards," Dr. Thomas Frieden told reporters during a telephone briefing.
"We have had literally hundreds of millions of people vaccinated against flu with flu vaccine made in this way. That enables us to have a high degree of confidence in the safety of the vaccine. It has an excellent safety record," he said.
Frieden said the CDC "wished we had the vaccine earlier" but current science doesn't allow for production of the vaccine in much less than six months
"It would have been great to have had it back in April or May," he said.
He acknowledged that people have concerns about vaccinations and said that was "understandable" but he said the flu vaccine is "tried and true ... very effective."
Vaccine problems that could occur would likely occur at a very low rate -- 1 per 100,000, Frieden said.
"It would take some time to know there was a problem," he said. "On the other hand, there's no reason to think there would be more problem with this vaccine than with the vaccine each year."
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2009, 07:01:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2009, 06:06:50 PM
I can respect that.
You are too kind. Rejecting modern medicine is not something that should be taken lightly.
Britain's a lost cause anyway.
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2009, 08:29:59 PM
Side note, but does this mean that you also avoid things like alcohol, caffeine, etc?
Not deliberately, although both my alcohol and caffeine consumption are well down over that of a few years ago.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 07:47:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 08, 2009, 07:41:46 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 07:30:09 PM
But jabs for a disease that my body should be well able to cope with? I'll pass.
Your aspirin has sharp edges?
Nope, but unless I am diagnosed with a condition for which it is therapeutic (I believe it assists people vulnerable to heart conditions, for example) I see no need to dose myself up with something unneccessary. Headaches go away if you are patient enough; if they don't, you go to a doctor for a professional opinion. What's the point of unprescribed aspirin, then?
I don't see the point in toughing it out. It isn't like we are facing a critical asprin shortage, and they usually make enough vaccines to treat everyone.
Hell, I take drugs all the time just for fun and convenience - I'm sipping caffine-laden tea right now; later tonight, I plan to dose myself with some alcohol. :D
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 04:33:10 AM
Not deliberately, although both my alcohol and caffeine consumption are well down over that of a few years ago.
Exactly how do you justify using them though? After all, alcohol and caffeine are generally as powerful, if not more powerful drugs than aspirin...and as Malthus pointed out, generally they are consumed for fun/convenience. How are you drawing a distinction?
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2009, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 04:33:10 AM
Not deliberately, although both my alcohol and caffeine consumption are well down over that of a few years ago.
Exactly how do you justify using them though? After all, alcohol and caffeine are generally as powerful, if not more powerful drugs than aspirin...and as Malthus pointed out, generally they are consumed for fun/convenience. How are you drawing a distinction?
I believe that is all the answer I need to give. :P
Although I could invent something along the lines of "caffeine in coffee" being natural, blah, blah, blah, but it would be a lie.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:21:15 PM
I believe that is all the answer I need to give. :P
Although I could invent something along the lines of "caffeine in coffee" being natural, blah, blah, blah, but it would be a lie.
I take aspirin for fun/convenience...after all, it is hard to have fun when one's head is pounding. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2009, 01:24:01 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:21:15 PM
I believe that is all the answer I need to give. :P
Although I could invent something along the lines of "caffeine in coffee" being natural, blah, blah, blah, but it would be a lie.
I take aspirin for fun/convenience...after all, it is hard to have fun when one's head is pounding. :huh:
Are you referring to "morning afters" here? I always used to consider them the price one had to pay for the previous evening...not that I've had to endure one in years, unfortunately. :(
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:38:42 PM
Are you referring to "morning afters" here? I always used to consider them the price one had to pay for the previous evening...not that I've had to endure one in years, unfortunately. :(
Umm...no. I was just talking about an everyday headache. Seems weird that you are willing to pump something so toxic into your body like alcohol for fun...but you don't want to take aspirin (for the convenience of ridding yourself of headaches) or flu vaccines (preventive health) on the basis of some quasi-natural my body should be able to take care of illness notion.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2009, 01:42:32 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:38:42 PM
Are you referring to "morning afters" here? I always used to consider them the price one had to pay for the previous evening...not that I've had to endure one in years, unfortunately. :(
Umm...no. I was just talking about an everyday headache. Seems weird that you are willing to pump something so toxic into your body like alcohol for fun...but you don't want to take aspirin (for the convenience of ridding yourself of headaches) or flu vaccines (preventive health) on the basis of some quasi-natural my body should be able to take care of illness notion.
:huh:
I have never had a headache bad enough to justify the use of drugs, in my opinion; if I ever did, I'd probably be off to the doctors, as it would be one severe enough to prevent me from conducting my day normally. I actually find it quite pathetic that somebody would take a drug for every little twinge; I guess then that our philosophies are just too different on this issue.
Point of fact, I actually have a headache now.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:47:33 PM
:huh:
I have never had a headache bad enough to justify the use of drugs, in my opinion; if I ever did, I'd probably be off to the doctors, as it would be one severe enough to prevent me from conducting my day normally. I actually find it quite pathetic that somebody would take a drug for every little twinge; I guess then that our philosophies are just too different on this issue.
Point of fact, I actually have a headache now.
But that's just the point. You won't take drugs for "little twinges" but you will take drugs just for fun. That is so inconsistent.
What's the harm in taking aspirin?
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2009, 01:50:08 PM
But that's just the point. You won't take drugs for "little twinges" but you will take drugs just for fun. That is so inconsistent.
What's the harm in taking aspirin?
No (or at least, not much) harm for people who choose to take it. I simply choose to allow nature to take its course for something as trivial as an aspirin-treatable headache.
I have no inherent aversion to modern medicine. Should I have an abcess (which I have had at least twice) I quite happily take the one week course of anti-biotics, for example. But that level of pain is quite different to that from something like a non-migraine headache.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 02:09:09 PM
No (or at least, not much) harm for people who choose to take it. I simply choose to allow nature to take its course for something as trivial as an aspirin-treatable headache.
Consuming that alcohol isn't letting nature take its course. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2009, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 02:09:09 PM
No (or at least, not much) harm for people who choose to take it. I simply choose to allow nature to take its course for something as trivial as an aspirin-treatable headache.
Consuming that alcohol isn't letting nature take its course. :P
Yes it is. :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2009, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 02:09:09 PM
No (or at least, not much) harm for people who choose to take it. I simply choose to allow nature to take its course for something as trivial as an aspirin-treatable headache.
Consuming that alcohol isn't letting nature take its course. :P
Yes it is. :D
I agree with Malthus here.
Although I'm beginning to suspect that my body can no longer handle one of the chemicals in Port. As this was the first alcoholic drink I ever had, this makes me very sad.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 02:46:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2009, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 02:09:09 PM
No (or at least, not much) harm for people who choose to take it. I simply choose to allow nature to take its course for something as trivial as an aspirin-treatable headache.
Consuming that alcohol isn't letting nature take its course. :P
Yes it is. :D
I agree with Malthus here.
Although I'm beginning to suspect that my body can no longer handle one of the chemicals in Port. As this was the first alcoholic drink I ever had, this makes me very sad.
Not so fast: in my case, 'nature takes its course' when I pop a couple of asprin the morning after guzzling too much Port, as well. :lol:
Subject: ALERT ALERT! Navy soliders DYING after swine flu injections!
Date: 9/26/2009 1:11:39 AM
Subject: Quarantined Navy ship - Captain And Chief Petty Officer dead
This information is considered Classified. This story has gotten out from
Navy Wives out of San Diego that had brief communications from their
husbands. All personnel and military dependents are now silenced!!!!
On 1 ship, 347 onboard had all been given the H1N1 vaccine. 2 are now
confirmed DEAD, the Captain of the ship and a Chief Petty Officer are
dead!!!!!. Only 14 were not seriously effected, the rest had fought fevers
of 104 - 105 degrees for 5 - 6 days. Many are in very serious condition
and another naval ship was dispatched with 16 Medical Drs that went on
board. This first ship was in quarantine for 21 days off the coast of
Spain and has now recently returned to San Diego still under partial
quarantine. 3 other ships are going through the same situation and are all
under quarantine. They have all been determined to have gotten the Swine
Flu FROM THE VACCINE!!!
Here is a radio report done that had been contacted by the Naval wives.
This story will not see the light of day on mainstream media. So.....BLAST
THIS
STORY!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!..!.. !..!..!..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Myself and others predicted this scenario a long time ago. Their EVIL
DEPOPULATION plan is in full swing! Do the right thing...get this story
out. The seasonal flu shot ALSO contains H1N! and H3N2 and one other
deadly flu. DO NOT TAKE ANY VACCINE. NONE.....NONE...NONE.
:lol:
You know, I would love for there to be a depopulation plan. However, rather than depopulating the dregs of the West, we should start with Asia, Africa, South America and Eastern Europe.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2009, 03:22:01 PM
:lol:
You know, I would love for there to be a depopulation plan. However, rather than depopulating the dregs of the West, we should start with Asia, Africa, South America and Eastern Europe.
I think Russia has one. It's seems to be working quite well.
Looks like everybody in my family has to get it. So if I stop posting, teh h1n1 gots me.