segnosaur

There is absolutely no chance of that happening. The vaccine used in Canada uses a virus that is dead. Deceased. Not alive. Pushing up microbial daisies. It cannot invade cells, it cannot reproduce, and it cannot produce little mutated flu-babies. In fact, if you want to talk about the risk of mutation, the greatest risk is in not getting vaccinated. If you get vaccinated, it almost guarantees your body will not be available as a microbial play-ground. But if you don't get vaccinated, there is a good chance (not a guarantee, just a good chance) that you will become infected, your body will become a little influenza breeding ground, pumping out all sorts of flu-babies, some of which will be mutated. The best way to prevent mutations in the virus is to eliminate as many potential hosts that can become infected, and that means vaccinations. 'Resistance' is not an issue here... vaccines do not combat the flu directly. Instead, they help the body identify the virus particles before they encounter them 'live'. Your body was going to eventually eliminate the virus anyways (unless of course you die with it), so if there was any change of 'resistance' then it would just as easily happen with 'natural' infections too. Actually, there is one possible danger of resistance, and its for people who don't believe in vaccination. Those who get sick often get hospitalized, and are often prescribed anti-virals. Now, because anti-virals work differently than vaccines, it is in theory possible for strains of the virus to become resistant to the anti-virals. The fewer people innoculated, the more chance they'll need to be prescribed anti-virals, and the more chance of drug-resistant flu strains. Yes, there is a lot of hype surrounding H1N1. That doesn't necessarily mean that action shouldn't be taken. You're right... we can never eradicate all disease. But we can do our best to eliminate as many as we can, to give people as long a life as we can with a minimum of suffering.

But you are pepetuating the same sin by claiming it is "preventable", as this is not 100% true. Not sure if its really so much of a 'sin'. The H1N1 vaccine causes the required anti-body reaction in around 96% of all individuals. Of the remaining 4% (plus the people who cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, such as allergies) would be further protected by herd immunity if vaccination were wide spread. It wouldn't mean you would be protected against all influenza, but the previous poster did make a point of singling out H1N1. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1921679,00.html So, is a 96% rate enough to claim that a vaccine makes a disease 'preventable'? If your definition of 'preventable' implies it stops all cases, then no. If it means it stops most cases, then yes.

Well, I'm glad to see you've started to rethink you're postion. You did a good thing talking to your doctor. (He probably knows a little more than me, and probably is less abrasive.) I'd advise anyone to talk to their doctor, although doing a little reading beforehand may be a good idea. I have to admit, not every doctor shares the same opinions... some may be insistent on the flu shot, some may not care, and some may actually oppose it. (Doesn't necessarily mean that your doctor is a 'quack'... just means that an MD may not be up on the latest information. And, admittedly, there is a lot of contradictory information out there.) Read a little, get some information in your mind before hand, and be prepared to challenge the doctor with informed questions. Hey, there is a very good chance that you do have a strong natural immunity. (That is part of having 'good luck', in my opinion). Just hate to see someone depend on it. Edited to add: Come to think of it though... you did mention that you had experienced colds before. Colds are caused by a different form of virus, but if you've experienced colds regularly, perhaps your immune system isn't quite as strong as you'd expect. Look on the side of a pack of smokes: Toxic Emissions /unit Tar, Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide, Formaldehyde, Hydrogen Cyanide, and Benzene. Ah, but that's just what the government wants you to think. Its just a way for them to install panic so that that they can justify raising cigarette taxes by claiming its for 'health'. We know its all a government scam because someone lived to be over 100 and smoked regularly. If cigarettes had 'toxic chemicals' and 'carcinogens', then nobody would live so long if they smoked regularly. (Hey, not that I actually believe that... I'm just trying to do the same thing that people do when they reject vaccination... combine some sort of 'personal' story, and throw in some sort of 'conspiricy'.) Hey, I agree.. smoking is the bigger health risk... but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take efforts to reduce health risks in other areas. (Of course, If I wanted to pretend further that cigarettes were safe, I could suggest that people die because of other pollutants in our environment. After all, many people die of lung cancer who have never touched a cigarette.) The only reason why I brought up the issue of smoking was to illustrate the problem of 'anecdotal evidence'... what may have been the case for one person in the past may not always indicate what will happen in the future. Unsanitary conditions don't help the cause, and was a major factor in it's spreading, no matter how severe. Actually, the primary method of transmission of the flu is by inhalation of virus particles. There are even some opinions in the medical community that hand washing may not make a difference. (Note: Please don't take that as an excuse not to wash your hands... even if it doesn't prevent H1N1 infections, there are other nasty things out there that it can stop.) http://www.cmaj.ca/earlyreleases/1oct09_co...ndwashing.shtml ...current evidence shows that influenza is transmitted primarily at a short range of one to two metres by inhaling particles from an infected person (“inhalation transmission”)... receptors for the virus are located farther back in the respiratory tract than those for rhinoviruses (colds). It is more difficult for viral particles to reach the pharynx, trachea, bronchi and alveoli — where influenza receptors are found — from a contaminated hand touched to the mouth or nose. The particles can more readily reach the sites if they are inhaled

Its worthless for the point of this discussion... namely, what are the risks/benefits of getting a flu shot, either in the past or in the near future. You see, this is what I was talking about... your chances were not the same with or without the vaccine. However, since you're only one person, you can't really tell. You need large scale studies to see if the chance really was the same or not. Put it this way, if you go to a normal (shuffled) deck of cards and take 4 cards and they all turn up aces, can you assume that you will always draw aces from the deck? And were you always destined to get 4 aces? The answer is no. Sometimes people DO draw all aces from a deck. Rare, but it happens. And your suggestion that you had no extra risk from not getting the shot is no more valid than the gambler who thinks he'll always draw 4 aces because he happned to get lucky the first time. I think I am old enough to tell the difference between a cold and the flu. I don't get a fever with a cold. Its not a question of age... its a question about the way colds and flus present themselves. Not all symtoms are consistent for either colds or the flu. Some colds (a minority) DO cause a fever. On the other hand, some influenzas don't actually give a fever (or perhaps your immune system doesn't often show fever signs... I'm a little like that; even when I've been quite ill (like the time I had food poisoning) my body temperature never went above 100F. And some influenzas can actually cause sneezing, runny nose, etc. Its not necessarily common but it does happen. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13fever.html (H1N1 cases with no fever) http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/channel_co...lation_id=10884 Umm... as I said before, you may actually have been sick with the influenza on more than 1 situation, but for whatever reason, you just don't remember it. Or you may have been lucky in that you're not standing next to someone who happens to cough or sneeze at the wrong time. And you think my analogies are dumb! For the record I do smoke now and then. I know I should not simply because of all the toxins and carconegenics in commercial tobbacco. But how do you know that those chemicals in the cigarette are actually toxic or carcinogenic? Remember, the oldest woman in the world smoked for decades of her life, and she never came down with lung cancer! So, once again, why exactly are you accepting your "claim" (flu shot won't affect the chances of getting influenza) but you are discounting the claim that cigarette smoking is harmless? Both claims have exactly the same evidence: the life history of an individual. (And note: Simply claiming something is a toxin isn't really evidence... after all, if a cigarette had a chemical that was toxic, why wouldn't the 100 year old smoker be affected) Or, as I said before, you likely just had incredibly dumb luck. We were also very unsanitary as a whole which facilitated the virus spreading much faster and with much more severity than any virus does today. Actually, the issue with the spanish flu wasn't how easily it spread... the issue was how severely it affected the individuals that were infected.

I believe you're referring to the case of Desiree Jennings, a cheerleader who came down with a disease called Dystonia (a disease that affects motor skills, preventing normal walking/talking) after taking the flu shot. However, I think we can probably rule out the vaccine as the cause of her Dystonia. Apparently, she became ill with some sort of flu-like illness 10 days after the vaccination, and then came down with Dystonia after that. (When flu does cause side-effects, they tend to occur right after the injection, not more than a week after.) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, this wasn't the first time she had ever had the flu shot. What probably happened is that she happened to catch a form of the flu that wasn't covered by the vaccine. (Or, it could have been some other disease entirely that just appeared like the flu.) It was this actual sickness (which, through unfortunate luck, happened so soon after the vaccination) that triggered her dystonia. Even if the vaccine was the cause of the problem, consider this: this is the only case ever found, making it not just one in a million, but one in millions upon millions.

The H1N1 flu (along with vaccine issues), has already been discussed in other threads, such as: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14853 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=15051 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=15149 Some people may save themselves some time and effort rehashing things long discussed. You're right, we have had very few deaths so far. Problem is, our 'flu season' runs from November to April, so we haven't come anywhere near seeing just how 'bad' this thing can be. And looking at the number of deaths outside of flu season is a little like trying to tell how bad our winter will be by the number of snowstorms we get in August. Actually, its a little bit different than 'regular seasonal flu'. So far, it seems to be affecting adults and people who would otherwise be 'healthy' a lot more seriously than most seasonal flus. And elderly people seem not to have been as hard it by it (possibly due to immunity obtained from exposure to similar strains decades ago.) Well, the information about the effects of the seasonal flu is widely reported on each year. Problem is, even if you did take the time to educate people on the 'regular' flu, there are far too many people who will ignore the information, claiming "I'm healthy I don't need it". Yes, its 'just the flu', but its a flu that can have serious consequences (hospitalization or death). So, here's what's known about the flu so far: - The version does tend to hit adults harder than seasonal flus (although seniors were probably better off) - Some of the initial predictions may have been overly-pessimistic - The version does seem to be a little easier to transmit than most seasonal flus - The flu vaccine has undergone multiple tests (with no side effects) so it should be considered safe At this point, we don't know exactly how bad this thing will get, so don't panic, but don't dismiss the issue either.

So overall our current vaccines will have already prevented this new mutation to a good degree. Errr... no. The strains that were similar to the current H1N1 circulated decades ago. Since that time, they haven't been a factor (possibly contained in small populations, etc.). Influenza vaccines typically contain the strains most likely to circulate in any given year. Since the earlier H1N1 version wasn't circulating, they had no reason to include it in the vaccines. But we haven't been 'exposed to the virus year after year'. There are many strains of influnza... some similar to each other, some fairly unique. If you are under the age 60, you've been exposed to many influenza viruses, but you probably haven't come across anything that resembles the current swine flu. As I've stated before, that is nothing but a worthless anecdote. Lets take a look at some of the specifics of your claim, shall we? - You claim you had the flu once in the past couple of decades. Well, at least that's a little more honesty than many anti-vaxers use. But did you ever think that, had you actually had the flu shot, you could have also prevented that one occurance? - How do you even know that you had 'just one' occurance? Remember, there can be similarities between colds and the flu... its possible you might have misidentified a case of influenza as a cold. Plus, there's a certain amount of 'confirmation bias'. All humans do that. We tend to remember things which we thing 'proves' our point, and ignore things which disprove it. Had you actually been keeping accurate logs, maybe you might have had more infections than you remember. - Ever think your lack of influenza cases is due to nothing but dumb luck? After all, there is a certain amount of randomness involved... The sheer chance of not standing next to a flu suffer in the checkout line of a grocery store might have made the difference between decades of health and the worst possible case of the flu in the history of mankind. Thats why, when scientists are trying to determine effectiveness and safety of drugs and vaccines, they look at large scale studies - You point to people who get the flu shot, but still end up with the flu... That's to be expected. There are multiple strains circulating every year. Vaccines can target some, but not all, of the circulating strains. Quite possible for the vaccine to work but have the person still get sick (i.e. person gets 1 flu in the year, as oppsed to 2 bouts) You know, I keep asking, but for some reason you never answer... if you accept your 'anecdotes' as evidence about how valuable the flu vaccine is, then do you also belive people who claim smoking isn't dangerous because the oldest person ever to have lived smoked well past the age of 100? And if you actually think smoking is dangerous, then why are you so willing to accept YOUR anecdotes, but you are dismissive of others? We should definitely take the flu vaccine every year. The body is continuously affected by germs of all types... colds, flus, etc. The immune system is used to being exposed to infections. That's what its there for. Its not going to make the immune system weaker. The body just doesn't work that way. If anything, the biggest threat to making your immune system weaker is to actually get infected with a real live flu... not only does the body have to build up antibodies to fight the infection (just as with the vaccination), but the effects of the flu (e.g. prolonged high fever) can cause damages that might actually weaken the immune system (something that won't happen with the vaccine.) A virus can't completely rewrite itself...there is still a signature that the virus scanner detects. Yes they are, but the problem is, if it is a serious-enough virus, the body will either: - be unable to combat the virus without damaging itself (This is what happened in the 1918-9 spanish flu... the people most at risk in that pandemic were the young and healthy, because the virus tended to cause an immune-system overreactions) - Be unable to fight the infection quickly enough before damage occurs (or secondary infections set in) Hey, the human body is a wonderful thing, and our immune system is a wonderful evolutionary adaptation. But, its not perfect. It takes time to handle new situations, and the reactions the body goes through can be problematic. By the way, if you happen to think the human body has this amazing ability to fight off infections without the aid of vaccines, then how do you explain Australia? They have their flu season before us (and the vaccine wasn't developed yet), and they ended up with around 131 deaths with a confirmed link to H1N1. And 54 of them were in the 15-65 year age range (not exactly frail children or seniors) Why exactly do you think these people died, if you think the immune system is so 'perfect' at fighting off infections without vaccines? And the people that don't rely on 'herd immunity' to save their lives, which people like you compromise. First of all, keep in mind that while the H1N1 flu hasn't killed as many people as seasonal flu usually does, we still haven't hit the peak of the flu season (which runs from about November to April). So, you can't guage how 'dangerous' this flu is based only on current mortality numbers. (Its a little like saying we won't have a very rough winter because we haven't had any snow in August... but August is the month you're not supposed to have snow. Secondly, I have repeatedly admitted that there may be some overhype regarding the H1N1 vaccine. It may or may not turn out to be a more difficult flu season than normal. (The way its been attacking young 'healthy' people more than the elderly makes things harder to predict). However, even if it is less harsh than we had expected earlier, it does not remove the need for vaccinations.... even an 'easy' flu year can cause hospitalizations and deaths that could have been prevented with the flu shot.

This will give the virus a chance to mutate, and we go through all this again in a year or so. Because if you don't vaccinace everyone at the same time, then you are doing patchwork and hope it does not spread. You put out one fire while more start elsewhere. Lets take a look at all the errors in that particular line of reasoning, shall we? First of all... yes, it is true that the virus mutates regularly. However, the virus is not going to have its entire genetic code rewritten within a week. There will be similarities between the original virus and mutated virus, and your immune system will still be able to handle the mutated virus. (Consider this: In the recent pandemic, many elderly people have shown more immunity to the virus than expected. The reason: They were exposed to similar strains decades ago. So, if some people show an immunity to strains that have had decades to mutate/change, I think there's a pretty good chance your system can also handle the mutations that may have happened after a month. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91014144736.htm Secondly, if you're really concerned about mutations, then the best solution is to cut down (as much as possible) the number of people who get the virus as soon as possible. After all, the virus does not reproduce or mutate outside the body. Even if only some people get the vaccine to start, it will mean fewer hosts that will get infected, incubate the virus, and produce mutated strains.) Given a choice, I'd rather see 10 million Canadians getting immunized (leaving only 20 million to incubate the virus and create mutations) rather than waiting a few months and leaving all 30 million Canadians to be little germ factories for. Bad anology... computer viruses do not 'mutate' randomly as the influenza virus does. Any changes that occur would have been pre-programmed by the hacker. If you were getting infected by a new 'variant', then whatever anti-virus software you were using didn't have very good filters to identify and/or remove the virus properly. And if there are 'variants' circulating, its not because of some random 'mutation' that occured on a PC, its because of a deliberate attempt to create a new virus by a hacker or script kiddie somewhere. We have less banks than in the 70s, we have less insurance companies than in the 70s. we have less supermarket brands than in the 70s. Again, not a good comparison... Many of the drug companies that used to make the virus are still there. (Unlike, say, supermarkets or insurance companies, they haven't necessarily been merged or gone out of business, etc.).. In fact, some of them are still making vaccines (just not influenza vaccines). They're just not making vaccines for influenza.

Ok, lets look at all the stuff that's wrong with that particular 'post'... - It claims that Tamiflu is "one of the only vaccines touted to be effective against H1N1". The problem is, Tamiflu is not a vaccine. It is a drug. Totally different concept. And it made that particular mistake multiple times. Why exactly should we trust an article that can't even get the basic science correct? - That particular article makes references to things like the Alex Jones web sites. Jones is a well known conspiracy theorist/crank who believes in things like the destruction of the WTC via controlled demolition. Frankly, he's not exactly someone who's known for checking his facts. Frankly, I find the article quite, well, hypocritical. It claims that it doesn't want to appear 'biased', yet it presents most of the bizarre theories without any sort of counter-arguments. The fact that someone can post a theory on the net doesn't mean that there is any evidence to support that theory, nor does it mean that that theory deserves any credibility. Your right, it does appear that there are more manufacturers for this year's vaccines than in previous years. However, there are STILL fewer manufactures now than in the 1970s (and, keep in mind that there is probably more demand for any vaccines for no other reason than the increase in global population.) If there were 25 companies who were willing to make influenza vaccines in the 1970s, why are there less than half that number who are willing to make the vaccine now, if there is so much money to be made?

Of course the government should have the right to control or restrict "natural products". Do people actually believe that just because something is "all natural" that it is completely safe? Frankly, I have no problem with companies having to ensure the safety and compostion of their products, and if necessary, give consumers warnings. By the way, I do have to thank the green party... You see, in the past I've supported the conservative party, not because I'm a hardcore member, and not because I share all their policies/beliefs, but they were the closest. However, it always made me nervous supporting a party that also contained creationists and other assorted, ahem, quacks. But now, we can see from the claims of the Green party, that belief in non-sensical ideas goes clear across the political spectrum. Actuall, those particular claims are not actually being made by the CBC. Instead, they are reporting on some of the false claims. Those claims were actually made by a webside called 'stopc51'. Should be pointed out that the stopc51 web site (as well as much of the other "support" the anti-C51 movement has) is funded by a "natural health product" called truehope. So? If someone is producing a product, then the inspectors have to be able to access the factory where that product is being made. Yeah, and how else do you think that inspectors will be able to actually test something? These are the types of regulations that food and drug producers have had to deal with for years, and they've survived.

In an ideal world, you'd want the vaccine to everyone in the world the very second its been approved. And in an ideal world, I would be driving a sports car and have a hot 20 year old girlfriend. But, the reality is, it does take time to produce the vaccine. Even if we wanted to vaccinate all 30 million Canadians, we won't have that much vaccine availabe at once, and it would be foolish to hold off vaccinating some people while we wait for enough vaccine for everyone. Do you somehow think the vaccines appear magically in the doctor's office? Umm... it will help you if you haven't gotten swine flu yet, even if you aren't in the first batch of people to get vaccinated. I really don't understand your complaint or issue here. (I think you've had all your 'arguments' debunked, so you're just resorting to nonsensical arguments.) The influenza 'season' lasts several months (basically, our late fall/winter). The first people are getting vaccinated in October. Even if you don't get vaccinated until November or December, flu season lasts until April. Getting the vaccine in December will still reduce your risk of getting the flu for the rest of the season (as well as protect you from any outbreaks following the end of the normal flu season. That's how the f*ck it will help you. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/disea...ippe-eng.php#va Once again, its not ideal. It would be wonderful to have vaccinations available for everyone all at the start. But even if the vaccine is not available to the entire population immediately, it is still of value because even if given in November/December, it would still protect people for the vast majority of the influenza season. In Australia (where their flu season is earlier than ours), it was found that the H1N1 swine flu strain was by far the most common circulating strain. There is a difference between not panicing, and actually rejecting the need for the flu vaccine. Hey, I've been quite willing to admit, there is likely a certain amount of over-hype regarding H1N1. I've already stated that multiple times in this thread. However, even if it is 'over-hyped', the fact is: - Some people will die from H1N1 - The vaccine has the ability to reduce the risk for influenza - People who do not get vaccinated will die unnecessarily. Others will get sick unnessarily, and perhaps pass the virus on to others who will die. Even if this flu season is not any worse than previous years, those 3 facts outlined above will still apply. Edited to add: A while ago, I pointed out how people claiming they didn't need the flu shot because they "never got sick" was equivalent to people claiming cigarette smoking was "safe" because they knew people who smoked but still lived a long time. I challenged you to explain why your "never got sick" anecdone was valid while the "smoking doesn't harm you" anecdote was invalid. I'm still waiting to hear your explaination. Why is one story relevant, and the other not?

Actually, no, the're not. As I've mentioned on this forum before... a couple of decades ago, there were dozens of companies producing flu vaccines. Now, there are only a couple. The drug companies just realized that there wasn't that much to be made off of influenza vaccine. If there was so much money to be made, why are there so few companies making the vaccine? Vaccionations happen world-wide, so its a pretty big market. From: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july...cine_10-08.html ...It is extremely risky for companies to get involved, even if there's the perception that there's going to be shortages. Well, as a matter of fact you had mentioned but last year there were 87 million doses were made even though there were a perception of being shortage, we used 83. Two years before, we had to throw away 12 million doses that weren't used. From: http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/directors/...skyBusiness.pdf Unfortunately, companies must also confront the challenges posed by vaccine pricing. Our culture tends to undervalue immunization and other preventive measures compared with drugs to treat medical conditions....Thus, vaccines have proven much less lucrative for their manufacturers than other pharmaceuticals. ... An additional disincentive for companies is the fact that consumer interest in influenza vaccine can ebb and flow from year to year, leading to a frequent mismatch between supply and demand. Eightyseven million doses of influenza vaccine were made for the 2003-2004 influenza season but only 83 million doses were used, even though there was a perceived vaccine shortage. In the previous season, 12 million doses of vaccine had to be thrown away, all at a loss for the vaccine manufacturers From: http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_de...channel_id=1026 In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid.

Indeed, that is messed up. You know, I hope that, after watchig that video, you also took the type to read my posts to see why, as heartbreaking as this story is, it likely has nothing at all to do with the flu vaccination. I don't think they're saying "don't worry about the virus". They're saying "worry about the virus, BUT we have to prioritize who gets the vaccine". Keep in mid that the idea that "its not that bad" doesn't mean that you souldn't take percautions (including getting vaccinated).

You know, when I first heard about the story, I was a little skeptical, but I didn't dismiss it outright. After thinking about it, and reading up a little more about her case, I am now totally convinced that the flu shot had absolutely nothing at all to do with her case. You see, the news report that is referenced in the above link is a little misleading... it claims that she got the flu shot, then 10 days later came down with Dystonia. However, the above quote (as well as other descriptions) give a slightly different story... she didn't catch Dystonia 10 days later, she got sick with flu-like symptoms 10 days later, then several days after THAT came down with Dystonia. So why don't I think it was the flu shot that was responsible? - Reactions to the flu vaccine happen right after the shot, and not 10 days later (this is where I made my mistake... the YouTube video didn't make that clear). - It actually takes several weeks for the flu vaccine to become 'effective' Put these 2 facts together, and you have to conclude that she likely came down with some illness (could be the flu, could be some similar illness) that she was going to get anyways, regardless of whether she had the flu shot or not. IF she has Dystonia, and its related to an immune reaction, it was likely due to the unexpected sickness she came down with rather than the flu vaccine. In cases like this (ones that tend to be very, ahem, emotional), it is natural for people to want to find some cause, to have something to blame. People like to think there's some sort of 'control' they have over aspects of their life that makes them blame things like a vaccine for illness. Unfortunately, the blame is often misplaced (as it is in this case).

Your sense of humour is infectious.

Greeeaaat... just what we need... some very bizarre, rare case that all sorts of anti-vaccination idiots can take and warp in order to justify their uneducated opinions about the vaccine. You're right, its possible that the reaction was caused by some other factor. She had supposedly had flu shots in the past (with no adverse reactions). So if the flu shot was to blame, why didn't it happen before? However, I'm willing to admit that there is at least a chance her Dystonia was caused, in part, by the flu vaccine. (From what I've seen, dystonia can be triggered by an immune response to a variety of diseases, including Influenza, so its not out of the realm of possibility that the vaccine can trigger the same reaction.) Even if the vaccine had something to do with her disease, keep the following in mind: - Since the disease is triggered by an immune response, she might have had the exact same reaction had she been infected by the actual live virus naturally - This case was extremely rare. Given the number of people who get vaccinated every year, she's literally one out of millions upon millions of people. By the way, there is another option... there is a chance that she doesn't necessarily have Dystonia, and that her problems are psychosematic. (There is a doctor Vinocur claiming that the way her disease presents itself is non-typical.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0QYLMUZb4...e=youtube_gdata (Warning: This video is from FoxNews, which is not as well-respected as some other news organizations.)

They may have "changed the goalposts" with the way they define what a pandemic is, but that doesn't mean that the way they react to potential health problems (such as potential influenza outbreaks) has changed. And we also know that there is a direct link between getting vaccinated against influenza and having a reduced chance of hospitialization and/or dying. But what would you say to someone who said "I knew someone who smoked for years and didn't get cancer, so therefore cigarettes are safe"? Would you consider their little 'anecdote' to be any sort of proof? The idea that "cigarettes can cause death" is based on scientific studies. We have other scientific studies showing that vaccinations against influenza save lives. Why are you accepting one set of scientific studies (cigarettes cause death) and rejecting another set of studies (vaccination saves lives)? Both are done using control groups, both have their results published in peer-reviewed journals. I've posted links in other threads to studies that show that, when you compare the cost of the vaccination to the costs of 'getting sick' (including hospitilization costs, lost productivity due to illness, etc.), that getting the population vaccinated would result in a net cost saving to society. First of all, the first round of vaccines has already been tested in Australia. Result: No significant side effects found, and the required anti-bodies were formed. Secondly: As I've stated before, they've been immunizating people against influenza for decades, with no significant problems. Why would you expect the H1N1 vaccine to be any different? Thirdly, what are you characterizing as the "first round" of vaccinations? As I said before, they've already tested it in Austraila with no problems. You mean "first round" for the vaccines here in North America? You might not even be eligable (depending on what demographic you fit into). You mean first round as in when its actually available to you? Frankly, the idea of playing the "wait and see" game is foolish. Nobody can guarantee when "flu season" will peak, plus the vaccine takes a while before it causes immunity, so you could end up getting the flu shot and miss out on the majority of the protection it would provide. Ummmm... not sure exactly what you're claiming. Remember that H1N1 is a classication of the virus based on some of the protiens that it contains. But there are many different strains of the H1N1 virus, with varying degrees of mortality and transmission. Even if people have been exposes to H1N1 before, it may or may not be relevant to the current H1N1 "2009-swine flu" strain.

Well, given the fact that there's virtually no risk at getting the vaccine, yet the risk of not getting the vaccine could result in a doubling of your chance of hospitializion or death, the decision to get vaccinated should be pretty much a no-brainer. If someone hit me in the head with a hammer once, I would hurt him back and twice as hard. They would not get a chance to use the crowbar and go all Gordon Freeman on my ass. And this is a really really horrible comparison or analogy. Actually, its a perfect anology. You were the one who pointed out that the risks may not be greater for H1N1 than for other seasonal flus. We've been getting "hit in the head" for years, by having people die unneccarily because they didn't get vaccinated. Now, we've switched from the hammer to the crowbar (change in flu strain to the H1N1 variety). The fact that someone wouldn't get vaccinated because the risk was the same as previous years is the same as saying you are happy to get hit in the head with a crowbar because you've been hit in the head with a hammer before. Idiotic statement. Anecdotes are not "evidience". So, by that logic, are cigarettes safe because someone used to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day yet lived to be 100? I find it quite revealing... I post reference after reference to scientific studies involving large groups of people, published in peer-reviewed journals in order to support my opinions. You, on the other hand, give an irrelevant anecdote. In the U.K., H1N1 cases have recently doubled. Over 100 people have died. I wonder how many of those thought "I've never had the flu before so I should be safe". That is a good course of action. However, the problem is, you can actually be infected with the flu, and pass it on to others, for a full day before you actually start showing flu-like symptoms. From: http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/qa.htm People infected with seasonal and 2009 H1N1 flu shed virus and may be able to infect others from 1 day before getting sick to 5 to 7 days after. Your best course of action should be: - Get the vaccination - Still stay home if you get sick

Don't necessarily think the "goalposts" have been moved. The medical community will likely repond to this as they would even if it hadn't been labeled a "pandemic"... by suggesting widespread vaccinations. There is never a 100% gaurantee then. Nope, and I never said there was. But then, there's no guarantee that the guy who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day will get lung cancer. Its just more likely that he will. Of course you can't ignore it... But that's what so many people have done... with claims that they "don't need" to get immunized, something that's cheap and effective at cutting down the risk. Ok, keep in mind that while H1N1 "kills as many in 6 months as regular flu does every day", we still haven't really hit the peak of our flu season yet. And yes, there is some guess-work going on here. Just like with the seasonal flu, those involved with responding to medical situations have to make "educated guesses". Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong.

That article was written by Michael Fumento. Fumento is a "science writer" who, in my opinion, does tend to do a good job at pointing out when people are "over-reacting". (For example, he has pointed out how politicians and organizations were wrong about things like SARS and HIV transmission.) Of course, no sourse of information is perfect... Fumento may be quite right... there is a certain amount of 'panic politics' that can set in. However, I think he may be wrong about some of the information about the flu. For example, the claim that the flu is "1/10th as lethal" may be due to statistics from New York City. However, we aren't even IN flu season yet in North America. On the other hand, Australia's flu season starts earlier than ours. H1N1 certainly hasn't caused widespread deaths there, but it has hit the "healthy" adult population harder than the elderly or children (the groups traditionally at risk). That might make the disease less "lethal" overall, but put groups at risk that might otherwise have not had to worry.

A little off topic here... Type 1 Diabetes (a.k.a. childhood diabeties) is an autoimune disease which certainly does have a genetic component. While the disease doesn't always express itself in all individuals with the diabetes "makeup", these genes must be there to have the disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mell...e_1#Inheritance And it is true that Type 2 Diabetes can usually be controlled through weight loss and proper diet/exercise. However, there still is a strong genetic component. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mell...pe_2#Prevention There is also a strong inheritable genetic connection in type 2 diabetes: having relatives (especially first degree) with type 2 increases risks of developing type 2 diabetes very substantially. First of all, keep in mind that the definition of 'pandemic' has changed slightly. This version of the flu is being labeled a 'pandemic' not because it is particularly more 'deadly' than other versions of the flu, but because its more easily transmittable. So, why haven't we seen huge numbers of deaths? A few reasons: - Our health care system has become better at handling the 'secondary' infections - Vaccinations from one year may give a partial immunity to versions of the flu that circulate in later years As I said before, there is probably no need to 'panic' over the H1N1 flu. However, there's also no need to ignore it. This virus is different than previous years, hitting supposedly "healthy" people harder than children or the elderly.

A lot of this has already been discussed in other threads, so you'll have to excuse me if any of this sounds familiar... Actually, the economic benefits of vaccination HAVE been studied. First of all, while it does cost money to vaccinate people, overall, it ends up saving money for the health care system and society. Compare the cost of the vaccine (as well as the cost of doctors to administer the vaccine, vaccination side effects, etc.) against: - Reduced need for emergency room visits for people infected with the flu - Reduced need for antibiotics and antivirals to handle severe cases of the flu and related infections - Increased prductivity for workers who have less need to "stay at home sick" A few studies to read up on: (And hey, some of this references work done for peer reviewed articles...) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15449635 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/short/00...0-00157v1?rss=1 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18691849 (1 of those articles was specificaly about vaccination against H1N1, the other 2 were about vaccination against influenza in general, although its reasonable to assume similar economic benefits.) Of course, ultimately, even if influenza vaccinations didn't save society money, the fact that it saves lives should be enough to justify its use. (Heck, it costs money to treat a wide range of diseases... are you suggesting that we should just let people die because it costs money to treat them?) Snake oil? Well, lets see: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/N...07413?query=TOC (article indicating proper antibodies formed after use of vaccine) http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1921679,00.html (a more mainstream article covering the same issues) Actually, they have been addressed. The link to the New England Journal of Medicine above refers to a study in Australia that showed no serious side effects specifically with the H1N1 vaccine. They've been making influenza vaccines for many years now. We know the risks from previous years. Why should we expect these vaccinations to be any different? Not sure what the individual unit costs of a vaccine are. Despite what you might think, vaccines are not a huge money-making venture for companies. There used to be dozens of companies who made vaccines. Now, there are only a couple. From: http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_de...channel_id=1026 In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid. If vaccines were such money-makers, why aren't more companies involved in the business? (Now, I know some people are going to complain "Oh there's no liability risk since the Canadian government pays for anyone harmed". However, that rule does not apply globally, and companies could still be on the hook for problems in other countries.)

First of all, I think its rediculous that the guy who engaged in the robberies got such a short sentence. And I find that cutting a deal with him to testify against the store owners/staff was especially offensive. This guy should have been punished to the full extent of the law, and the prosecutors who arranged his 'deal' should be fired. Frankly, I think the biggest fault of the justice system is that they hadn't arrested the criminal long ago. (From the article, it appears that this guy was well known for stealing.) That said, I do think we should be careful when allowing people to 'defend themselves' against criminals. After all, civilians aren't taught to aprehend people, so there is a chance of excessive force being used, as well as the chance of mistaken identity.

Well, keep in mind that even if you spend most of your time in the cab of a truck, you still interact with the people you deliver the products too, with people in restaurants/gas stations where you stop, etc. A lot of Canadians are idiots. At least when it comes to this issue. The 'mercury' you hear about is likely from a preservative known as thimerosal. There are some idiots (Jenny McCarthy being prime among them) who are claiming that the thimerosal in various vaccines is causing autism in children. Problem is, there's absolutely no actual evidence that this is actually happening. (Large scale studies have shown that there is no statistical link between taking vaccines and autism, and the compunds containing mercury are not the ones that would normally be considered 'dangerous'.) http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN30505454 http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenn...Count/Home.html Don't think you'll find much in the way of credible sources against the vaccine. About the only people speaking out against it are either anti-science kooks (the anti-vaccination web sites claiming "I heard the word 'vaccine' when pregnant and now my baby has 2 heads", and other assorted annecdotes), or people who simply claim they "aren't at risk" (but with no actual reasoning behind it.)

First of all, most of those issues you raised aren't really good examples of having only "2 choices". For example, you could say you want to be in afghanistan, or completely withdraw from afghanistan, OR you could suggest we leave troops in place but only in a non-combat role (giving humanitarian relief, medical staff for other countries acting in combat roles. And there are actually different 'types' of ways you could be involved in a 'murder'... active premeditation, felony murder, accidental/manslaughter. We have different categories for crime to recognize that fact. And even if you DO assume that issues are all black-and-white, that doesn't necessarily mean you will be able to vote along with the issues in all cases. For example, you may be in favour of participation in Afghanistan (as the Conservatives are), but also believe that taxes should be increased.