segnosaur

Yes, quite likely that you had a reaction to the shot (it does happen in a small number of cases). Also possible that you just happened to catch some other illness at about time the flu shot was given. Of course, you're still better off to have 'flu-like symptoms' for several days than to end up in the hospital or dead. At least that's my opinion. Anecdotes are useless in determining effectiveness or risk. After all, I'm sure plenty of people have some "friend of a friend who smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day and lived to 100". That doesn't mean that cigarettes are safe. It means that some people just get lucky, either through genetics, or by pure chance avoiding certain people. The fact that you're at a 'lower risk' doesn't necessarily mean that there is no risk. And while there is no need to panic, it looks like the upcoming H1N1 infections are causing more problems (hospitalizations and deaths) for adults. Children and the elderly seem to have fewer severe complcations. So? The flu is not spread through physical contact. Probably the most common transmission method is through coughing/sneezing. Washing your hands may be a good idea (it does impact the chance of picking up colds), but it may not be an issue when dealing with the flu. http://www.cmaj.ca/earlyreleases/1oct09_co...ndwashing.shtml Studies have shown that taking Vitamin C is not useful in preventing or treating colds in otherwise 'healthy' adults. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane...0980/frame.html Being well rested is probably a good thing, but it is no guarantee that you will be protected. (And what exactly do you mean 'pretty good'? You never get sick? Sometimes but not as often? I think what's happened here is that you've had 'good luck' for the past few years, and you're incorrectly assuming that the result is due to your vitamins, etc. That's why actual large scale studies are run, to separate actual effects from 'placebo' effects.

Well, you are right in that nobody needs to 'freak out'. And yes, mortality rates are certainly not so bad that the population is being decimated. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't take action. After all, do you have fire insurance on your house? Or do you just wait until you hear that there is an arsonist living in your neighbourhood? Believe it or not, there IS a middle ground between outright panic and total apathy. Add what it is with people suggesting that it is OK because it doesn't kill more people than regular seasonal flu? Did you ever think that preventing deaths is a 'good thing', even if we've had similar death rates in the past? Let me put it another way, if somebody hit you in the head with a hammer every day for the past year, and then said they were going to hit you in the head with a crowbar every day for the NEXT year, would you say "Oh, its OK, because I'm used to getting hit in the head". Really, it boggles the mind. Please, explain to me why you think that its ok to have people die now from preventable diseases, just because they had been dying of a similar preventable disease previously. The best model about what might happen comes from Australia. (They're a 'westernized' society, similar demographics to ours, and their flu season comes earlier than ours.) So, what's happened there? Lets see: - Both seasonal flu strains and H1N1 'swine flu' are both circulating, but H1N1 seems to have become the most wide spread - When comparing H1N1 to past seasonal flu seasons, H1N1 seems to have caused fewer problems (e.g. hospitalization) among the elderly and young children. However, for adults, the the flu seems to have had a greater impact. In fact, in some age ranges, the number of hospitalizations is around 50% higher for non-senior adults. And if you look at mortality, the highest number of deaths seems to involve people between 35-65. See: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/pub...u-no12-2009.pdf Yes, vaccine development and production happens quickly. Given the nature of influenza demographics, it has to happen that way. Yeah, it would be nice to have the time to do lengthy double-blind trials for each potential vaccine every year. But even though we don't there is still plenty of evidence showing that the influenza vaccine is both safe and effective. (They've been using the influenza vaccine for decades, and there's no reason to assume that the safety and effectiveness this year will be any worse than in previous years.) For example, if we look at previous years: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562126 (points out how rare the side effects are) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373 (points out a 48% reduction in death in vaccinated seniors) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0708630 (points to a reduction in the number of cases of influenza in pregnant women when vaccinated.) Now, given that there is evidence that the vaccine has been effective in previous years, it is more likely that the current H1N1 vaccine will be effective this year. After all, manufacturing methods are the same, and the viruses are related. I still don't understand people's rational for that... I've already pointed out (and the figures from Australia provide evidence) that people who are 'healthy' can and do fall seriously ill, and sometimes die from the influenza. In some ways, 'healthy' people are at an even greater risk than some that are considered more 'sickly'. Even if you think you're don't stand much of a chance of being seriously ill or dying, why accept even a small risk, when that risk can be minimized (even if not eliminated) with pretty much no effort or risk to you? Please, explain your reasoning. Are you some kind of crazed adreneline junky who enjoys taking unnecessary risks (even if those risks are small)? Or do you honestly think that no 'healthy' person, anywhere in the world, has ever ended up dying or getting hospitalized from influenza? And I've repeatedly pointed out that even if you think your chance of dying is quite small, you can still pass on the virus to people who are more at risk. Is your caring and concern for other people so minimal that you're unwilling to take a little time to go get a flu shot? Please, those are 2 reasonable questions that I'm dying to know the answer to. Which would make the currenct vaccination useless against future mutations. Not exactly correct... after all, even if a virus mutates, it may still have some components that are kept in common which will help the immune system respond to similar infections in the future. In fact, that's one of the things they're finding with the current N1H1 outbreak... elderly people seem to be less "at risk" than younger people, and that might be due to the fact that hey were exposed to simmilar (but slightly different) forms of virus in the past. Plus... the best way to eliminate future mutations is to stop the virus today. You see, viruses are unable to replicate outside of a host, and it is during the replication process that mutations often occur. However, the more people that get immunized now, the fewer potential hosts that can be infected by the virus, and the less chance that one of the sick people will be an incubator for a mutated strain.

Of course we do that in medical physics, and I have been involved in many research projects. We have journals, we have posters and conferences. This is an important part of our department. I only outlined the most basic part of my job- clinical services. But research is what attracts people to this field. Naturally in our case research is related to new clinical applications, such as better definition of the tumour volume, achieving higher doses to the tumour vs healthy tissue, and better dose accuracy. That still doesn't tell me how much of the actual "science" work you do or what your experience is. Do you design studies? Do you analyze the statistics obtained from the data? Do you design new equipment? Or are you just following the orders of phsicians or more "qualified" scientists? And do you you actually have any academic experience relevant to virology or epidemiology? Or is all your knowlege related to on the job training? And if you're knowledgable about the subject, why do you make so many mistakes in the basic knowledge? But we still don't know if you have even a passing knowledge of immunology. Heck, even I (a supporter of vaccination) have pointed out more actual problems with vaccines than you have. Do any of those experience involve learning about viruses or disease transission?

And just what exactly qualifies you to speak on this subject? I've seen nothing which indicates you have any particular knowledge on science or medicine, just a paranoia about capitalism. In another thread, he claimed that he works in a hospital, using and maintaing equipment used in cancer treatment. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he's knowlegable about disease transmission, virology, etc.... there's a very good chance that his 'knowledge' is focused solely on how to maintain/use the equipment he works on. (And given some of the claims he's made, it is a strong possibility. He never did tell us what his academic background was.) There's pretty much no risk to actually receiving the vaccine. The only 2 side effects are for people allergic to eggs (the flu vaccine uses chicken eggs during an incubation stage), and a possible link to Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Guillain-Barre is an immune disease that is triggered by infection.) Guillain-Barre occurs in less than 1 out of every million vaccinations (it works out to 0.4 for every million vaccinations given.) Of course, since Guillain-Barre is triggered by an immune response, its quite likely that had the individuals not been vaccinated, they may have still contracted Guillain-Barre from a later influenza infection anyways. So, if you get vaccinated, you'll have a 0.00004% chance of contracting Guillain-Barre (a disease that is usually not fatal). On the other hand, around 36,000 people in the U.S. die each year from the flu, about 0.012% of the population. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562126 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FS...77/ai_99237596/ Of course, as with any medical procedure, there is always the chance of 'mistakes'... contaminated vaccines, improper handling of equipment. But I am unaware of any reports of this being an issue lately. That makes it hard to estimate the risk from something like that. Plus, there is a chance of a low fever, sore arm, or minor aches, none of which are dangerous, and which should disappear rather quickly. The biggest 'danger' is not that the vaccine will cause harm, but that the vaccine won't protect you for some version of the flu that's going around. However, even if this does happen, you often have cases where a vaccine provides at least partial protection against other strains. So, you're still better off getting vaccinated than not. Not sure exactly what she's talking about... She might be referring to a nasal mist form of the vaccine that they have in the U.S. Here in Canada, we only have the injection method (containing dead viruses). In the U.S., they have an addtional option of the nasal spray, which contains a weakened (but not dead) version of the virus. http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/nasalspray.htm http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/protect/keyfacts.htm

No, you work with and maintain medical equipment. You may be the greatest person ever on the face of the earth at working with the equipment you do, but I wouldn't exactly classify that as "science". From your description of your job, you are not doing original research, you are not publishing articles in journals, and there doesn't appear to be any requirement about keeping up to date about things like epidemiology. If what you do is clasified as "science", then at least some of the work I have done over the past decade similarly counts as "science" (since many of the applications I've developed do have scientific uses.) I never claimed to be an "expert". I do claim to be knowlegable about the basics of the field, and I claim to be able to identify (partly based on my knowlege, partly based on basic logic) trustworthy sources of information. You, on the otherhand, have shown: - at least one incidence of making 'claims' that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the subject (such as your claims of viruses creating "superbugs") - Failed to respond to several statements I made (such as questions on herd immunity, risks, companies making vaccines). I didn't want one... I knew before I entered university that I preferred IT.

Ummm... just out of curiosity, how exactly can you justify the double standard? After all, if people that die from disease have 'weak genetics', then how come you don't view diabetes along the same lines? After all, there's an even STRONGER link between diabetes and genetics than there is between the flu and genetics. I've already pointed out... vaccine production is not exactly a high profit item for drug companies... margines are slim, risks of lawsuits (in other countries, if not here) We have plenty of evidence to know that vaccinations against influenza saves lives.

Once again, let me say, I had no "need" to bring up my academic achievements. You were the one who brought up my personal background, and you were the one who actually made the statement "... you need some more education". Once again, I'm quite happy sticking to the science. I still haven't seen anything to convince me that you know anything about the subject, and given the fact that you've made several questionable claims (such as vaccines contributing to "super-bugs"), something that someone who was knowlegable would identify as false, I have a good reason to question your knowlege and abilities in the field. Oh, and lets see... since this thread started, I have posted almost half a dozen links to reputable sites in support of statements I've made. (Reputable meaning peer-reviewed, or government-run/non-corporate, etc.) The number of similar links you have posted to support your warped and faulty view? Zero. Nada, Zip. Ziltch. So, even if you don't think I'm an "expert" or "knowledgable", I am willing to, you know, actually do the reasarch.

Ummmm... just wondering, what 'germs' do you you think are actually being created? I don't doubt that there are some health care workers that are resistant to getting vaccinated. But, as I said before, being a doctor or a nurse doesn't necessarily make you an expert in all things viral. Heck, wouldn't even surprise me if there were doctors who denied that HIV causes AIDS. Ummm... who exactly is into 'depopulation'? People who favour the flu vaccine want to SAVE lives, not eliminate them.

Say no more. Please Well, considering I've demonstrated a greater grasp of the fundamentals of biology than you (or any of the other anti-vaccination people), you might want to consider that perhaps your "experience" isn't exactly all that useful. (Remember, you were the one that made the rather brain-damaged suggestion that vaccines could lead to "super-bugs".) Oh, and still haven't heard about all your wonderful academic background. What makes a technician more of an expert in epidemiology than someone who doesn't work in medicine, but who has taken multiple university-level biology courses? Still waiting to be wowed by your awesome scientific knowledge.... Waiting.... Waiting.... Waiting....

Excellent... congratulations on getting an 'A'. Thanks, but actually, it was mutliple As... one in Zoology, one in microbiolgy, one in statistics... Also got As in chemistry, physics and genetics. Of course, I was more of a geek back then. Now I just strive to be annoying. I do of course realize that high marks don't necessarily make a person smarter. However, they do have at least some correlation to a person's knowledge of subject matarial, which is often necesary when dealing with issues of science. (And hey, I also realize that, this being an anonymous internet forum, I COULD be lying through my teath.) I'm quite happy to stick to actual science in these discussions; I only brought up my academic record because you suggested I was "just" a grad student.

First of all, I find it ironic that you suggest people shouldn't "judge others"; yet early on you had no problem characterizing me as a 'grad student', treating it in almost a derogatory fashion. Secondly, yes it is true that there are some 'highly educated' people that are clueless, and some uneducated people who are quite bright... however, on average. those that are at the top of their field tend to have a better grasp on how things work. Sorry, I tend to have more trust in someone who's been working in epidemiogy for decades, and has had his work reviewed by many others in the field to verify accuracy, than someone who has never taken courses, never had anything published, etc. Thirdly, while the janitors in your hospital may be 'experts' at waste management, handling dangerous materials, etc. that doesn't necessarily make them experts at epidemiology, virology, or disease control. Maybe they are knowledgable in these areas, but since it isn't necessary to know these things for their jobs, I'd want at least a little assurance that they knew something about the subject before listening to their opinions. You see, when you're dealing with something as complex as health and science issues, having at least a passing knowledge of the concepts involved is beneficial. By the way, while you did tell me "what you do", you never actually told me what your actual educational background was. While you may be the best darn accellerator operator in the world, why exactly does that make you more qualified to talk about viral transmission, herd immunity, and other things regarding influenza vaccinations? Did your 'education' actually involve actually learning how viruses, vaccines and antibiotics work? Did you study concepts like herd immunity? Did you take statistics courses to help you analyze some of the numbers published in various research journals? Heck, I don't work in the medical field; I'm in IT. However, there's a very good chance that my background in biology is actually more extensive than yours. First of all, even though the risks are low, they are not zero. Heck, the risk of my house burning down is pretty low; it doesn't stop me from buying insurance. Frankly, it seems rediculous to avoid getting vaccinations because you think the risk is low because: - The risk if actually GETTING vaccinated is virtually zero - The ultimate result if you're wrong about your own natural immunity is death. (And, by the way, plenty of otherwise healthy people HAVE died from H1N1... wonder how many of them thought "my own natural immunity is sufficient"?) If someone actually had proof that "there is a 0.1% that you will die, unless you snap your fingers (or anything else that is pretty much no-risk/no-cost)", why wouldn't you actually make the effort? Secondly, as I have pointed out before, its not just your own health that's the issue. There is also the issue of herd immunity. YOU may not become severely affected, but you can transmit the virus on to someone who CAN die. We live in a society where we'd like to think people have at least a passing concern over their friends/relatives, and even strangers. The idea that you'd be happy seeing some ELSE die because you don't want to vaccinate yourself is both ignorant AND selfish. Nobody claimed that vaccinations should be the only method used to control the flu and/or other diseaases. No method, by itself, is perfect. But the more things we can do that cut down the risk, the better. You see, THIS is why, when we discuss these sorts of things, at least a passing knowledge of biology is important. There is absolutely no chance that vaccines can lead to "super-bugs" (viruses that are more dangerous than they would otherwise be). You see, vaccines work different than antibiotics. Things like penecillian work directly against bacteria, and if you don't use antibiotics properly, some microbes may survive. Vaccines work differently; its your body's own immune system that's fighting the virus, not the vaccine itself, and the immune system wipes out the invaders. Put it this way, if you were concerned about vaccines causing 'superbugs', you should be just as concerned about NOT getting vaccinated, since the body has pretty much the same reaction when faced with the real, live virus.

Well, lets see... you accused certain people of being 'cozy' with the drug companies. If you weren't suggesting that they had some relationship that wasn't completely on the up-and-up, what exactly were you suggesting? Your right... you didn't use the word "conspracy". You just suggested some shadowy interaction between drug companies and the 'experts' who are making decisions. Well, first of all, not all of that $20,000 goes to paying for hospital stays... Given the fact that per-capita health care spending is around $5000 per year, only about 1/4 of your taxes go to paying for your hospital stay, PLUS any other medical work that you need to get done. Secondly, each day in the hospital ICU can cost in the neighbourhood of $1500. Hosptital stays of up to 10 days with sever cases of the flu are possible, so you'll end up "using" more hospital resources than you actually pay for ($15000 for the hospital stay, compared to only around $5000 of your taxes that actually goes to paying for health care.). So, if you get sick and end up getting hospitalized, you will end up costing ME (and any other Canadian who was smart enough to get vaccinated) money. Yes, and if you get hospitalized because you're not smart enough to get a vaccination, OR if you inadvertantly affect someone who then gets hospitalized, then all Canadians will end up having to pay for your idiocy. (Hey, remember, you were the one who initially complained about having to pay for other people...) Hey, I know you can't necessarly control other people's lives... I can't stop people from smoking, I can't make drunks stop drinking, etc. so there will always be some that 'cost' the health care system more than others. However, that doesn't mean that we should embrace the type of stupidity that will add to our health care costs. Oh, and since I like to, you know, actually provide references: http://neurokin.sfu.ca/researchProject.php?s=381 (ICU costs) http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp...dia_13nov2008_e (Health care spending) http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/15/6/e1.htm (length of hospital stays) http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_art...il_and_may_2009 (length of hospital stay) Here's a suggestion... why don't you actually provide some references so that they can be debunked properly? Do me a favour... please don't use the word 'skepticism'. You see, skepticism implies that you apply logic, reason, and knowledge in order to come up with a decsion. I don't see much evidence of that from you or anyone else on the anti-vaccination side. You see, I'm involved in the 'skeptic' movement. I post on a couple of different 'skeptics' boards, I have attended skeptics conferences. I have spent some of my free time debunking all sorts of nonsense. And frankly, if you posted your exact claims on any actual 'skeptic' forum, I doubt you would find anyone agreeing with you.

I never claimed that there wasn't money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry.... What I said was that there wasn't much money to be made developing vaccines. Just like a car company like GM will have separate 'divisions', drug companies likewise have separate divisions. And any division of a company that is not profitable (or, even if it does turn a profit, doesn't quite earn as much as other sections) can be cut while the rest of the company goes on. Actually, no, I don't. You know, I noticed, nowhere in yoru response did you ever point out any reason why so few companies make the flu vaccine. There are many drug companies making billions in profits every year from other drugs... why aren't more of them jumping on the bandwagon to increase their profits even more by making vaccines? Why are the number of vaccine makers declining? Actually, I am up on current events. And yes, there is legislation to 'protect' vaccine makers. But guess what? That's not exactly a global protection. There are other countries where vaccine makers can still be sued, and even loose their case, even if the vaccine maker did nothing wrong. (Sadly, jurors are ususally not experts in science or critical thinking, and can award the plantiff based on emotions rather than evidence.) Or are you suggesting vaccines get custom made for the Canadian market? Nope, wrong again.... Graduated with a B.Sc. and M.Sc. over a decade ago. My degree wasn't in biology, although I made sure I took a very broad range of courses, including zoology and microbiology (for which I got an A), not to mention courses in statistics (useful in understanding some of these studies) and history. Edited to add: It should be noted however, that even a 'grad student' would seem to be knowledgable enough to see though your, ahem, questionable statements, assuming he had likewise taken science courses.

You know, there's one more thing I wanted to say in my response to dre, Keepitsimple, and anyone else who thinks that the whole flu vaccine drive is a way to somehow increase drug company profits... Back in the 1950s, there were dozens of companies that manufactured vaccines. In 2004, there were only 4. If there is so much money to be made through manufacturing vaccines, then how come there are so few companies involved? You'd think that there'd be a gold rush of companies all hurrying in to try to develop their own vaccines. From: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/10/25/hlsc1025.htm In the 1950s, 26 companies developed and manufactured vaccines; today there are only four From: http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_de...sp?news_id=4964 news_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.

You know, I'm rather suspicious that you actualy "work in healh care", when you characterize vaccines as "noxious potions". That seems like something right out of the middle ages. So, what are you, janitor in some country hospital somewhere in the middle of nowhere? You're right... much better to let health care providers (who sometimes deal with both those who are most "at risk", and those who are quite likely to be exposed to those with the flu) transmit the flu between patients... Actually, no.... the ones that are most in favour of the flu shot are people who are rational and logical and educated in the subject. Ok, here are the particular flaws in that logic: - Yes, there have been problems in vaccine production in years like 2004; however, many people would have had partial immunity from vaccines administered to handle a similar flu strain in the previous year. (We've been vaccinating people for quite some time... even if we stopped all flu vaccinations, there would still be some immunity due to similarities between strains and the immune system's ability to 'remember' infections.) - The claim that the 1997 vaccine contained the 'wrong' strain compared to the one that was circulating is similarly flawed... its quite possible that the vaccination reduced the number of infections from the "predicted" strain to the point where it was not a major factor. Or is possible that the vaccine itself, while not "perfect", still provided partial immunity due to similarities between various viruses. Again, faulty logic... It is quite possible for a vaccine to be effective, yet for the mortality rate to be unchanged. What is probably happening here is that the flu vaccine may be effective one year (thus extending a person's life), and still have them die in future years from a flu that wasn't planned for.

Ok, here are a few things you should recognize about that particular article, and about our criminal justice system in general... That particular article depends in part on work by Graham Stewart, who is the former head of the John Howard society... The John Howard society is a prisioner rights group, and as such any "work" done by them is liable to be biased. (Its kind of like asking the republicans about what they think of the Iraq war... you just aren't likely to get an unbiased view of things.) Yes, crime rates have been dropping in Canada, but that may not have anything to do with how we handle our justice system. Crime depends on a lot of factors... the drop in crime rate could just as easily be due to aging population demographics (older people are less likely to engage in crime) or improved standards of living over the past decade. If I remember correctly, the crime rate in the U.S. has also been dropping, even though their justice system is different than ours, suggesting our drop in crime rates doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what Canada is doing 'right' http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007...4129904-eng.htm http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Lo...P/prb0223-e.htm. Frankly, the issue should not be "are crime rates dropping. The issue should be "are they as low as they can go". The fact that they are currently dropping doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement. The article also has the line: Actually, yes, in many ways, it IS safer than Canada. You see, we have this myth that Canada is somehow 'safe'. But, if you look at the 2004 United Nations human rights report, you see that a higher percentage of Canadians are victims of crime than in the U.S. (Yes, the U.S. may have more murders per captia, but Canada seems to have more assaults, muggings, etc. And yes, there are a lot of people in jail in the U.S., but many of them are in jail for simple drug posession; reforming the drug laws in the U.S. may be a good idea, but suggesting their prisions are full because they are 'tough on crime' is incorrect.) http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr04_complete.pdf (section 23) Here's the problem wtih that logic... Prisoners would still be elegible to get parolled before the end of their sentence. If an individual is unable to behave in prison to the point where they can get parole, why exactly should they be released? Why would we expect the average prisoner's behaviour to improve if they are released on mandatory supervision and have more freedom (even if they are monitored) than they were when they were behind bars? I find it ironic that you would accuse Harper of ignoring "facts" and "evidence", considering the fact that I've managed to debunk your own arguments using basic logic and "facts" that were quite easily available.

How about buying the medicine because it can reduce your chance of dying unneccaril? (This is assuming you actually have to pay for the vaccination...not sure exactly where you live or what your circumstances are) Oh, and if you do happen to come down with a severe case of the flu and you have to spend time in the hospital (as many otherwise "healthy" people do), can we make you pay for your own hospital stay? If you're dumb enough to risk not getting vaccinated (something that's relatively cheap, easy, and risk free) perhaps you should be willing to handle any and all associated costs. Ah this whole "evil conspiracy" theory. You DO realize that studies on the effectiveness of vaccines are reviewed by many researchers who work either for the government or in university labs, and as such are not actually paid for, or have any direct influence by, the "evil drug companies". Here's a suggestion... go back and read the quote I gave last time from House MD. Keep in mind that, even if you have a very talented doctor, there is no guarantee that he is an expert in epidemiology. By the way, I find it ironic that you would suggest that hundreds of researchers the world over are somehow involved in some conspiracy with the drug companies, yet you are automatically assuming that your doctor is doing things strictly to benefit you. If you think its possible for people in the "medical community" to have ulterior motives, how do you know your doctor is not suggesting you get vaccinated because he wants you to get sick so he can earn more money from additional doctor visits?

You don't have to be an 'expert'... I certainly don't have a medical degree. But, I have taken several biology courses (at highschool and university level), and I occasionally read science articles from reputable sources. You don't need to be an 'expert' to make a good decision. A little basic knowledge, and some critical thinking skills are all that's needed. Unfortunately, in this case, ignorance kills. And sadly, in this case, it doesn't just risk killing the ignorant (i.e. you), but innocent people as well. Do you even know how vaccinations work? Vaccinations do work by basically letting the body do its own work. They introduce a weakened or deactivated virus into the body, to let the immune system have its natural immune response. The body will never 'depend' on the vaccine, it is not altering the way the body works. No, it won't. There is virtually no chance of that happening. You might be thinking of antibiotics like penicillin, where there is a danger of 'super-bugs' when antibiotics are mis-used. The same problem mechanism does not happen here. If you are immunized, the virus cannot get established in your body, and there is no way that it can adapt/mutate into a 'supervirus'.

First of all, keep in mind that while there have 'only' been 79 deaths so far, that is 79 deaths at a time when flu cases are relatively rare... Its kind of like counting the number of snowstorms in august. You don't EXPECT to get snow in the summer, so when it happens, its significant. Secondly, while it may be milder than many strains of the seasonal flu, it can still kill people, including the young and 'healthy'. So while it may be true that the risks may be overly hyped, that's no reason to actually risk your life by not getting the flu shot, especially if there's little or no risk to you. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. I think the best response to that particular line of reasoning comes from the TV show House MD: http://www.housetv.org/quotes.html Dr. Gregory House: [examining a baby] No fever, glands normal. Missing her vaccination dates. Young Mother: We're not vaccinating. Dr. Gregory House: Think they don't work? Young Mother: I think some multinational pharmaceutical company wants me to think they work. Pad their bottom line. Dr. Gregory House: ... You know another really good business? Teeny tiny baby coffins. You can get 'em in frog green, fire-engine red, really. The antibodies in yummy mummy only protect the kid for six months, which is why these companies think they can gouge you. They think that you'll spend whatever they ask to keep your kid alive. Wanna change things? Prove 'em wrong. Few hundred parents like you decide they'd rather let their kid die than cough up forty bucks for a vaccination, believe me, prices will drop really fast! Even if the risk of dying from the flu is over-hyped, you still seem to be missing the fact: there is still a risk of dying from the flu. A flu shot reduced (even if it doesn't eliminate) that risk.

Just out of curiosity, just how many "health care workers" are you talking about? A couple? A dozen? What is your source of information? And are those health care workers knowlegable about things like disease transmission, or are you talking about some cafeteria worker in some country hospital? Sorry, but I tend to respect the opinions of acknowledged experts in the field, rather than the claims of some anonymous "workers" for whom I have no idea of what their actual knowledge is. The process of creating flu vaccines is well established (even if vaccines didn't contain this particular strain). Furthermore, even though they've only had a few months to test it, there have been absolutly no signs of any adverse effects. 2 major things wrong with that line of reasoning... - Even if you think that your bouts with the flu are 'managable', there is no guarantee that you won't have a more serious reaction with this pariticular strain. - Even if YOU can handle the flu, there are others in the population who are at greater risk (the elderly, young children, people with compromised immune systems), and you could end up contributing to the death of someone by inadvertently passing on the flu to those individuals. Getting immunized yourself might just end up saving someone else. Frankly, the idea that "I don't need the shot because the flu doesn't affect me much" is a very selfish attitutde (especially considering there is virtually no risk to you.)

Close... it was 1918, just following the first world war. Unlike most forms of flu, it wasn't the elderly and frail that were most at risk. The spanish flu tended to kill the younger, healthier people. The reason may have been the way that particular strain worked... it 'heated up' the immune system when fighting it; healthier people had a stringer immune response, so their body ended up affected more. Because, with all of the various forms of the flu virus, there is a chance that we may encounter similar strains in the future, and having versions of the spanish flu virus will allow comparisons with the virus' chemical structure and effect on the body. Heck, our current H1N1 virus may be a distant relative of the spanish flu virus; so knowing as much about it will help us understand the current H1N1 swine flu virus.

Not exactly true... Yes, viruses do mutate. And there is a chance that, in the months that it takes to develop a vaccine the influenza virus may change. But, even if there ARE changes, the virus' is not going to be totally re-written, and any vaccine is still likely to be effective against even a mutated virus. Heck, one of the things that researchers are noticing is that older people may actually have some immunity from the current H1N1 virus because they were exposed to other H1N1 viruses decades ago. Nope, not true at all. The biggest problem with creating a flu vaccine isn't the mutation rate of the virus, but in the fact that the government scientists basically have to guess which flu strains are going to be most common in a particular year, months before widespread infections set in. (You see, there are dozens of possible flu strains, but vaccines can only be made for a couple of strains.) Well, they don't exactly guess which flu strains they should worry about, but they do have to make some predictions based on imperfect data. Sometimes, the scientists guess correctly, and the vaccine does end up covering the most common forms of flu that are circulating during the year. Sometimes, they guess wrong, and the virus handles one type of flu well, but not not the most common one in circulation. However' you're still better off to have an imperfect vaccine than non at all.

The fact that a medical expert may not necessarily be a good speaker does not mean that they are unsure of the safety and effectiveness of new vaccinnes. Perhaps the reason they look confused when asked about these things is because anyone who knows the science should realize that using the vaccines is the best thing to do, and most 'questions' are pretty much irrelevant. We can be pretty sure the vaccines are virtually 100% safe (outside a small number of people who might have an alergic reaction.) Yes, there are no guarantees as to the effectiveness, given the mutation rate of the influenza virus. You may get vaccinated and still catch the flu, or the vaccination may actually keep you from getting sick. But all told, you will have a better chance at survival if you take the vaccine than if you don't. Which, of course, makes no sense, given the fact that developing these vaccines takes thousands of man-hours by hundreds of scientists, and the use and effectiveness of these vaccines is published in journals that are reviewed by, and ultimately read by, thousands of people. To assume that all these people are somehow in on some grand conspiricy, with not one persion coming forward and saying "I was coerced..." puts that particular insinuation on the same level as moon-hoax believers and holocaust deniers.

While it IS true that there is a tendency for people to panic over things like H1N1, SARS, and other diseases, that does not mean the risk is non-existant. H1N1 is a little worse than seasonal flu.... its slightly easier to transmit. (Initial reports suggested it had a slightly higher morality rate, but I believe those numbers have been revised.) Not quite as bad as ebola, but the fact that it can kill people, and a vaccination is so easy to get should make the decsion a no-brainer. Well, first of all, some people you know, actually care about senior citizens and other "frail" people. So while I might find H1N1 to be a "minor convenience", there is a chance that I could transmit the disease to someone who is at higher risk of dying. The more people that get vaccinated, the better the "herd immunity". Granted, there's no LEGAL requirement to get vaccinated, but since there's pretty much no risk to you, why would you not want to take action that could potentially save other lives? Secondly, your suggestion that its only a "minor inconvenience" to the rest of us glosses over some rather significant issues. In fact, some forms of the flu (for example, the Spanish flu) actually affected younger people more than the elderly, and the current H1N1 flu has been affecting chidren and otherwise healthy adults. From: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/10/12/...nals-study.html "Our data suggest that severe disease and mortality in the current outbreak is concentrated in relatively healthy adolescents and adults between the ages of 10 and 60 years," the study's authors wrote. Yes, the 'risk' of any one individual dying from H1N1 (or even any other flu) is pretty small. But the cost and the risk to getting the vaccine is also very small. So, why not take a few minutes out of your day to get vaccinated? Why not do everything you can to try to avoid sickness and even a small chance of death, when it takes so little effort to do so?

Ok, keep in mind that, as the article states, the studies suggesting that the seasonal flu shot may make you more suseptable to H1N1 have not, as yet, been 'peer reviewed' or published. This means that other scietists have not had a chance to review the studies and make sure there were no mistakes. Secondly, those results seem to contradict research done elsewhere... For example, from: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...xrXRQvzljFetL0g ...scientists elsewhere have looked for a similar effect but have failed to see it. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has said it finds no evidence of this and Kieny said British and Australian researchers have also drawn a blank when they searched their data. Lastly, its possible that this refers to the chance of catching a mild case of the flu; the same studies may suggest that your chance of catching a severe case of swine flu actually decreases with the seasonal flu immunization. From the above article: ...The link, if real, is to mild disease. One person who has seen the study says it seems to suggest that those who got a seasonal flu shot were less likely to develop severe disease if they became infected than those who hadn't received the shot.