Jump to content

Swine Flu


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No way I would put their noxious potions in my body.

...

I've worked in health care for over 22 years,

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?

seen these hysterias come and go. I remember one large and overbearing nurse offering flu shots in the hospital basement, rage at me that I didn't want to take the juice. "They ought to not give people their paychecks unless they get the shot!" She hollered. What a nazi, I thought, and walked away.

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...

Surprisingly, for all the rhetoric we hear about smaller government and less control coming from the Neocons, it is THEY who advocate these kind of ideas the most.

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.

There is some evidence that flu shots don't do any good at all.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1/2

"In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine “mismatches” occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge.

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.

Sumit Majumdar, a physician and researcher at the University of Alberta, in Canada, offers another historical observation: rising rates of vaccination of the elderly over the past two decades have not coincided with a lower overall mortality rate. In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

No, but since you ask I work in a department of medical physics, in a cancer centre. I am an accelerator engineer. Our responsibility is to maintaining machines known as linear accelerators, which are used to create high energy radiation beams to kill cancer. We work side by side with the treatment personnel who do the laying on of the hands for patients, and our job is in planning, calibrating, preparing, testing, and in my case also troubleshooting, dismantling and repairing complex equipment.

But, do not put down the janitors. We consider even the janitors as part of the team. They have to be trained to deal with the unique circumstances of hospitals, such as waste management, contamination, and disposal of hazardous medical waste, like the disposal of "sharps" (used needles). They play an important role in infection control.

One should not judge others based on their occupation, level of income or how many degrees they have without having a complete understanding. In any case I've worked with some engineers and PhD's, who are so clueless it's almost frightening. Real intelligence is born, not made.

I prefer not to vaccinate, so do some others. I feel its unwarranted in my case. I am in an age group where the risks are low and my own natural immunity is sufficient to protect me. And this has to do with other practices I follow in my work, which in some ways are far more important than just vaccinating. Frequent washing of the hands when coming in contact with patient areas or equipment is very important. There is a right way to do it, and its part of our training. As is avoiding situations where you might get exposed to airborn contaminants.

And I think that just as one should not abuse antibiotics, the same could apply to these vaccines. We are making existing strains more virulent, by "natural" selection. Those that have the ability to survive become the next generation. If I start getting the flu more often, this could change, but until then, no thank you.

Now please explain what YOU do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but since you ask I work in a department of medical physics, in a cancer centre. I am an accelerator engineer.

...

But, do not put down the janitors. We consider even the janitors as part of the team. They have to be trained to deal with the unique circumstances of hospitals, such as waste management, contamination, and disposal of hazardous medical waste, like the disposal of "sharps" (used needles). They play an important role in infection control.

...

One should not judge others based on their occupation, level of income or how many degrees they have without having a complete understanding.

In any case I've worked with some engineers and PhD's, who are so clueless it's almost frightening. Real intelligence is born, not made.

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.

I prefer not to vaccinate, so do some others. I feel its unwarranted in my case. I am in an age group where the risks are low and my own natural immunity is sufficient to protect me.

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.

And this has to do with other practices I follow in my work, which in some ways are far more important than just vaccinating. Frequent washing of the hands when coming in contact with patient areas or equipment is very important. There is a right way to do it, and its part of our training. As is avoiding situations where you might get exposed to airborn contaminants.

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.

And I think that just as one should not abuse antibiotics, the same could apply to these vaccines.

We are making existing strains more virulent, by "natural" selection. Those that have the ability to survive become the next generation.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in IT

Say no more. Please

:lol:

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an ancient primative - I will survive after all is said and done - My kind have always been here and we are one with this earth - Those that die via disease are bound towards that destination though a week genetic predispostion to dieing..to hell with their needles -----BUT if I was diabetic - then I am in to what ever science can provide..as for viral infections - they can shove them up their ass along with the billion dollar contracts that are doled out to companies who know that the pig flu is a scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an ancient primative - I will survive after all is said and done - My kind have always been here and we are one with this earth - Those that die via disease are bound towards that destination though a week genetic predispostion to dieing..to hell with their needles -----BUT if I was diabetic - then I am in to what ever science can provide..as for viral infections - they can shove them up their ass along with the billion dollar contracts that are doled out to companies who know that the pig flu is a scam.

Right Oleg. Let us revisit this topic after the flu season is over. If segnosore is right I will buy him a beer. Or cherry cooler, if he prefers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kind have always been here and we are one with this earth - Those that die via disease are bound towards that destination though a week genetic predispostion to dieing..to hell with their needles -----BUT if I was diabetic - then I am in to what ever science can provide.

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.

.as for viral infections - they can shove them up their ass along with the billion dollar contracts...

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)

that are doled out to companies who know that the pig flu is a scam.

We have plenty of evidence to know that vaccinations against influenza saves lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in the process of trying to decide if I should get the H1N1 vaccination or not, and it is a hard decision to make with so much misinformation and conspiracy theories floating around.

The main reason I am considering not getting it is because I generally do not talk to or am in close contact with very many people in a day... I drive truck, so my contact with other people is at a minimum.

On-the-other-hand, I do not currently have the luxury of having paid sick days... so if I did get sick, I am not sure if I could afford an extensive leave of absence without pay.

From this forum and others I communicate on, it seems that a lot of Canadians are anti-vaccine. I hear a lot about mercury and traces of other negative trace elements all the way to far-out conspiracy theories such as vaccines are created for government mind control, etc...

Does anyone here have any credible links that are for or against the H1N1 vaccine? I saw the one posted about from 2004, and I counter that with this from the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0907413

Professor Bishop told reporters new information published on Friday in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates promising results from the trial of a vaccine by Australian biopharmaceutical company CSL.

A single 15 milligram dose of the vaccine produced antibody levels consistent with preventing infection in 95 per cent of participants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason I am considering not getting it is because I generally do not talk to or am in close contact with very many people in a day... I drive truck, so my contact with other people is at a minimum.

On-the-other-hand, I do not currently have the luxury of having paid sick days... so if I did get sick, I am not sure if I could afford an extensive leave of absence without pay.

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.

From this forum and others I communicate on, it seems that a lot of Canadians are anti-vaccine.

A lot of Canadians are idiots. At least when it comes to this issue.

I hear a lot about mercury and traces of other negative trace elements all the way to far-out conspiracy theories such as vaccines are created for government mind control, etc...

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

Does anyone here have any credible links that are for or against the H1N1 vaccine? I saw the one posted about from 2004, and I counter that with this from the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0907413

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Well this vaccine getting out to Canadians that do want it, is like the Tories are the environment, its too late the flu is already showing up in S.W. Ontario!

It's showing up big time where I live, too, and the vaccine hasn't been available yet. Just heard all area schools will be closed the rest of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's showing up big time where I live, too, and the vaccine hasn't been available yet. Just heard all area schools will be closed the rest of the week.

Pretty much.....this is a case of too little...too late. We've had small shipments of vaccine freeze on trucks, making some doses far less effective.

Time to suck it up, keep the lungs from filling with too much fluid, and live to tell the story.

How bad can it be compared to 1918....when we stacked bodies in the street for recycling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

It seems as if we just got hit sooner than the CDC anticipated, and harder hit than anticipated, too. The good news is that people are living to tell about it, although there have been a few deaths-- but that's to be expected with every flu season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There is also an even stronger link between obesity and diabetes and has nothing to do with 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)

BC

Pretty much.....this is a case of too little...too late. We've had small shipments of vaccine freeze on trucks, making some doses far less effective.

From other reports, over 60 percent of the population has already been exposed to H1N1. So whenever we get the vaccine, it might already be too late.

Sengnosor

A lot of Canadians are idiots. At least when it comes to this issue.

Priceless.

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?

Maybe you should have gone into the medical field instead of computers.

American Woman

It seems as if we just got hit sooner than the CDC anticipated, and harder hit than anticipated, too. The good news is that people are living to tell about it, although there have been a few deaths-- but that's to be expected with every flu season.

And since there are no more deaths than any other flu season (average over years because sometimes one year will be a little worse than others) and our populations have increased and become more connected, Why have we not seen the pandemic in the number of deaths that the medical professionals tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also an even stronger link between obesity and diabetes and has nothing to do with genetics.

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.

And since there are no more deaths than any other flu season (average over years because sometimes one year will be a little worse than others) and our populations have increased and become more connected, Why have we not seen the pandemic in the number of deaths that the medical professionals tell us.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ah the goalposts have moved essentially. When you change the rules, you change the game and the approach to the game.

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

There is never a 100% gaurantee then.

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.

Of course you can't ignore it, however, the exposure ane hype this virus has been getting, is all going in the face of what is actually happening out there. If this H1N1 kills about as many people in 6 months as regular flu does every day, why are we not concentrating on that strain more than H1N1? Avian flu and SARS were both blips on the radar. Next year we will have another variant of the flu and we go through this all over again. Back to square 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....And since there are no more deaths than any other flu season (average over years because sometimes one year will be a little worse than others) and our populations have increased and become more connected, Why have we not seen the pandemic in the number of deaths that the medical professionals tell us.

Because the medical professionals used the same modeling tools as the global warming alarmists ! :lol:

I've got sick people all around me, but nobody is dead yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the goalposts have moved essentially. When you change the rules, you change the game and the approach to the game.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

...however, the exposure ane hype this virus has been getting, is all going in the face of what is actually happening out there. If this H1N1 kills about as many people in 6 months as regular flu does every day, why are we not concentrating on that strain more than H1N1? Avian flu and SARS were both blips on the radar. Next year we will have another variant of the flu and we go through this all over again. Back to square 1.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Not buying that for a second. If they are changing the way they approach how they define a pandemic, then you bet you ass they moved the goalposts.

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.

We also know there is a direct link between smoking and cancer. The better thing here would be to NOT smoke, or STOP smoking. Which would also improve your chances of NOT getting cancer. And there is no guarantee of not getting cancer if you don't smoke.

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.

It's not cheap.

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.

I'll let you and others take the first round of the vaccine. If I don't see many problems of it, I might get the shot. But again, from personal experience, I have not had a shot in over 20 years, and I could have already come into contact with H5N1, SARS and H1N1. Since over 60% of the population has already been exposed to the H1N1 strain, again, why are we not seeing the skyrocketing deaths related to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not buying that for a second. If they are changing the way they approach how they define a pandemic, then you bet you ass they moved the goalposts.

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.

We also know there is a direct link between smoking and cancer.

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.

The better thing here would be to NOT smoke, or STOP smoking. Which would also improve your chances of NOT getting cancer. And there is no guarantee of not getting cancer if you don't smoke.

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.

It's not cheap.

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.

I'll let you and others take the first round of the vaccine. If I don't see many problems of it, I might get the shot.

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.

But again, from personal experience, I have not had a shot in over 20 years, and I could have already come into contact with H5N1, SARS and H1N1. Since over 60% of the population has already been exposed to the H1N1 strain, again, why are we not seeing the skyrocketing deaths related to it?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee...I missed this "flu shot" story.....no wonder people are panicked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScGC7nFDxM

Desiree Jennings, 26 was the picture of health prior to the flu shot she received on August 23. She
is
was a NFL cheerleader and an avid runner. Ten days after receiving the flu shot, she came down with the flu. After that, her health got worse and she was hospitalized twice for seizures. Finally, she was diagnosed with dystonia and the doctors speculated that it was the flu shot that caused it.

Disclaimer: There is no evidence that the flu shot caused this reaction.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee...I missed this "flu shot" story.....no wonder people are panicked:

Ten days after receiving the flu shot, she came down with the flu. After that, her health got worse and she was hospitalized twice for seizures. Finally, she was diagnosed with dystonia and the doctors speculated that it was the flu shot that caused it.

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.

Disclaimer: There is no evidence that the flu shot caused this reaction.

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...