Swine Flu

[segnosaur]

Just sayin'...plus I wanted to set up this joke:

Her Youtube video has gone viral......

Your sense of humour is infectious.

[segnosaur]

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.

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).

[GostHacked]

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

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

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

Indeed, that is messed up. Also this

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/23/new.y...cine/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York public health workers will no longer be required to be vaccinated against both the seasonal and H1N1 flu virus, state officials announced Thursday, prompted by a vaccine shortage.

In other words, not even the medical fields are really worrying about the virus.

Also about goalposts.

The CDC has revised its H1N1 vaccine goal. It had planned to have 200 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine by the end of November, but it now aims for 65.9 million doses nationwide.

The shortage in vaccines now gives way to the notion that.. hay it's not THAT bad.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The shortage in vaccines now gives way to the notion that.. hay it's not THAT bad.

I don't think so, considering that in some parts of the world it's a good day just to get access to potable water.

Get the vaccine to high risk groups rather than creating panicked demand, shortages, runs on other anti-virals, and needless anxiety. In the end, nobody is getting out of here alive.

[segnosaur]

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

(Link to video of a dystonia sufferer

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.

Also this

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/23/new.y...cine/index.html

[i\NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York public health workers will no longer be required to be vaccinated against both the seasonal and H1N1 flu virus, state officials announced Thursday, prompted by a vaccine shortage.[/i]

In other words, not even the medical fields are really worrying about the virus.

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".

The shortage in vaccines now gives way to the notion that.. hay it's not THAT bad.

Keep in mid that the idea that "its not that bad" doesn't mean that you souldn't take percautions (including getting vaccinated).

[GostHacked]

Get the vaccine to high risk groups rather than creating panicked demand, shortages, runs on other anti-virals, and needless anxiety. In the end, nobody is getting out of here alive.

This almost sounds like a scene in the vALVE game Left4Dead. I just need to find a safe house!!

[Topaz]

I think like all medications, some people react and some people don't and when getting any flu shot is Russian Roulette, and we only hope that is will do its job and leave us without any side effects. People that are allergic to eggs are not suppose to get the flu shot.

[bush_cheney2004]

Keep track of all the latest H1N1 panic right here folks:

http://www.healthmap.org/nejm/

You can see the official and unofficial march of Swine Flu around the world.

“You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya.... punk?”

- Harry Callahan

[GostHacked]

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".

No, if it was that much of a pandemic, we would all be given the shot, all at the same time. If a pandemic actually occurs, then you want to vaccinate everyone at the same time, or else this thing will just keep spreading.

Keep in mid that the idea that "its not that bad" doesn't mean that you souldn't take percautions (including getting vaccinated).

There is a shortage of the vaccine. So I may want to get it, but may have to wait to get vaccinated. And if I go by your notion, I could get the virus before I even get the vaccine. How the f""k will that help me at all?? I am not even elegible to be in the first wave of people getting vaccinated. I am 38 and healthy.

From the site BC linked

The CDC announced that approximately 6 million doses of H1N1 vaccine have been shipped throughout the United States, however about 25% fewer doses than expected will be available this month because of delays in production.

6 Million?? Last time I checked that would not even take care of NY city. Let alone all of the US which has a population of about 300 million. This covers about two percent of the total population. You can't fight a pandemic like this. Even if the US got the 40 million doses that the it originaly wanted, would only cover about 14% of the total population in the United States. So what ever they are screaming about is not making much sense when you look at the numbers.

Also you can discard the option of "Case Count Not Identified" (on the website BC linked) and you get a clearer picture of the actual virus. All other suspected info is just padding the pandemic numbers.

http://www.rdmag.com/News/Feeds/2009/10/li...munity-to-curr/

More than a dozen structural sites, or epitopes, in the virus may explain why many people over the age of 60, who were likely exposed to similar viruses earlier in life, carry antibodies or other type of immunity against the new virus, immune responses that could be attributed to earlier flu exposure and vaccinations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,4189877.story

If you have the Mexican medical professionals not worrying about it,why should we? And if we consider the state of Mexico's health care system (if there is one!) we are going to be alright. Here is what Mexico's Health Sercratary has to say about it.

Health Secretary Jose Angel Cordova said Thursday that the H1N1 virus, though new, has proved no worse than ordinary seasonal flu. Pandemic H1N1 influenza "is a benign illness, caused by a viral cousin of the seasonal [flu], with the same rate of transmission and mortality, so there is no reason for alarm," Cordova told a gathering in the western state of Jalisco.

[capricorn]

At the root of a lot of the panic mongering about the safety of the vaccine seems to be the fact that someone is making a lot money on producing it. Now that I have seen through a lot of the BS and misinformation floating around, I conclude that the vaccine is indeed worthwhile, even if it only succeeds in making me and my family feel safer.

[bush_cheney2004]

At the root of a lot of the panic mongering about the safety of the vaccine seems to be the fact that someone is making a lot money on producing it. Now that I have seen through a lot of the BS and misinformation floating around, I conclude that the vaccine is indeed worthwhile, even if it only succeeds in making me and my family feel safer.

No doubt there is comfort in that for many people who choose to get vaccinated. Anxiety swells when vaccine is not available, creating an altogether different dynamic in the public, unrelated to actual health risk.

I am ambivalent about the whole matter because of my experience with a different "swne" flu vaccine panic in the mid 1970's when it was the elderly, not the young, who were dropping like flies. Armed forces personnel were used as guinea pigs for the testing phase, and it was a fiasco. Turns out that the production yield from traditional (egg whites) method can vary widely, and that is one of the reasons that H1N1 vaccine availability is lagging.

[segnosaur]

At the root of a lot of the panic mongering about the safety of the vaccine seems to be the fact that someone is making a lot money on producing it.

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.

[segnosaur]

No, if it was that much of a pandemic, we would all be given the shot, all at the same time. If a pandemic actually occurs, then you want to vaccinate everyone at the same time, or else this thing will just keep spreading.

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?

There is a shortage of the vaccine. So I may want to get it, but may have to wait to get vaccinated. And if I go by your notion, I could get the virus before I even get the vaccine. How the f""k will that help me at all??

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

The CDC announced that approximately 6 million doses of H1N1 vaccine have been shipped throughout the United States, however about 25% fewer doses than expected will be available this month because of delays in production.

6 Million?? Last time I checked that would not even take care of NY city. Let alone all of the US which has a population of about 300 million.

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.

Also you can discard the option of "Case Count Not Identified" (on the website BC linked) and you get a clearer picture of the actual virus. All other suspected info is just padding the pandemic numbers.

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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,4189877.story

If you have the Mexican medical professionals not worrying about it,why should we? And if we consider the state of Mexico's health care system (if there is one!) we are going to be alright. Here is what Mexico's Health Sercratary has to say about it.

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?

Edited October 26, 2009 by segnosaur

[capricorn]

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.

I mean stuff like this.

In this troubled world economy, most everyone is trying to find new and innovative ways to increase income. This theory surmises that the Swine Flu threat is a concoction of either media outlets or pharmaceutical companies, or both.

It has not been lost on those who follow politics that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as well as former Vice President Dick Cheney are both major stock holders in Tamiflu, one of the only vaccines touted to be effective against H1N1. Shares for Rumsfeld total in the ballpark of $18 million. This has caused concern for some. These same trepidations arose during the Avian Flu scare a few years ago.

While the market in general is taking a hit from the current influenza scare, certain groups are seeing an increase in revenue. According to public radio “Marketplace” out of London:

Shares in Switzerland’s leading drug maker, Roche, are up nearly 4 percent this morning. The company says it’s scaling up production of Tamiflu. The drug’s been shown to be an effective vaccine against the virus. In the U.K., GlaxoSmithKline, which manufacturers its own vaccine against deadly flu viruses, is also gaining in the markets. Glaxo’s drug is called Relenza.

In a world growing weary of economic news and still suffering from U.S. Election hangover, the media in general is of course seeing a rise in viewers, as people scramble to find the latest information regarding this outbreak.

Some advocates of the “financial gain” theory claim that journalists who had access to laboratories released the virus to create a story. Although I try to remain neutral here, this seems highly unlikely. Others claim that it would be a cake walk for Big Pharma to release a virus into the populous.

http://extraordinaryintelligence.com/510/l...u-the-theories/

Other theories are addressed in the above post and there are more on the net.

As for the number of companies manufacturing the H1N1 vaccine, here's a list and it's more like a dozen, not just a couple.

http://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/industr...s/2009/149.html

[segnosaur]

I mean stuff like this.

In this troubled world economy, most everyone is trying to find new and innovative ways to increase income. This theory surmises that the Swine Flu threat is a concoction of either media outlets or pharmaceutical companies, or both.

It has not been lost on those who follow politics that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as well as former Vice President Dick Cheney are both major stock holders in Tamiflu, one of the only vaccines touted to be effective against H1N1.

...

Shares in Switzerland’s leading drug maker, Roche, are up nearly 4 percent this morning. The company says it’s scaling up production of Tamiflu.

....

In a world growing weary of economic news and still suffering from U.S. Election hangover, the media in general is of course seeing a rise in viewers, as people scramble to find the latest information regarding this outbreak.

...

Some advocates of the “financial gain” theory claim that journalists who had access to laboratories released the virus to create a story. Although I try to remain neutral here, this seems highly unlikely. Others claim that it would be a cake walk for Big Pharma to release a virus into the populous.

http://extraordinaryintelligence.com/510/l...u-the-theories/

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.

Other theories are addressed in the above post and there are more on the net.

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.

As for the number of companies manufacturing the H1N1 vaccine, here's a list and it's more like a dozen, not just a couple.

http://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/industr...s/2009/149.html

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?

[capricorn]

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.

I agree totally. We can only hope that more people knew how to use the internet properly as a means of keeping informed.

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?

I accept that some companies withdrew because of the low profit margin. Such is life in the corporate world.

As an aside, personally, a vaccination of the H1N1 type is one I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee out of pocket if only to lessen the burden of our health care costs.

[GostHacked]

Segnosaur

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

Umm.... thanks Doc. That's reassuring.

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.

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.

If you can bear with me for a moment on an analogy.

Computer viruses. When you don't vaccinate all PCs at the same time, you are chasing your tail fixing other PCs. The last virus outbreak we had on our network took us a week to clean everything. And there was still residual problems because the fix was not pushed to all PCs at the same time. I would clean about 10 computers up, then the next day I had to clean up some again, and some newly infected computers. Once we got the proper virus update, we pushed it to all computers and that prevented the virus from causing us future problems. However it did mutate in that time, and we had a problem with getting rid of the new variant, but not as bad as it was. Over 400 computers were infected coast to coast in the company including some servers at the datacenter.

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?

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. Almost everything you can think of we have less than in the 70s. The only thing that has seemed to increase is private security companies and fast food. There are more than ever before !! So to me it's more about monopolization than not making enough money on the vaccine.

[segnosaur]

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.

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.

If you can bear with me for a moment on an analogy.

Computer viruses. When you don't vaccinate all PCs at the same time, you are chasing your tail fixing other PCs. The last virus outbreak we had on our network took us a week to clean everything. And there was still residual problems because the fix was not pushed to all PCs at the same time. I would clean about 10 computers up, then the next day I had to clean up some again, and some newly infected computers. Once we got the proper virus update, we pushed it to all computers and that prevented the virus from causing us future problems. However it did mutate in that time, and we had a problem with getting rid of the new variant, but not as bad as it was. Over 400 computers were infected coast to coast in the company including some servers at the datacenter.

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.

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?

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.

[GostHacked]

Segnosaur

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.

So overall our current vaccines will have already prevented this new mutation to a good degree. And if we all have been constantly exposed to the virus year after year with slight variations, I fail to see how any vaccine is going to help then. I have known people who got the flu shot every year. Some of them end up getting the flu anyways. I have not had a vaccine in over 20 years, and have had the flu maybe once since then.

So if there is a good chance, i'd say a really good chance that we can handle the mutations that happen over a couple months, we are in good shape as well, when this new slight variation starts making the rounds. Since we have already been exposed to the virus over the years in different mutations, the body is good at combating these new variations due to the experience with it already.

What is your stance on taking the flu vaccine every year? And how does that affect your immune system overall? Does it make our immune systems weaker or stronger?

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.

The programmer programs the virus to mutate. Algorithms allow for mutation, the virus programmer may put it in a certain direction but the algorithms determine how the virus will mutate. I have been dealing with computers as a hobby and professionaly for long enough to say that this does in fact happen. Overal the analogy stands, but the difference is ....

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.

....Our bodies can handle and combat the new strains, the PC can't. So in that way it is a bad analogy, because if you change a 1 or 0 in the code, it is a completely new virus and the PC cannot be protected against it. I've always kept my AV up to date, and I still get a virus now and then. I now have to use AV, Anti-spyware and a registry cleaner. No one package out there protects against all forms of virus intrusions on the PC. But I have gotten pretty good and manually ripping some of the stubborn ones out. Boot sector viruses are some of the most stubborn.

The Flu virus acts the same way. The virus exists and then mutates over time. Our bodies unlike PCs are designed to combat the virus on their own. Not everyone has this ability, but most do. And this is the most likely reason we don't see pandemic numbers like we should be seeing. Regular flu is still killing more people per hour across the globe than this new strain has in the last 6 months. Why have we not delcared regular flu a pandemic?

[segnosaur]

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.

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.

And if we all have been constantly exposed to the virus year after year with slight variations, I fail to see how any vaccine is going to help then.

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.

I have known people who got the flu shot every year. Some of them end up getting the flu anyways. I have not had a vaccine in over 20 years, and have had the flu maybe once since then.

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?

What is your stance on taking the flu vaccine every year? And how does that affect your immune system overall? Does it make our immune systems weaker or stronger?

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.)

The programmer programs the virus to mutate. Algorithms allow for mutation, the virus programmer may put it in a certain direction but the algorithms determine how the virus will mutate.

A virus can't completely rewrite itself...there is still a signature that the virus scanner detects.

The Flu virus acts the same way. The virus exists and then mutates over time. Our bodies unlike PCs are designed to combat the virus on their own.

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?

Not everyone has this ability, but most do.

And the people that don't rely on 'herd immunity' to save their lives, which people like you compromise.

And this is the most likely reason we don't see pandemic numbers like we should be seeing. Regular flu is still killing more people per hour across the globe than this new strain has in the last 6 months. Why have we not delcared regular flu a pandemic?

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.

[GostHacked]

Segnosaur

As I've stated before, that is nothing but a worthless anecdote.

It's personal experience. So to me, it is not worthless at all.

Lets take a look at some of the specifics of your claim, shall we?

It's a personal claim, and personal experience. So look at them all you want.

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?

It seems my chances of getting the flu was the same with or without the vaccine.

- 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.

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. And even if I did keep track, it might prove me more right than you think. I could have been exposed to many different strains of the flu. Why then have I only been sick from the flu once since my childhood? Why have I not been sick every year the flu goes around?

- 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

I might be unique. I may just have a natural defense against most strains of the flu. Most of my life I have been in jobs where a flu virus would spread quickly and I am sure I have been exposed to it many times.

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?

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 in the end, it is my personal experience with my own health over the years. I'll admit, I might be unique. So this is the view I have taken. It's my view I'll admit.

This part I can now agree with. And you make complete sense here.

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.)

For the Spanish Flu in 1918-1920

- 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)

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.

On a side note:

A virus can't completely rewrite itself...there is still a signature that the virus scanner detects.

You did say you work in IT right?? We can leave that for another thread.

[segnosaur]

It's personal experience. So to me, it is not worthless at all.

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.

It seems my chances of getting the flu was the same with or without the vaccine.

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.

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.

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

And even if I did keep track, it might prove me more right than you think. I could have been exposed to many different strains of the flu. Why then have I only been sick from the flu once since my childhood? Why have I not been sick every year the flu goes around?

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.

I might be unique. I may just have a natural defense against most strains of the flu. Most of my life I have been in jobs where a flu virus would spread quickly and I am sure I have been exposed to it many times.

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.

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 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)

But in the end, it is my personal experience with my own health over the years. I'll admit, I might be unique. So this is the view I have taken. It's my view I'll admit.

Or, as I said before, you likely just had incredibly dumb luck.

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)

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.

[Mr.Canada]

Before today I wasn't going to get a shot at all but today with the news of the death of a 13 year old by in Woodbridge I will be getting the shot at the first opportunity I get.

I live in Halton Hills which is a a big area and no it just isn't Georgetown as I live 20 mins outside of Georgetown. The first clinic will be stocked up for general public in Georgetown on October 28, 2009. I will be getting my shot then God willing.

[GostHacked]

Segnosaur

I can agree with you on some of your points. In the end I saw my doctor to get better information. I am considering it now. And in the end it might be just dumb luck. But most of my family has been like this. So my whole family has had dumb luck. Or we have some type of natural immunity to it. But whatever it is.... I'll take it.

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!

Look on the side of a pack of smokes:

Toxic Emissions /unit

Tar, Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide, Formaldehyde, Hydrogen Cyanide, and Benzene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide or radiation that is an agent directly involved in the exacerbation of cancer or in the increase of its propagation. This may be due to the ability to damage the genome or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes. Several radioactive substances are considered carcinogens, but their carcinogenic activity is attributed to the radiation, for example gamma rays and alpha particles, which they emit. Common examples of carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke.

(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)

I see what you are doing here.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/..._and_Cancer.asp

Health Effects of Smoking

Each year, a staggering 440,000 people die in the US from tobacco use. Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined

That is in the US alone, H1N1 has nothing on cigs. Nothing.

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.

Unsanitary conditions don't help the cause, and was a major factor in it's spreading, no matter how severe.

[BC_chick]

OP, I only had a flu shot once, and that year I had the worst cold (or flu?) I've ever had in my life. Granted, I was working with children that winter, but whatever it was, I said never again.

But I made my appointment to get my H1N1 this year. Sole reason being - I'm pregnant. Otherwise there is noway I would get one.