Will you get the H1N1 vaccine?

[Argus]

There seems to be some doubt in certain quarters, among a number of health care workers and professionals, about just how safe and just how effective the H1N1 vaccine will be. A lot of them have stated flatly they will not take it and don't trust it because it was rushed into production too soon with little testing. What do people think?

Edited October 10, 2009 by Argus

[capricorn]

I voted no. Those specialists are more knowledgeable than I on this matter. So I trust their opinion.

If the seasonal flu shot had been available before now, I would have got it. I am currently fighting off some kind of bug. I don't know if it's caused by my allergies, the seasonal flu or H1N1. I haven't seen a doctor and I'm not panicking although I almost think I should be with all the H1N1 hype out there. If I suddenly stop posting at MLW in the next couple of weeks, well......

[Keepitsimple]

I voted NO.

I suppose I should be grateful that our government can react to large "health problems" but I'm still very unsettled by how the media and pharmaceutical giants have created a mountain out of a molehill. Every year, 4000-8000 Canadians die from the effects of seasonal flu - that's an average of 333 to 666 deaths per month. Since the onset of the H1N1 "pandemic", there have been a total of 79 deaths in Canada that have included H1N1 as a contibuting factor. H1N1 is just another variation of the flu - recognized to be milder than many strains of seasonal flu. I think we're well overdue to put things in perspective. I think the pharmaceutical companies have made enough money.

Link to Canadian Lung: http://www.lung.ca/diseases-maladies/a-z/f...ppe/index_e.php

Link to H1N1 Surveillance: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1...illance-eng.php

[BubberMiley]

I suppose I should be grateful that our government can react to large "health problems" but I'm still very unsettled by how the media and pharmaceutical giants have created a mountain out of a molehill. Every year, 4000-8000 Canadians die from the effects of seasonal flu - that's an average of 333 to 666 deaths per month.

Flu pandemics happen whenever there is a new strain of a human-to-human flu virus for which no one yet has immunity. That doesn't happen that often, but it's happening now. How many people have died of it so far (or other strains of the flu) is irrelevant. It would be extremely negligent if we all just took a "wait and see" attitude.

[Keepitsimple]

Flu pandemics happen whenever there is a new strain of a human-to-human flu virus for which no one yet has immunity. That doesn't happen that often, but it's happening now. How many people have died of it so far (or other strains of the flu) is irrelevant. It would be extremely negligent if we all just took a "wait and see" attitude.

It's been known for a long time that H1N1 is a very mild strain of flu. People are not stupid and deserve to know how this flu - and its effects - relate to seasonal flu. We risk creating "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome. If H1N1 is nothing more than a case of the sniffles and pales in comparison to seasonal flu - how will people react the next time when a severe pandemic comes along?

[Molly]

Mild to whom? Some of those body bags were used!

Apparently, it's a choice this year- either or- so I choose the H1N1 rather than the seasonal version.

Either one could take an ugly piece of me, so that choice is mostly based on there already being lots of H1N1 around here, making exposure almost inevitable, and I'll cross my fingers that I have some resistance to seasonal flus.

[Topaz]

I, for one don't get the flu shot anymore . I did about 3-4 years ago and then I felt worse than I did before getting it and I am among the 1-2 % that is sensitive to made-made drugs. I see in the London Free Press , that 14 people have been diagnosed with the swine flu. I think my family is just over it and for me I was ok one day and over night, sore throat, watery eyes, headache, lungs congested big time and coughing my head off! Loss of appetite and all you want to do is lie down but I knew if I laid down too long I have problems with the congestion in lungs turning into pneumonia. After taking over the counter meds, today I'm 90% better. Capricorn is this what you dealing with?

[capricorn]

It would be extremely negligent if we all just took a "wait and see" attitude.

Bubber, I don't know who you mean by "we". Do you mean citizens or the medical community? As for the medical community it has been preparing for this for a long time.

An outbreak of swine flu in Ontario, Canada's most populous province, would not be as serious as the 2003 SARS epidemic, in part because authorities have been preparing for decades to fight widespread influenza, a senior provincial medical official said on Friday.

---

"Influenza is different from SARS. Unlike SARS, where we really didn't know what we were dealing with, influenza is something that we have spent literally years, if not decades, planning for," Gardam said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53N4PB20090424

The problem I have is that the medical community seems to have a problem providing information to citizens in such a way that we can understand in order to guide our actions. As an example, should persons who received a seasonal flu shot receive a H1N1 shot. No definite answer have been provided and the question remains open ended thus in this case. This is one scenario where it may be safer to take a wait and see approach.

[capricorn]

I was ok one day and over night, sore throat, watery eyes, headache, lungs congested big time and coughing my head off! Loss of appetite and all you want to do is lie down but I knew if I laid down too long I have problems with the congestion in lungs turning into pneumonia. After taking over the counter meds, today I'm 90% better. Capricorn is this what you dealing with?

Almost the same symptoms, reduced appetite. I have a dust allergy which may have been aggravated by the flu-like symptoms (or vice versa?). All I'm taking is Tylenol, lots of liquids, lots of rest and my regular allergy medication. I'm on day 4 so I figure I need another 2-3 days to recuperate. Not much fun.

[capricorn]

Anyone interested in getting more info on H1N1 will be interested in this site at the Ottawa Citizen dedicated to the subject.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/h1n1/index.html

[Oleg Bach]

I am not a cow in the field to be injected by those supposedly in charge of my animal husbandry! Here is what I think is oddly foolish. During the 1909 epidemic...I belief it was the Spanish flu, that killed millions...some of the victims who were in the far north were buried in the perma frost...A few years back some inquisitive scientists traveled to the burial sights to dig up some of the corpses that were perfectly perserved in the frozen ground - Then they proceeded to take tissue samples and retrieve the killer virus.....WHAT THE HELL WOULD THEY WANT TO DO THAT FOR? I would belief that such a think should be left well enough alone...why did they need to have a sample of this evil bug..what purpose would it serve?

[dre]

Nope. Not interested in taking medicine for the sake of taking medicine. My bouts with flu are rare and managable.

[segnosaur]

During the 1909 epidemic. ..I belief it was the Spanish flu, that killed millions.

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.

..some of the victims who were in the far north were buried in the perma frost...A few years back some inquisitive scientists traveled to the burial sights to dig up some of the corpses that were perfectly perserved in the frozen ground - Then they proceeded to take tissue samples and retrieve the killer virus.....WHAT THE HELL WOULD THEY WANT TO DO THAT FOR? I would belief that such a think should be left well enough alone...why did they need to have a sample of this evil bug..what purpose would it serve?

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.

Edited October 15, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

There seems to be some doubt in certain quarters, among a number of health care workers and professionals, about just how safe and just how effective the H1N1 vaccine will be. A lot of them have stated flatly they will not take it

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.

...and don't trust it because it was rushed into production too soon with little testing. What do people think?

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.

Nope. Not interested in taking medicine for the sake of taking medicine. My bouts with flu are rare and managable.

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.)

Edited October 15, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

I voted NO.

I suppose I should be grateful that our government can react to large "health problems" but I'm still very unsettled by how the media and pharmaceutical giants have created a mountain out of a molehill. Every year, 4000-8000 Canadians die from the effects of seasonal flu - that's an average of 333 to 666 deaths per month. Since the onset of the H1N1 "pandemic", there have been a total of 79 deaths in Canada that have included H1N1 as a contibuting factor. H1N1 is just another variation of the flu - recognized to be milder than many strains of seasonal flu. I think we're well overdue to put things in perspective.

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.

I think the pharmaceutical companies have made enough money.

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.

[eXploiTeD]

I am not a doctor, and I am not an expert in medical theory, opinion or practice.

With that disclaimer in mind, I try to get as few vaccinations as possible. So I will not receive this one.

This is not due to any religious or moral objection, but rather to the fact that I think it is better, in the end, for the body to do the work on it's own, without relying on vaccinations. That may not apply on an individual basis, but I think it applies on a collective one: the more we mess with the fundamentals of our body, and the more dependent we are on vaccinations for survival, the more damage we do to future generations.

The world may get through this epidemic on vaccinations, but the result will be us taking one step closer to a super-virus.

[dre]

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.)

So I should be forced to buy medicine because of these people that are at risk?

Id rather take the drugs my doctor tells me are medically necessary thanx.

Sorry, but I tend to respect the opinions of acknowledged experts in the field

Those "experts" are a little too cozy with drug companies IMO. In any case my doctor doesnt have a strong opinion on it one way or the other, and only recommends the shots to a certain demographic. If he suggested strongly that I take them, then I probably would.

[segnosaur]

I am not a doctor, and I am not an expert in medical theory, opinion or practice.

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.

With that disclaimer in mind, I try to get as few vaccinations as possible. So I will not receive this one.

This is not due to any religious or moral objection, but rather to the fact that I think it is better, in the end, for the body to do the work on it's own, without relying on vaccinations. That may not apply on an individual basis, but I think it applies on a collective one: the more we mess with the fundamentals of our body, and the more dependent we are on vaccinations for survival, the more damage we do to future generations.

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.

The world may get through this epidemic on vaccinations, but the result will be us taking one step closer to a super-virus.

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'.

[segnosaur]

So I should be forced to buy medicine because of these people that are at risk?

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.

Those "experts" are a little too cozy with drug companies IMO.

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.

In any case my doctor doesnt have a strong opinion on it one way or the other, and only recommends the shots to a certain demographic. If he suggested strongly that I take them, then I probably would.

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?

[segnosaur]

Those "experts" are a little too cozy with drug companies IMO.

I think the pharmaceutical companies have made enough money.

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.

[Sir Bandelot]

IF you think theres not much money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry, you need some more education.

Also, you're not really up on your current events, as recent news and discussions here centered on the issue that governments are moving towards protecting big pharma industries from litigations. That gives them a blank cheque to develop their potions, and not need to worry so much about law suits if things go wrong. The government (thus you the taxpayer) will cover the liability.

Seems you like to come across like an expert, but these here comments of yours, reveal completely otherwise. My guess, is grad student with identity issues

[segnosaur]

IF you think theres not much money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry...

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.

...you need some more education.

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?

Also, you're not really up on your current events, as recent news and discussions here centered on the issue that governments are moving towards protecting big pharma industries from litigations. That gives them a blank cheque to develop their potions, and not need to worry so much about law suits if things go wrong. The government (thus you the taxpayer) will cover the liability.

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?

Seems you like to come across like an expert, but these here comments of yours, reveal completely otherwise. My guess, is grad student with identity issues

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.

Edited October 15, 2009 by segnosaur

[dre]

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?

Wow. Captain Strawman. I didnt say anything about drug companies being evil. Stop inventing stuff. I also never said jack fuckin shit about any conspiracy. And Im pretty sure the 20+ thousand dollars I pay a year in income tax will cover any hospital stays (i live in western canada).

Also stop pretending the concerns about drug companies and physicians are only held by consipacy theorists. This is a large and well known problem, that has been documented extensively by the medical community and published on by just about everyone from the CBC, to the NewYork times, to the New England journal of medicine. The problem is especially prevalent with academic physicians who are in a position to recommend to the rest of the industry which drugs are safe for which purposes.

Should people be afraid to take all drugs because of this well known corrupt relationship? Of course not. But people should have a healthy dose of skepticism.

[segnosaur]

Wow. Captain Strawman. I didnt say anything about drug companies being evil.

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?

Stop inventing stuff. I also never said jack fuckin shit about any conspiracy.

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.

And Im pretty sure the 20+ thousand dollars I pay a year in income tax will cover any hospital stays (i live in western canada).

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)

Also stop pretending the concerns about drug companies and physicians are only held by consipacy theorists. This is a large and well known problem, that has been documented extensively by the medical community and published on by just about everyone from the CBC, to the NewYork times, to the New England journal of medicine.

Here's a suggestion... why don't you actually provide some references so that they can be debunked properly?

Should people be afraid to take all drugs because of this well known corrupt relationship? Of course not. But people should have a healthy dose of skepticism.

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.

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

Excellent... congratulations on getting an 'A'.