H1N1 "Pandemic"

[segnosaur]

...H1N1 knocks down healthy people and in some cases, takes them out. And it is preventable.

But you are pepetuating the same sin by claiming it is "preventable", as this is not 100% true.

Not sure if its really so much of a 'sin'.

The H1N1 vaccine causes the required anti-body reaction in around 96% of all individuals. Of the remaining 4% (plus the people who cannot get the vaccine for various medical reasons, such as allergies) would be further protected by herd immunity if vaccination were wide spread. It wouldn't mean you would be protected against all influenza, but the previous poster did make a point of singling out H1N1.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1921679,00.html

So, is a 96% rate enough to claim that a vaccine makes a disease 'preventable'? If your definition of 'preventable' implies it stops all cases, then no. If it means it stops most cases, then yes.

[Wilber]

Nature is a harsh mistress, and despite our own self importance we’re no different or more special than any other animal on the planet.

Actually we are. Disregarding all the other products of our intelligence that surround us, name one other species that has nearly doubled its life expectancy in the past hundred years. We didn't do it by evolution but with knowledge and science and no small part of it has been the ability to immunize ourselves against many killer diseases without having to survive the disease itself. How? Through vaccines.

A grandfather of mine died through complications from the flu in his eighties. Both my parents have been getting vaccinated for flu since it became available. The are both in their mid nineties. They don't get the flu. If you just want to go on anecdotal evidence, that's good enough for me.

[segnosaur]

Or perhaps the flu vaccination will cause the swine flu to mutate and produce and even more severe strain.

There is absolutely no chance of that happening.

The vaccine used in Canada uses a virus that is dead. Deceased. Not alive. Pushing up microbial daisies. It cannot invade cells, it cannot reproduce, and it cannot produce little mutated flu-babies.

In fact, if you want to talk about the risk of mutation, the greatest risk is in not getting vaccinated. If you get vaccinated, it almost guarantees your body will not be available as a microbial play-ground. But if you don't get vaccinated, there is a good chance (not a guarantee, just a good chance) that you will become infected, your body will become a little influenza breeding ground, pumping out all sorts of flu-babies, some of which will be mutated.

The best way to prevent mutations in the virus is to eliminate as many potential hosts that can become infected, and that means vaccinations.

We are seeing instances of drug resistant strains of any number of diseases; this has been a result of over use of drugs and vaccines to treat various illnesses. That's not to say these aren't important, but please get off your high horse for one moment and think about the other side of the equation.

'Resistance' is not an issue here... vaccines do not combat the flu directly. Instead, they help the body identify the virus particles before they encounter them 'live'. Your body was going to eventually eliminate the virus anyways (unless of course you die with it), so if there was any change of 'resistance' then it would just as easily happen with 'natural' infections too.

Actually, there is one possible danger of resistance, and its for people who don't believe in vaccination. Those who get sick often get hospitalized, and are often prescribed anti-virals. Now, because anti-virals work differently than vaccines, it is in theory possible for strains of the virus to become resistant to the anti-virals. The fewer people innoculated, the more chance they'll need to be prescribed anti-virals, and the more chance of drug-resistant flu strains.

This is indeed largely hype, the likes of which also surrounded bird flu, SARS etc.

Yes, there is a lot of hype surrounding H1N1. That doesn't necessarily mean that action shouldn't be taken.

If you choose to get a shot good for you, if that helps you sleep at night wonderful. We will never be able to completely eradicate all disease, as we adapt so to do viruses and other bacteria.

You're right... we can never eradicate all disease. But we can do our best to eliminate as many as we can, to give people as long a life as we can with a minimum of suffering.

[Dave_ON]

Actually we are. Disregarding all the other products of our intelligence that surround us, name one other species that has nearly doubled its life expectancy in the past hundred years. We didn't do it by evolution but with knowledge and science and no small part of it has been the ability to immunize ourselves against many killer diseases without having to survive the disease itself. How? Through vaccines.

A grandfather of mine died through complications from the flu in his eighties. Both my parents have been getting vaccinated for flu since it became available. The are both in their mid nineties. They don't get the flu. If you just want to go on anecdotal evidence, that's good enough for me.

Indeed and as a result we are seeing stronger diseases, more virulent drug resistant illnesses. Penicillin isn't nearly as effective as it was in years past. We are deluding ourselves to think we are above the balance of nature. What's the other side of living longer? Higher populations, more densely populated regions, which are a breeding ground for disease; this also causes the issue of high demands on resources which creates a host of other problems.

As I said for all our science and medicine we haven't been able to eradicate the simple flu or cold and why? Because nature always wins, everything has a control on it, including humans. As we adapt, whether physiologically or technologically so too will the diseases and viral strains adapt. There is much we don't understand and sometimes we make things worse by our meddling then we fix.

A long lifespan does not mean anything, sciences has shown viruses to be the most adaptive and resilient then anything else on the planet. If you believe that someday science will solve all our ills that's great for you, I however do not share your optimism. We will never be able to control all factors and it's a fool’s errand to try.

As I said, there has been zero evidence to show that the swine flu is any more deadly than other flu strains. The only difference is this particular flu has gotten a lot more media attention.

[Topaz]

Maybe you should read this then. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14869

[segnosaur]

The things contributing to my reluctance to getting a shot are as follows;

1. My inability to trust the government probably stands above all else.

I do think there are reasons to distrust the government... They often waste money, pass laws that are pointless, restrict freedoms.

However, I do think that public health issues, as well as compiling statistics, is one thing that they do fairly well... Perhaps not perfectly, but fairly well. For the most part, our food and water supplies are safe, most government-approved drugs have no serious side effects, etc.

However, even if you assume the government is an entity that should not be trusted, consider the fact that the 'medical community' that is involved in issues related to the vaccine is composed of more than just "the government"... it involves multitudes of academics, journal referees, private research labs, etc. The people claiming the flu vaccines are safe/effective include more than just the government officials and drug companies.

2. My sense that the fear of HINI is overblown simply because society now exists in a perpetually fearful state.

If you want to suggest H1N1 fear is 'overblown', I'd say you may be right. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue.

By the way, I could also add... while there may be an 'overblown' fear H1N1, the risks of things like vaccines are also getting overblown.

3. My faith in science has been eroded the last number of years. I guess due to the lack of action on other potential threats

Just wondering... what exactly are those 'other potential threats' that you think science has failed to address?

"Science" is not perfect. Mistakes do get made. But, in my opinion, it is still the best way to uncover the truth about the world.

I notice now that the psychological pressure to get a shot is morphing into moral pressure with questions like 'what if you infect a child who dies' being asked of individuals.

Well, the question that you should be asking is... is there any chance that it actually could happen. The answer is, of course, yes, and the risk is certainly not 'immaginary'.

[Topaz]

I'm really confused like a lot of other people and and I was going to get it and now I'm not sure. There's good reason to and good reason not to, so when it doubt do nothing.

[Dave_ON]

There is absolutely no chance of that happening.

The vaccine used in Canada uses a virus that is dead. Deceased. Not alive. Pushing up microbial daisies. It cannot invade cells, it cannot reproduce, and it cannot produce little mutated flu-babies.

In fact, if you want to talk about the risk of mutation, the greatest risk is in not getting vaccinated. If you get vaccinated, it almost guarantees your body will not be available as a microbial play-ground. But if you don't get vaccinated, there is a good chance (not a guarantee, just a good chance) that you will become infected, your body will become a little influenza breeding ground, pumping out all sorts of flu-babies, some of which will be mutated.

The best way to prevent mutations in the virus is to eliminate as many potential hosts that can become infected, and that means vaccinations.

Agreed vacination is the best means of disease prevention where available, however it isn't 100%. It only takes one viral strain to survive long enough to adapt and then mutate. As you are likely aware our immune systems are very specific. Immunity to one strain of H1N1 does not equal immunity to a mutated version. Viruses have also adapted to infect other species, we've seen many instance of this, most recently bird flu.

'Resistance' is not an issue here... vaccines do not combat the flu directly. Instead, they help the body identify the virus particles before they encounter them 'live'. Your body was going to eventually eliminate the virus anyways (unless of course you die with it), so if there was any change of 'resistance' then it would just as easily happen with 'natural' infections too.

Precisely, as stated earlier our own immunity is highly specific but it also produces far more anti-bodies then are required to fight off the current infection. This overkill is what we call immunity. The specific nature of our immunity is why we can get "the flu" many times in our life. We're not fighting off the same flu as before, we're fighting an entirely different strain or a mutated one.

Actually, there is one possible danger of resistance, and its for people who don't believe in vaccination. Those who get sick often get hospitalized, and are often prescribed anti-virals. Now, because anti-virals work differently than vaccines, it is in theory possible for strains of the virus to become resistant to the anti-virals. The fewer people innoculated, the more chance they'll need to be prescribed anti-virals, and the more chance of drug-resistant flu strains.

You're right, dealing with infections in this manner has caused many drug resistant viruses. Immunization is definitely preferable and more effective. It is not that I do not believe in immunization, for many diseases it is a necessity, however, for many viral infections, it isn't. If a disease is not an automatic death sentence, I don't see the point.

Yes, there is a lot of hype surrounding H1N1. That doesn't necessarily mean that action shouldn't be taken.

If it presents no real threat to 99% of the population I don't see why we should take action.

You're right... we can never eradicate all disease. But we can do our best to eliminate as many as we can, to give people as long a life as we can with a minimum of suffering.

Agreed we can try as it is human nature to feel like we're doing "something".

[segnosaur]

Maybe you should read this then. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14869

First of all, when you make a reference to an article, please point out the sections that you think are relevant, and at least try to state things in your own words.

Secondly, that article appears on the globalresearch website. That particular website also hosts papers suggesting that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. Any site that hosts such nonsense should be considered 'questionable' when used as a reference on any topic, since such conspiracy theories illustrate a lack of critical thinking.

Thirdly... the article is complete and utter bunk. For example, it makes the claim that "vaccines are ineffective". Here's a few articles showing that the influenza vaccine has been effective during past flu seasons:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/10/908

Now, those 2 articles appear in peer-reviewed medical journals, and involve double-blind studies of various influenza vaccines on control groups.

On the other hand, the article you reference uses Mercola as a reference when it talks about how 'ineffective' vaccines are. Not only does their reference to his web site not work, Mercola himself is well known as a 'quack'. Hate to fight one 'blog' with another, but this web site does a pretty good job of dealing with Mercola's credibility:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2116

I'd also recommend the following: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-09-23

The relevant part (involving Dr. Mercola) is as follows:

Claim: Mercola says “Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature.”

Fact: Nature kills people. Doing something contrary to nature is what medicine is all about. It’s a good thing.

[Sir Bandelot]

In my expert opinion, we are doing just as well by properly washing our hands and not coughing and sneezing openly in public (use your elbow, etc) as we would be getting the shot. Some simple precautions alone is all it takes. And in either case there is no guarantee you won't get it. I know several know who took the dope and got sick anyway.

Another observation-

- Of the small group of about 20 or so that I work with, not everyone got the shot.

- Of those that did, 4 became really ill after getting the shot. One had to be rushed to emerg after having an immediate reaction. I find this disturbing because its only a small sample, and the failure rate is high.

- When one of my colleagues reported getting ill immediately after the shot, he inquired if the shot could have made him sick. "Absolutely not, no way" he was told by the medical staff. This response was given without any investigation or lab testing.

Stick that in your arm... not

[M.Dancer]

Another observation-

- Of the small group of about 20 or so that I work with, not everyone got the shot.

Of those that did, 4 became really ill after getting the shot. One had to be rushed to emerg after having an immediate reaction. I find this disturbing because its only a small sample, and the failure rate is high.

Of the dozens of people I know who get the shot every year, no one has gotten sick. Of the 100s of thousands who get the shot, very few get sick.

[wyly]

Or perhaps the flu vaccination will cause the swine flu to mutate and produce and even more severe strain. We can't compare the flu virus to the likes of small pox or polio; these diseases aren't nearly as adaptive as is the flu virus. If the flu were so easily defeated it would have been eradicated years ago.

it's precisely because the flu is so adaptable that it must be controled at every opportunity...should it spread from human to a bird host that has the bird flu and mutate into become something that easily transmittable to humans then we could have a very lethal killer...at the momment bird flu does not transmit from birds easily but when it does infect humans has something like an 80% kill rate, this was the cause of the high death rate from the Spanish Flu...

We are seeing instances of drug resistant strains of any number of diseases; this has been a result of over use of drugs and vaccines to treat various illnesses. That's not to say these aren't important, but please get off your high horse for one moment and think about the other side of the equation.

there is no other side to the equation... the issue is giving incorrect medical advise that can kill bythose who are not qualified to give it...

This is indeed largely hype, the likes of which also surrounded bird flu, SARS etc. Statistics heretofore have shown that this particular strain is no more virulent or deadly than other flu's. If you choose to get a shot good for you, if that helps you sleep at night wonderful. We will never be able to completely eradicate all disease, as we adapt so to do viruses and other bacteria. Nature is a harsh mistress, and despite our own self importance we’re no different or more special than any other animal on the planet.

bird flu is not hype it is a real and deadly and very much a threat, apparently your medical knowledge is not up to date on why that is...

SARS was and still is a deadly threat, the "hype" was real, the concern was justified, proper medical procedures prevented it's spread...you sound as if you're disappointed that it wasn't allowed to spread...

[wyly]

Small-pox is not the flu just like Osama Bin Laden is not Hitler. Where is the upside in comparing a mountain to a molehill to a panicky easily frightened society? I suspect a few drug makers are probably getting rich.

ahh there it is...the conspiracy theory...the drug companies are colluding with the government and the Harper government is going to get kick backs/donations....

[segnosaur]

Agreed vacination is the best means of disease prevention where available, however it isn't 100%.

And I never claimed it was.

However, when a vaccine is effective, it effectively prevents the host from becoming a factory for flu-babies. When its not effective, the person is no better or worse off than before.

It only takes one viral strain to survive long enough to adapt and then mutate.

Irrelevant to the discussion. As I've said before, the Canadian vaccines contain dead viruses. They have no chance to 'survive long enough to adapt' because they're dead right from the start.

As you are likely aware our immune systems are very specific. Immunity to one strain of H1N1 does not equal immunity to a mutated version.

Not entirely true... in fact, sometimes exposure to one strains can assist the body in fighting off related strains. (Actually, that's happening with H1N1.... they're finding that elderly people often have a greater immunity to the disease, and its thought that it is due to some similarities to a strain that circulated in the past.

Precisely, as stated earlier our own immunity is highly specific but it also produces far more anti-bodies then are required to fight off the current infection. This overkill is what we call immunity. The specific nature of our immunity is why we can get "the flu" many times in our life. We're not fighting off the same flu as before, we're fighting an entirely different strain or a mutated one.

Mostly true, but not relevant... there is no chance the vaccine can cause an increase in mutation. Most likely it will cut down the rate of mutation.

You're right, dealing with infections in this manner has caused many drug resistant viruses. Immunization is definitely preferable and more effective. It is not that I do not believe in immunization, for many diseases it is a necessity, however, for many viral infections, it isn't. If a disease is not an automatic death sentence, I don't see the point.

Very few diseases are 'automatic death sentences'. (Apart from something like Ebola or HIV). But someone who dies from a virus that only kills 0.0001% of those infected is just as dead as someone who dies from a virus that kills 100% of its victims. Most people would assume that saving the lives of several thousand people a year (even if that only works out to a small percentage of the population) is still a good thing.

Secondly, why exactly are you assuming that 'death' is the only outcome that we have to worry about? Even if a disease had a 0% mortality rate, but still had a good chance of making me extremely ill (even putting me in the hospital) it would still probably be worth getting the shot. Every flu season, around 5-15% of the population becomes ill with the flu. The flu is not fun. It is not your friend.

And then there is the benefit to society... widespread vaccinations can have a positive economic impact, since there will be fewer visits to the emergency rooms by sick people, and fewer days lost from work.

Her's a study that shows just that:

http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/14/889

...those who received the vaccine reported 25 percent fewer episodes of upper respiratory illness than those who received the placebo, 43 percent fewer days of sick leave from work due to upper respiratory illness, and 44 percent fewer visits to physicians' offices for upper respiratory illnesses. The cost savings were estimated to be $46.85 per person vaccinated.

Agreed we can try as it is human nature to feel like we're doing "something".

Saving thousands of human lives every year is "doing something" (even if it is a small part percentage of the total population)

Preventing thousands of hospitalizations every year is "doing something".

[wyly]

I'm really confused like a lot of other people and and I was going to get it and now I'm not sure. There's good reason to and good reason not to, so when it doubt do nothing.

is that logical?...it can't hurt you, it could likely prevent you from getting ill thereby spreading the illness to others....so where is the down side? where is the good reason not to?

[Dave_ON]

there is no other side to the equation... the issue is giving incorrect medical advise that can kill bythose who are not qualified to give it...

You speak as though science and the medical community speaks with one voice and all are in agreement. That is not true. As I said there is much evidence to stipulate that the H1N1 is no different or more deadly on a global or even national scale than the regular flu. To say otherwise is to become little more than a fear mongerer.

bird flu is not hype it is a real and deadly and very much a threat, apparently your medical knowledge is not up to date on why that is...

Than by all means feel free to elucidate me. Please show me how all the coverage of bird flu heretofore has been justified. Please provide links supporting the widespread infections that were expected by this time last year. Why hasn't it spread as they thought it "might"? It was only a danger that it "might" mutate to a more easily transmittable strain. It didn't and it hasn't, that's not to say it can't but the fact that it hasn't shows that in fact the previous coverage was "hype".

SARS was and still is a deadly threat, the "hype" was real, the concern was justified, and proper medical procedures prevented its spread...you sound as if you're disappointed that it wasn't allowed to spread...

Oh yes I'm terribly disappointed it wasn't allowed to spread, also I hope for a resurgence in small pox, the black plague and hey why not toss in cholera for good measure? Please don't accuse me of wishing death and disease on others, that's poor form and an absolute falsehood on your part.

SARS again was over blown, was it a serious issue? Yes it was, appropriate measures were taken and the situation was contained. Does this mean the media did not blow it way out of proportion? In fact they did. I don't see how inciting mass panic is at all beneficial to anyone or how it serves to curtail any type of medical threat.

[wyly]

In my expert opinion, we are doing just as well by properly washing our hands and not coughing and sneezing openly in public (use your elbow, etc) as we would be getting the shot. Some simple precautions alone is all it takes. And in either case there is no guarantee you won't get it. I know several know who took the dope and got sick anyway.

Another observation-

- Of the small group of about 20 or so that I work with, not everyone got the shot.

- Of those that did, 4 became really ill after getting the shot. One had to be rushed to emerg after having an immediate reaction. I find this disturbing because its only a small sample, and the failure rate is high.

- When one of my colleagues reported getting ill immediately after the shot, he inquired if the shot could have made him sick. "Absolutely not, no way" he was told by the medical staff. This response was given without any investigation or lab testing.

Stick that in your arm... not

there are many viruses out there and more than one flu virus, being vaccinated for one type does not mean that you can't come down with another, each vaccine is tailored for a specific virus....as well anyone who comes down with a flu "immediately" after vaccination already had it, incubation time can be as much as 5 days...

I had two colds in three weeks once, two totaly different viruses but both were cold viruses...getting H1N! vaccine will not protect you against other flu viruses...

[segnosaur]

In my expert opinion, we are doing just as well by properly washing our hands and not coughing and sneezing openly in public (use your elbow, etc) as we would be getting the shot.

Not coughing/sneasing in public only prevents you from passing the virus on to others. You are still at the mercy of the idiots who go out in public when ill and cough openly on others. No amount of good hygiene practices will ever help you prevent that.

Some simple precautions alone is all it takes. And in either case there is no guarantee you won't get it. I know several know who took the dope and got sick anyway.

Right, its not 100% effective. But, even if only partially effective, its still better than nothing.

If I offered you $1 million, but then actually only gave you $500,000, would you refuse it because it wasn't everything?

Another observation-

- Of the small group of about 20 or so that I work with, not everyone got the shot.

- Of those that did, 4 became really ill after getting the shot. One had to be rushed to emerg after having an immediate reaction. I find this disturbing because its only a small sample, and the failure rate is high.

First of all, you don't exactly define what you mean by 'really ill'. Something that lasted an hour? A day? bad enough to miss work?

And lets see... 4 out of 20 had 'bad reactions' to the flu. Well, side effects are common. That works out to 20% of our little group. However, in a study I referenced earlier, when a double blind study was done, it was found that the cases of "upper respiratory illness" decreased by 25%. (It may not have decreased by 100% because the vaccine doesn't cover all forms of the flu, nor does it cover colds, etc.) So, based on the size of the groups, while 4 may have been ill from the shot, it would have meant 5 people would have avoided getting the flu (which is itself a pretty bad reaction.)

- When one of my colleagues reported getting ill immediately after the shot, he inquired if the shot could have made him sick. "Absolutely not, no way" he was told by the medical staff. This response was given without any investigation or lab testing.

Hard to say what happened here, based only on 3rd hand knowledge. (Plus the fact that i don't know what the symptoms are.)

It could have been that your friend had some sort of allergic reaction to eggs (which are used in the vaccine development process). Its a known side effect, and one that the doctors administering the shots should warn people about.

[GostHacked]

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/...-vaccin-eng.php

Read and understand. Turn off your TV, don'r read your paper. Go see your doctor for the right info. FFS people please. Do not take any of our words here as the truth, go see your freakin doctor!!!!!!!!!!

That will be the last time I mention this, then whoever wants to keep freakin out over it can do so if they please.

Also for those of you who fear this antigen that is in the vaccine, Europe has been using that antigen for about 15 years.

Get a grip people.

[wyly]

You speak as though science and the medical community speaks with one voice and all are in agreement. That is not true. As I said there is much evidence to stipulate that the H1N1 is no different or more deadly on a global or even national scale than the regular flu. To say otherwise is to become little more than a fear mongerer.

you spread info that can result in death, I don't

Than by all means feel free to elucidate me. Please show me how all the coverage of bird flu heretofore has been justified. Please provide links supporting the widespread infections that were expected by this time last year. Why hasn't it spread as they thought it "might"? It was only a danger that it "might" mutate to a more easily transmittable strain. It didn't and it hasn't, that's not to say it can't but the fact that it hasn't shows that in fact the previous coverage was "hype".

hey your the qualified medical expert who knows what's best why is it you don't know? can't be bothered to learn because the denier blogs don't discuss it???...I already know the reason's behind the concern with bird flu and why health authorities around the world are still vigilant...maybe instead of spreading dangerous information without knowledge you should look it up, if you're going to spread medical information at least know what you're talking about...

Oh yes I'm terribly disappointed it wasn't allowed to spread, also I hope for a resurgence in small pox, the black plague and hey why not toss in cholera for good measure? Please don't accuse me of wishing death and disease on others, that's poor form and an absolute falsehood on your part.

you want drama you want death otherwise it's all media hype...

SARS again was over blown, was it a serious issue? Yes it was, appropriate measures were taken and the situation was contained. Does this mean the media did not blow it way out of proportion? In fact they did. I don't see how inciting mass panic is at all beneficial to anyone or how it serves to curtail any type of medical threat.

SARS is a lethal killer, a virus that killed 1 in 9 of those infected, are you saying the hype was unjustifed with that level of mortality? the media loves a good story and kept us informed how pissed would you be if they kept a secret or ignored it?...info is only hype if you perceive it as that, to me it's just info...

[Dave_ON]

you spread info that can result in death, I don't

You spread information that will produce undue panic, the flu is not yersinis pestis, stop speaking as if it is.

hey your the qualified medical expert who knows what's best why is it you don't know? can't be bothered to learn because the denier blogs don't discuss it???...I already know the reason's behind the concern with bird flu and why health authorities around the world are still vigilant...maybe instead of spreading dangerous information without knowledge you should look it up, if you're going to spread medical information at least know what you're talking about...

In other words you have none. I don't follow denier blogs or any of that non sense, I use common sense and read statistics. The statistics show that H1N1 only gets more media coverage, it's not more deadly than the regular flu.

you want drama you want death otherwise it's all media hype...

You sir are a liar, it's hype if the media makes it out to be worse than it is. It's call making a mountain of a mole hill.

SARS is a lethal killer, a virus that killed 1 in 9 of those infected, are you saying the hype was unjustifed with that level of mortality? the media loves a good story and kept us informed how pissed would you be if they kept a secret or ignored it?...info is only hype if you perceive it as that, to me it's just info...

I expect the media to give fair and balanced reporting, not hype a story to sell papers or get ratings.

[wyly]

You spread information that will produce undue panic, the flu is not yersinis pestis, stop speaking as if it is.

I haven't spread anything I'm responding to a thread that has people like yourself claiming there is no danger, it's all hype the vaccine is a plot by the drug companies...

In other words you have none. I don't follow denier blogs or any of that non sense, I use common sense and read statistics. The statistics show that H1N1 only gets more media coverage, it's not more deadly than the regular flu.

then go read about the dangers of bird flu? are you afraid to be wrong? if you're the knowledge seeking person you claim to be go look into it...

You sir are a liar, it's hype if the media makes it out to be worse than it is. It's call making a mountain of a mole hill.

your posts say different...unless the government does nothing and all breaks lose it was all hype...you want death and destruction before you believe anything then you'll blame the government and the media for not warning you...

I expect the media to give fair and balanced reporting, not hype a story to sell papers or get ratings.

hype is in the perception of info...and the perception is your alone... Edited October 28, 2009 by wyly

[Sir Bandelot]

Of the dozens of people I know who get the shot every year, no one has gotten sick. Of the 100s of thousands who get the shot, very few get sick.

I see. So maybe they all live right here, then.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So, is a 96% rate enough to claim that a vaccine makes a disease 'preventable'? If your definition of 'preventable' implies it stops all cases, then no. If it means it stops most cases, then yes.

Good...that's at least a more realistic explanation of what is and what is not possible based on the very limited demonstrated effectiveness of H!N1 vaccine and the different methods for developing and administering to various populations.....around the world.

I will continue to ignore the sheep mentality that accepts without question (and without supporting statistical data) concerning this or any other public health initiative.

Canadians panicking over events in the USA or other nations is just icing on the cake.

[fellowtraveller]

Canadians panicking over events in the USA or other nations is just icing on the cake.

Yeah, it is not like the flu is a communicable disease or something.