Pandemic over !

[segnosaur]

Umm.. the H1N1 vaccine was tested. Multiple times. Both for safety, and for its ability to create antibodies. These tests often appeared in peer reviewed journals (or were run by governments). And many of the tests were done before the vaccines were given to the general public.

Yeah I'm sure you would lke to see everyone forced to take the cure.

Ummm... first of all, a vaccine isn't "a cure". Its a preventative measure. Cure implies you've already contracted a disease. Vaccines prevent that from happening.

Secondly, I do not want people forced to take the cure. I want to see them take the cure because they've realized that its the right thing to do.

Please point out where I've suggested government enforced vaccinations.

Some kinda pharmaco-nazi, or something? You got shares in the company?

Uhhh... no. I'd just not rather see people I care about die because some dimwit doesn't understand enough about the issue and fails to get themselves vaccinated.

Note that the only "shares" I have are in mutual funds. I doubt very much that there are any influenza vaccine manufactures in those holdings.

Of course, financially, I would be better off if everyone got vaccinated. You see, whenever a dimwit gets admitted to the hospital with the flu (because they didn't get vaccinated) it ends up resulting in more health care money being spent on life support keeping those idiots alive. And when some dimwit misses a week of work because of the flu, it means the rest of us have to work that much harder to make up the lost productivity.

So, believe it or not you too benefit financially from the flu vaccine, even if you don't take it yourself.

- I did not say it was untested. I said it was not tested as thouroghly as it should be, as done with other vaccines.

Ok first of all, tell me, how many people do you think it needed to be tested on? Give me a number. I've already posted a studies with over 3000 people involved. How come 3000 isn't enough? How many people have to be involved before you admit its safe? Give me a number.

Or is this going to be a big game of "moving goalposts", where regardless of the number of studies that are produced you'll always demand more?

Secondly, they've been manufacturing influenza vaccines for many years now. The methods and technology has not changed significantly since last year, or the past decade. None of the influenza vaccines over the past decade have caused significant problems (either in clinical trials, or in the general immunized population, and we're talking about millions upon millions of vaccine recipients. So why do you expect there to be any sort of problem with H1N1 vaccines manufactured using the same basic technology?

And there were plenty of medical professionals who raised that concern, at the time.

Please, point out these 'medical professionals', and more importantly, please show me their qualifications with respect to virology or epidiemiology.

We had this conversation during the pandemic, you and I. Remember? Part of the debate was on how dangerous this really was, based on statistical evidence available at the time from the Southern hemisphere. During the winter in South America and Australia, the level of flu outbreak was very mild. Yes, I remember the conversation, segnosaur. You wlikeere convincethoroughlyd it was deadly and everyone should get the shot. And I remember telling you, we would re-visit it in 6 months, to see who was right.

I do remember various conversations (although there were several ignorant people I was debunking at the time so I can't remember who posted what.)

What I DO remember in that thread is that I clearly admitted that there was a chance that the dangers were over hyped; however, I still pointed out that even if the dangers were over stated, it is still better for everyone to get the flu shot. I still stand by that assessment.

I've pointed out that since the flu vaccine was widely available (i.e. no more shortages, priority people handled) that there were over 3000 hospitalizations in the U.S. alone (and dozens more dead). Most of these could have been prevented if everyone got vaccinated. So, tell me, are those thousands of people somehow irrelevant just because there weren't quite as many sick as expected? Do the dozens of preventable deaths not matter because some people overstated the risk?

Edited August 12, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

You know, I'm really quite impressed.

When you first posted in this thread, you exhibited classic ignorance of the facts.

It's hardly ignorance, I looked at the bigger picture and it still fit in a wallet.

So you claim that your ideas are not based on "ignorance", yet:

- Earlier on you admitted you made a mistake regarding testing done on the vaccine

- Even in this post (well, the one I'm responding to) you claimed that part of your analysis was based on 'pure speculation'

And those are just the problems you've admitted to!

(quoting a Reuter's article)The Thorax study found that 55 percent of all hospital admissions and 59 percent of H1N1 deaths in hospital occurred in people with no previous health problems.

I said undiagnosed previous conditions. Meaning there was probably another factor involved that the doctors missed. The person could have had an unknown undiagnosed precondition that would have made them more susceptible to H1N1.

Ummm.. your argument makes no sense. The article specifically said "no previous health issues". If there are no health issues, there's nothing to diagnose.

Heck, even if there were preexisting but undiagnosed health problems, that doesn't necessarily help your case, since if the health problem is undiagnosed it is likely so mild that it wouldn't have affected individual's infection with H1N1. And if it did, what does that say about people who don't get vaccinated because they think they're "healthy"? Heck, if your claiming that those people who died from H1N1 were impacted by "undiagnosed health problems" then you yourself can have one of these ticking time bombs in your system.

It's pure speculation on my part.

Well, I know you wouldn't want to complicate the argument by bringing facts and science into the argument.

- The vaccine was widely available to everyone by December 2009.

That's great because the pandemic was in full swing according to officials long before that. And there were shortages from Sept 2009 when it was introduced. That carried on for some time.

Ummm, so?

I have never denied that large number of people died before the vaccine was available. I never claimed there weren't problems with the distribution and/or manufacter. And I never claimed that some people were given a low priority for receiving the vaccine.

Go back and look at my posts. What I've done is specifically concentrated on the time frame after the vaccine was available to everyone, and after the shortages were no longer an issue (i.e. December onwards). And I pointed out the deaths that occurred after that time. Those are the deaths that were preventable. I do not criticize someone who failed to get vaccinated in October if the were not in a priority group. I do not criticize someone who didn't get the vaccine because it was unavailable. I am criticizing people who had the vaccine available, and still did not get it.

Given that, why do you think pointing out vaccine shortages in September was relevant? Do you think the vaccine caused people to time travel? Do you not understand that December comes after September?

Since it had peaked before the vaccine was ever introduced means that says to me that this specific strain was not a lot to worry about. It was simply overblown big time.

Yet even though the disease was overblown, over 3000 people in the U.S. were hospitalized for mostly no other reason than people were too ignorant to get the vaccine.

Why do you dismiss the hospitalization of thousands of people, just because there weren't quite as many as some predicted?

Well after the initial panic, officials changed their stance and said that only the sick, elderly and young children should get the shot. So with the people who had any amount of reasoning in them, decided to hold off and let the priority group get the shot, even BEFORE officials indicated such. We were told more would be available soon. There was shortages of the vaccine early on because of many people getting the shot when they did not need it.

There were also problems with distribution methods. There were also problems with the way they handled multiple vaccine types. If you want to debate government incompetence regarding vaccine distribution, then fine, create a thread for that. Heck, I might even agree with you on some points. But that doesn't necessarily mean the vaccine itself was useless or that it is not advisable to get it.

Maybe the healthy people who died after the vaccine was available actually deserved to die.

Maybe, but that is not the view I hold.

Yet when I point out that these were people who had died or were hospitalized after the vaccine was available to everyone you ignore that point, and return to the same tired mantra of "overblown! Overhyped!"

If you really didn't think those people deserved to die, why aren't you doing like I'm doing? Why aren't you telling people "There was overhype, but you don't deserve to die. Get the vaccine. Even if the danger is overstated, it will still reduce your chance of death".

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE66B6XA20100712

From your article it does talk about those who are at risk, but aside from the title, there is no mention of the healthy people dying other than the one paragraph near the end of the article.

Ummm... so?

First of all, why should the location of that paragraph really matter (whether its at the start or end)?

Secondly, Reuters (the source of the article) is a fairly well respected news organization, and they were quoting a scientific study. Do you have any reason to believe their information was incorrect or not properly reported?

The Thorax study found that 55 percent of all hospital admissions and 59 percent of H1N1 deaths in hospital occurred in people with no previous health problems. Just under half of patients had underlying conditions, mostly asthma.

55% of ALL admissions

59% of H1N1 deaths with no problems, but yet say that 50% of those had asthma. So 1/2 of 59% means about 28% of those who had died from H1N1 had a previous condition, asthma. I could be reading this wrong.

Its not so much that your reading that wrong (you are, but that's beside the point. You can't just multiply the numbers like that). Its that your analysis is pointless.

I never denied that some (heck maybe many) who died or were hospitalized had preexisting problems. Your early posts suggested that healthy people need not worry about H1N1. This study that was quoted suggested that while they shouldn't panic, there is a risk for those who consider themselves "healthy".

[GostHacked]

So you claim that your ideas are not based on "ignorance", yet:

- Earlier on you admitted you made a mistake regarding testing done on the vaccine

- Even in this post (well, the one I'm responding to) you claimed that part of your analysis was based on 'pure speculation'

And those are just the problems you've admitted to!

I can admit my mistakes.

Well personally I think the root cause is that people are not taught the act of critical thinking in school. They never learn how to judge the credibility of an information source, how to filter out bad data, and how to judge risks/rewards. And they never learn to think logically or apply Occam's razor to any situation.

The thread about the H1N1 last year shows that most of us had done some critical thinking. Those who did have some critical thinking were not worried about the virus. Those who had critical thinking are the ones who did not rush out to get the vaccine like so many others that got caught up in the panicked hype to get the shot. That in of itself caused a hell of a lot of problems with shortages and priority groups NOT getting the shot.

Ummm.. your argument makes no sense. The article specifically said "no previous health issues". If there are no health issues, there's nothing to diagnose.

Doctors are not perfect, they do miss things. Are you missing where I am saying 'undiagnosed condition' ?? Meaning there could have been something else that made them susceptible to the virus. An underlying condition no one caught or discovered. What part of undiagnosed don't you understand?

Heck, even if there were preexisting but undiagnosed health problems, that doesn't necessarily help your case, since if the health problem is undiagnosed it is likely so mild that it wouldn't have affected individual's infection with H1N1.

Well that is now speculation on your part as well as mine.

And if it did, what does that say about people who don't get vaccinated because they think they're "healthy"? Heck, if your claiming that those people who died from H1N1 were impacted by "undiagnosed health problems" then you yourself can have one of these ticking time bombs in your system.

I very well could have a ticking time bomb inside me. It's not impossible. But as per my experience, I have had the flu twice in the last 20 years. Last time was over 15 years ago. And I have not had a flu shot in over 20 years. I know people who get the shot every year and end up getting sick anyways.

I have never denied that large number of people died before the vaccine was available. I never claimed there weren't problems with the distribution and/or manufacter. And I never claimed that some people were given a low priority for receiving the vaccine.

Yet even though the disease was overblown, over 3000 people in the U.S. were hospitalized for mostly no other reason than people were too ignorant to get the vaccine.

Why do you dismiss the hospitalization of thousands of people, just because there weren't quite as many as some predicted?

There were also problems with distribution methods. There were also problems with the way they handled multiple vaccine types. If you want to debate government incompetence regarding vaccine distribution, then fine, create a thread for that. Heck, I might even agree with you on some points. But that doesn't necessarily mean the vaccine itself was useless or that it is not advisable to get it.

Yet when I point out that these were people who had died or were hospitalized after the vaccine was available to everyone you ignore that point, and return to the same tired mantra of "overblown! Overhyped!"

If you really didn't think those people deserved to die, why aren't you doing like I'm doing? Why aren't you telling people "There was overhype, but you don't deserve to die. Get the vaccine. Even if the danger is overstated, it will still reduce your chance of death".

I have no idea where you are getting the notion that I think people deserved to die because of all this.

And in your last post you do address my concerns, and in the end agreeing with me.

Yes there were problems with getting it to people

yes the pandemic was in full swing before the vaccine was available.

You agreed with almost everything I said and yet you are telling me I am absolutely wrong with what I am saying.

[segnosaur]

So you claim that your ideas are not based on "ignorance", yet:

- Earlier on you admitted you made a mistake regarding testing done on the vaccine

- Even in this post (well, the one I'm responding to) you claimed that part of your analysis was based on 'pure speculation'

And those are just the problems you've admitted to!

I can admit my mistakes.

Correction... you can admit some of your mistakes. Your "analysis" of the vaccine program is riddled with errors. You've only admitted to 2 of many.

The thread about the H1N1 last year shows that most of us had done some critical thinking. Those who did have some critical thinking were not worried about the virus. Those who had critical thinking are the ones who did not rush out to get the vaccine like so many others that got caught up in the panicked hype to get the shot. That in of itself caused a hell of a lot of problems with shortages and priority groups NOT getting the shot.

Claiming that you "avoided the panic" does not mean you were a critical thinker. I avoided the panic too... I just got the shot when people in my particular category had it available.

Doctors are not perfect, they do miss things. Are you missing where I am saying 'undiagnosed condition' ?? Meaning there could have been something else that made them susceptible to the virus. An underlying condition no one caught or discovered. What part of undiagnosed don't you understand?

Of course I find it amazing that you're assuming that those >50% of "undiagnosed" influenza victims all had doctors who made mistakes. Just boggles the mind. You really think that there are that many incompetent doctors around?

I very well could have a ticking time bomb inside me. It's not impossible. But as per my experience, I have had the flu twice in the last 20 years. Last time was over 15 years ago. And I have not had a flu shot in over 20 years. I know people who get the shot every year and end up getting sick anyways.

You know, you claimed you were doing "critical thinking", but here you've just illustrated that you're not.

The first rule of critical thinking: Anecdotes mean nothing. Zero, Zip. Ziltch.

The experiences of you and your friends mean absolutely nothing. The only way to determine effectiveness is by proper double blind studies, preferably appearing in a proper peer-reviewed journal. If schools taught the process of critical thinking that's the first thing they'd drill into people's heads.

I have no idea where you are getting the notion that I think people deserved to die because of all this.

Well how about the fact that you are taking a course of action (i.e. not getting the vaccine when its available to you) that could actually lead to the death of other individuals in the same situation.

How about when I point out the number of people who died or were hospitalized after the vaccine was widely available, you ignore those people and instead point to irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with their deaths (such as early vaccine shortages, which had been taken care of by the time those people died.)

How about when I point out those deaths that could have been prevented by vaccination, you keep shouting "over hype". Its like your saying the 3000 preventable hospitalizations are unimportant because some people incorrectly predicted 30,000.

And in your last post you do address my concerns, and in the end agreeing with me.

Correction.... I agreed with you on items that were irrelevant to the conversation. The existence of vaccine shortages earlier on does not mean that the vaccine is not beneficial. The deaths of individuals prior to the availability does not mean that the vaccine is not beneficial.

Yes there were problems with getting it to people

yes the pandemic was in full swing before the vaccine was available.

Which again, is irrelevant. These 2 issues do nothing to debunk the fact that the influenza vaccine is both safe and effective at saving lives.

You could have also said "the sky is blue, and water is wet". And as true as those facts are, they also do not change the fact that the influenza vaccine is both safe and effective.

[GostHacked]

http://www.thinktwice.com/swineflu.htm

The current swine flu infection has been passed from person to person around the world. However, according to Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the CDC, "The overwhelming majority of people with [swine] flu are going to do just fine. They won't need testing and they won't need treatment."(9) In fact, most of the 36 U.S. children who died from swine flu during the Spring and Summer of 2009 had underlying medical problems: neurodevelopmental and respiratory disorders.(10) More than half of the adults who died from swine flu had an underlying chronic illness or medical condition, such as asthma, diabetes, immune deficiency, or morbid obesity.(11) Most of the people who became ill recovered without requiring medical treatment. Nevertheless, on June 11, 2009 the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a pandemic due to the rapid spread of the virus.

There is a nice video at the end with the author of the site and some books.

Four swine flu vaccines have been licensed by the FDA and are currently being administered throughout the United States. They are manufactured by 1) CSL Limited, 2) Novartis, 3) Sanofi Pasteur, and 4) MedImmune. Here is a summary of the age groups they are recommend for, the ingredients they contain, and other pertinent information:

CSL, Limited: For people 18 years of age and older. Multidose vials contain 24.5mcg of mercury. Also contains the weakened swine flu virus (influenza A/California/7/2009--H1N1), sodium phosphate, potassium phosphate, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, taurodeoxycholate, egg proteins, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B (antibiotics) and beta-propiolactone.

Novartis: For people 4 years of age and older. Multidose vials contain 25mcg of mercury. Also contains the weakened swine flu virus, sodium phosphate, egg proteins, neomycin, polymyxin B, betapropiolactone, and nonylphenol ethoxylate.

Sanofi Pasteur: For people 6 months of age and older. Multidose vials contain 25mcg of mercury. Also contains the weakened swine flu virus "propagated in "embryonated chicken eggs," polyethylene glycol p-isooctyphenyl ether (Triton X-100), sucrose, gelatin, and formaldehyde.

MedImmune: For people 2 years through 49 years of age. (This vaccine is squirted up the nose.) Each dose contains the live "pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus," MSG, pig gelatin, egg proteins, arginine, sucrose, potassium phosphate, and gentamicin sulfate (an antibiotic).

Why is mercury used in vaccines when it's known to be harmful to humans?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/study-prompts-provinces-to-rethink-flu-p%3E%20lan/article1303330/

Distributed for peer review last week, the study confounded infectious-disease experts in suggesting that people vaccinated against seasonal flu are twice as likely to catch swine flu.

-----

“It has confused things very badly,” said Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, head of adult infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba. “And it has certainly cost us credibility from the public because of conflicting recommendations. Until last week, there had always been much encouragement to get the seasonal flu vaccine.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/more-flu-programs-suspended/article1304958/

Canada's influenza vaccination strategies are being thrown into question, with confusion growing among Canadians after a controversial study suggesting people are twice as likely to contract pandemic H1N1 if they have received a seasonal flu shot.

[Pliny]

Its not really possible to judge the effectiveness of a flu vaccine by comparing annual flu deaths for a number of reasons.

First of all, we've been vaccinating against the flu for years. You end up comparing one vaccinated population (e.g. those vaccinated in 2009 against H1N1) with those vaccinated in other years against other strains. In order to do a 'proper' comparison you need a control group (e.g. a totally unvaccinated population, under roughly the same economic/social/geographic conditions)

Actually you can go back over the years and besides the usual fluctuations from year to year there is no difference before we started vaccinating and after.

Another valuable statistic would be how many died of the flu, or complications as a result of the flu, that had received the vaccination. I don't think the answer is zero. But I don't think anyone is counting for some reason.

Secondly, there are other factors (such as the development of antiviral drugs, or improved methods of handling secondary infections) that might skew the results.

Irrelevant. The number of deaths annually has not dropped with the introduction of vaccines. It has remained pretty much consistent.

Yeah, lets let hundreds if not thousands of people die all in the name of an "experiment".

Somehow, I don't think there would be much difference in the annual rate of death.

Unfortunately, science has let hundred if not thousands die in the name of an experiment. Striving for racial purity was one that occurred in the 1930-1940s. Mind you politicians are usually using science for their own purposes when holocausts like that occur but scientists do love to experiment and they didn't object too much. Besides critical thinkers knew that the people who died in those gas houses were inferior and it was humane to put them out of their misery.

You know, you claimed you were doing "critical thinking", but here you've just illustrated that you're not.

The first rule of critical thinking: Anecdotes mean nothing. Zero, Zip. Ziltch.

The experiences of you and your friends mean absolutely nothing. The only way to determine effectiveness is by proper double blind studies, preferably appearing in a proper peer-reviewed journal. If schools taught the process of critical thinking that's the first thing they'd drill into people's heads.

Your argument here is fallacious.

The idea that only proper double blind studies that have been properly peer reviewed and published are the only valid means of making a determination eliminates the necessity for most of us to do any critical thinking whatsoever. We need only parrot the findings of properly published peer reviewed double blind studies.

Anecdotal evidence is indeed no scientific basis to determine action however it is a persons experience and I don't think that an individual should be marginalized in such manner as to completely dismiss any anecdote.

Teachers in schools don't wish to have students graded and prefer to give their professional anecdotal evaluation of them. Are we to then, since, "Anecdotes mean nothing. Zero, Zip. Ziltch", not accept these evaluations?

Certainly, while you praise "critical thinking" your position appears to be that it should be eliminated.

For some reason Ghosthacked holds the position he does. If you wish to promote critical thinking then allow others to express their opinion and not simply parrot science, as is your preference, which has proven to be used improperly more than a few times in our history. It is necessary to question authority, for no one deserves that monopoly if freedom of thought is to endure.

Are you right in your argument about flu vaccines? I think we are missing critical information that supersedes making final conclusions. If you are convinced with the current information you have then fine. I still have questions and will continue my critical analysis as more information comes to light.

[segnosaur]

Actually you can go back over the years and besides the usual fluctuations from year to year there is no difference before we started vaccinating and after.

Evidence please?

Real evidence. Like from a reputable source (like the CDC, or Health Canada/Statscan).

(I assume you're referring to the influenza virus... I can of course dig up all sorts of statistics that show the drop off of things like measles or polio following the introduction of vaccines.)

Another valuable statistic would be how many died of the flu, or complications as a result of the flu, that had received the vaccination. I don't think the answer is zero.

You're right, the answer isn't zero. A small minority of people receive the flu shot but for some reason their bodies don't build up the antibodies. Plus, the vaccine does take a few days to become effective. (Plus there are multiple strains in circulation, and not all of them are covered by a particular vaccine.) Its also possible for people to catch diseases which resemble the flu but are misdiagnosed.

It really is quite possible to get immunized and still get the flu. But that does not mean the vaccine is ineffective. In the vast majority of cases it is effective. For everyone else, we rely on something called herd immunity. That's why I'm so annoyed by people who don't get vaccinated... not only are you risking your own lives, you risk passing the virus on to others.

How do we know it works? Because there have been multiple studies where they gave 2 similar groups of people either an influenza vaccine or a placebo. In those studies, people receiving the placebo had twice as many cases of influenza or other diseases that resembled the flu than those that took the vaccine.

Here's a meta-study regarding the issue: http://www.annals.org/content/123/7/518.full. It shows that when vaccinated, the number of people getting hospitalized or dying from respratory diseases is roughly cut in half.

But I don't think anyone is counting for some reason.

You'd be wrong. As I pointed out before, they DO consider cases where people get vaccinated but still get sick.

Unfortunately, science has let hundred if not thousands die in the name of an experiment. Striving for racial purity was one that occurred in the 1930-1940s.

"Science" did no such thing. It was individuals, using bizarre misinterpretations of science.

By the way, did you realize that vaccination helped rid the world of Smallpox, a disease that regularly killed millions of people every year, and had been for thousands of years? Now the disease is gone.

Your argument here is fallacious.

The idea that only proper double blind studies that have been properly peer reviewed and published are the only valid means of making a determination eliminates the necessity for most of us to do any critical thinking whatsoever. We need only parrot the findings of properly published peer reviewed double blind studies.

Actually, my argument is totally correct.

Even if someone is "parroting peer reviewed studies", they are at least dealing with information which is likely to be correct.

One of the key points of "critical thinking" is having valid data to work with. Peer reviewed articles are a part of that.

Anecdotal evidence is indeed no scientific basis to determine action however it is a persons experience and I don't think that an individual should be marginalized in such manner as to completely dismiss any anecdote.

Then you'd be wrong on that point.

The only think an anecdote can do is relate one person's personal experience. Did someone get vaccinated and avoid influenza? Maybe they had a horseshoe up their butt and just got lucky. Its only by looking at hundreds of cases and comparing them against a control group that we can really determine effectiveness.

]Certainly, while you praise "critical thinking" your position appears to be that it should be eliminated.

You seem to not quite understand the concept of 'critical thinking'.

For some reason Ghosthacked holds the position he does. If you wish to promote critical thinking then allow others to express their opinion and not simply parrot science

Ignorant opinions should be given little or consideration.

Should we listen to people who believe that the earth is flat? Should we start introducing Flat Earth theories in geography class?

What about creationism? Should biology classes start teaching "God did it" along side evolutionary theory, even though there's no scientific proof of creationism?

...as is your preference, which has proven to be used improperly more than a few times in our history. It is necessary to question authority, for no one deserves that monopoly if freedom of thought is to endure.

The fact that science gets misused occasionally does not mean that the science is necessarily wrong, only that some individuals misinterpret things for their own benefit.

And hey, science does make mistakes. But when that happens, the problem is typically figured out by, guess what, science. Its a self-correcting mechanism.

Are you right in your argument about flu vaccines?

Yup, quite right.

I think we are missing critical information that supersedes making final conclusions.

Nope, no critical information is missing.

- We have multiple studies where the vaccine (H1N1 this past year, plus other influenza strains other years) was tried on different people, which showed that it caused no significant health problems

- We have multiple studies that show that in most cases body develops antibodies when exposed to the influenza vaccine

- We have multiple studies that show when a group of people receive influenza vaccines in other years, the rate of illness and death is typically cut in half

Not sure what other information you think is needed. Hearing about some idiot who claims "I never get sick" doesn't tell you the vaccine wasn't needed because they may have been lucky enough to never have been exposed to the virus.

Edited August 13, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

http://www.thinktwice.com/swineflu.htm

Ummm... really, you're using thinktwice as a source of information?

You do know that the "Global Vaccine Institute" (who runs that particular site) isn't exactly known to be a reputable source of information. (Its like going to a fundamentalist christian church for information about atheism.)

If you look on their site, you'll see that one of the papers they reference was written by Wakefield. Yet Wakefield was recently found to have falsified data. (See: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960175-4/fulltext )

So, why exactly are you using a source that uses information coming from a source that uses falsified data?

But, let me address some of the bunk that they are pushing:

The current swine flu infection has been passed from person to person around the world. However, according to Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the CDC, "The overwhelming majority of people with [swine] flu are going to do just fine. They won't need testing and they won't need treatment."(9)

That the majority of people who catch the flu survive with no extra medical treatment is no big surprise. But a disease doesn't have to kill everyone to make it worth preventing. More than enough people were getting hospitalized and dying from influenza to justify vaccination, even if others were surviving.

Never mind the fact that caching the flu is still not a good thing (people miss work, feel miserable, etc.) even if they don't wind up in the hospital.

In fact, most of the 36 U.S. children who died from swine flu during the Spring and Summer of 2009 had underlying medical problems: neurodevelopmental and respiratory disorders.(10) More than half of the adults who died from swine flu had an underlying chronic illness or medical condition, such as asthma, diabetes, immune deficiency, or morbid obesity.(11) Most of the people who became ill recovered without requiring medical treatment.

First of all, there seem to be a lot of weasly words... "most"? "More than"? Even if a lot of people did have preexisting conditions, a lot did not. In fact, I already gave a reference to such a study.

Secondly, once again you seem to be ignoring the concept of herd immunity. You don't just vaccinate to protect yourself, you vaccinate to protect others.

There is a nice video at the end with the author of the site and some books.

Yup, and guess what? Those books are on sale.

Here's something I find amazing... people will suggest vaccinations are some big "money scam". (Heck, its been suggested that I'm eager to see people vaccinated because I own stock in vaccine companies.) Yet here is this source of information, hawking their books. And the same goes with many other anti-vaccine "experts" who likewise sell books. Why are they not viewed the same way as vaccine companies?

Why is mercury used in vaccines when it's known to be harmful to humans?

Ummm... because the type of mercury in vaccines is a compound of mercury that is easily metabolized and removed from the body?

Because the concentrations of mercury compounds used is very very tiny?

Because the overwhelming majority of evidence from scientific studies that have been done has shown that there have been no health problems associated with the use of mercury in vaccines? (See, for example: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078187 By the way, that's the New England Journal of Medicine, that has a little more credibility than the Global Vaccine Institute.)

Edited to add: The 'mercury' used in vaccines is used as a preservative known as thimerosal. Not all vaccines contain this compound though.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/study-prompts-provinces-to-rethink-flu-p%3E%20lan/article1303330/

Canada's influenza vaccination strategies are being thrown into question, with confusion growing among Canadians after a controversial study suggesting people are twice as likely to contract pandemic H1N1 if they have received a seasonal flu shot

Yup, I remember those particular studies.

What you don't seem to understand is:

- Those studies were distributed for peer review. That doesn't necessarily man they were accepted. (Not sure of the final status of the studies, but things can be rejected if there is evidence of mistakes. That's the point of peer review... It attempts to reduce the chance of bad studies getting published.)

- You seem to have overlooked this particular part of the article: Researchers in the U.S., Britain and Australia have not reported the same phenomenon. Marie-Paule Kieny, the World Health Organization's director of vaccine research, said last week the Canadian findings were an international anomaly and could constitute a “study bias.”

So, you have an article that A: Hadn't actually been published yet, and B: doesn't seem to be replicated elsewhere in the world. Furthermore the flu deals only with people who have been vaccinated against seasonal flu (and catch swine flu "naturally"). It says nothing at all about any sort of problems if you receive both vaccines, which people should be doing.

Edited August 13, 2010 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

Not sure what other information you think is needed. Hearing about some idiot who claims "I never get sick" doesn't tell you the vaccine wasn't needed because they may have been lucky enough to never have been exposed to the virus.

Ever think that getting a vaccine year after year might actually weaken the immune system? And thanks for the compliment.

I am sure I was exposed to the virus, it just did not affect me the same way.

[GostHacked]

Ummm... really, you're using thinktwice as a source of information?

Nah was just one of the few sites that came up. I am not sure what a reputable site would look like in terms of objectionable vaccination information.

[segnosaur]

Ever think that getting a vaccine year after year might actually weaken the immune system?

Nope, not at all.

I remember reading a statistic about the number of infections that the body should be able to recognize. It was estimated to be in the billions. (Sorry, don't have any particular references for that right now.)

The human body is regularly exposed to many bacteria and viruses in a year. The body has no problem fighting off those infections; its doubtful that one or 2 additional antigens will make any difference.

I am sure I was exposed to the virus, it just did not affect me the same way.

First of all, simply being around people that have influenza does not necessarily mean you were exposed. Influenza virus is best transmitted when an individual gets virus particles deep within the respiratory system. Despite being near people who were sick doesn't mean that you weren't fortunate enough not to inhale at the moment they were coughing.

Secondly, ever think that perhaps you might have been sick and not known it? Sometimes the flu can present with very mild symptoms or appear as the cold. You might have been infected (and even passed the disease on to others) without knowing it.

Ummm... really, you're using thinktwice as a source of information?

Nah was just one of the few sites that came up. I am not sure what a reputable site would look like in terms of objectionable vaccination information.

Well given the fact that the medical community is in pretty much unanimous agreement about the benefits of vaccines you probably won't find a reputable site that is against them.

Here's a suggestion... instead of actively searching out sites that support your view (and finding them all to be just as disreputable, relying on false experts and liars, while trying to sell you stuff), why don't you instead start with the reputable sources and see what they say?

[Bryan]

Real evidence. Like from a reputable source (like the CDC, or Health Canada/Statscan).

They're the ones stirring the false panics. Not reputable.

[Guest TrueMetis]

They're the ones stirring the false panics. Not reputable.

Actually there the ones trying to stop preventable deaths and keep a countries productivity from crashing. Even if the disease doesn't kill, hundreds of thousands of sick people will do some damage to the economy.

Edited August 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Pliny]

Here is an interesting offer for $10,000,

The $10,000 reward will be issued to anyone who can produce scientific evidence meeting the following criteria:

• A scientific paper, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, describing the results of a minimum of two Phase III trials structured as randomized, placebo-controlled scientific clinical trials of an FDA-approved H1N1 vaccine currently in distribution, carried out on a minimum of 1,000 people (for statistical significance) for a duration of at least 90 days. The inclusion criteria for both clinical trials must be properly randomized so that the participants are representative of the entire U.S. population and not merely a desired sub-group selected to skew the research outcome.

• At the same time, the vaccine must be scientifically demonstrated to be effective at reducing H1N1 swine flu infections. Scientifically speaking, it must be demonstrated to reduce the death rate from H1N1 infections by a minimum of 50 percent (relative numbers, not absolute, since so few die from H1N1 in the first place). In other words, if 100,000 people get infected with H1N1 and 100 might normally die, the study must show that fewer than 50 vaccinated people die. This would equate to a 50 percent reduction in mortality from swine flu. If the vaccine is less than 50 percent effective, then it doesn't really offer much benefit for such a mild flu with extremely low fatality rates.

When someone wins the 10 grand I'll take another look.

[Pliny]

Here's a suggestion... instead of actively searching out sites that support your view (and finding them all to be just as disreputable, relying on false experts and liars, while trying to sell you stuff), why don't you instead start with the reputable sources and see what they say?

The statistics on annual deaths due to influenza are available at the CDC and WHO websites. I have quoted them in the prior thread. There is no difference other than annual fluctuations in death rates before and after the introduction of influenza vaccines.

[segnosaur]

Real evidence. Like from a reputable source (like the CDC, or Health Canada/Statscan).

They're the ones stirring the false panics. Not reputable.

I see...

First of all, even if the CDC misjudged the impact of H1N1, I was looking for historical data. Do you have any proof that the CDC, Health Canada or Statscan has actually provided inaccurate information regarding numbers of deaths/infections, in this or any other year? Even Pliny (the person I had been responding to) seems to have thought the statistics provided were valid. Heck, if you think the government can't be trusted, then why didn't they "make up" numbers to make their H1N1 predictions seem more accurate?

Secondly, I find it quite ironic that someone would accuse the CDC/Heatlh Canada of "stirring false panics" when much of the anti-vaccine information comes from places like the "thinktwice" site another poster tried to refer to, a site that actually sells books and probably has just as much interest in creating false panics (in their case that vaccines are dangerous) in order to sell their products.

[segnosaur]

Here is an interesting offer for $10,000,

The $10,000 reward will be issued to anyone who can produce scientific evidence meeting the following criteria:

• A scientific paper, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, describing the results of a minimum of two Phase III trials...carried out on a minimum of 1,000 people (for statistical significance)...

• At the same time, the vaccine must be scientifically demonstrated to be effective at reducing H1N1 swine flu infections. Scientifically speaking, it must be demonstrated to reduce the death rate from H1N1 infections by a minimum of 50 percent

When someone wins the 10 grand I'll take another look.

Not sure why anyone would thing that is so "interesting". Try looking at this with a skeptical perspective:

First of all, where exactly is the reference to the actual offer?

Secondly, where is their evidence that the $10,000 actually exists? (There is an offer by the James Randi Educational foundation of $1 million for proof of paranormal activity. That money is in a special account at Goldman Sachs, and documentation about its existence is freely provided to people who ask. Is there such proof offered here?)

Thirdly, I rather doubt the intentions of the people that are making this offer. A lot of this offer just does not make sense. For example they want a minimum of 1000 study participants "for statistical significance", but if you're familiar with statistics smaller samples are still significant (it just changes the confidence intervals). Heck, this "offer" doesn't even include confidence intervals. And given the cost of running the cost of running such studies, $10,000 sounds like peanuts.

Without actual proof that the offer is valid/made in good faith, I'd have to say the most likely scenario is that some anti-vax group tried to make up something that sounds good, but with the idea that real researchers will never bother to collect it (based on the small amounts/shady premise that it was offered.) However, more gullible people will end up pointing to it and saying "Look! Nobody can provide proof" without viewing the offer with the skepticism that it deserves.

The statistics on annual deaths due to influenza are available at the CDC and WHO websites. I have quoted them in the prior thread. There is no difference other than annual fluctuations in death rates before and after the introduction of influenza vaccines.

You were the one that made the claim. It is your duty to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will automatically assume that your claims are indeed baseless. (And if its been posted in previous threads, it should be no problem to track down where and when.)

Hey, did you know that George Bush was actually an alien reptile clone? There's undeniable proof! Well, I can't be bothered to provide it, but it exists! You should trust me and go look for it!

[Smallc]

They're the ones stirring the false panics. Not reputable.

The government is coming for you.

[segnosaur]

The statistics on annual deaths due to influenza are available at the CDC and WHO websites. I have quoted them in the prior thread. There is no difference other than annual fluctuations in death rates before and after the introduction of influenza vaccines.

You were the one that made the claim. It is your duty to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will automatically assume that your claims are indeed baseless. (And if its been posted in previous threads, it should be no problem to track down where and when.)

Hate to respond to my own post, but thought I'd follow up with something...

It is possible for influenza vaccines to be effective, yet still not decrease mortality rates.

How does that work? Because, although vaccines are effective, there is always the chance that an individual will catch a strain of the flu not covered by the vaccine. Take, for example, a senior citizen (one of the most affected groups). Its possible that this theoretical person would have died of influenza at 65. If they get vaccinated, they may not die from the flu at 65, but may instead catch the flu at (lets say) age 70, after several years of successful vaccinations. Result is that mortality stays the same, but the average age of flu victims increases.

The fact is, we have multiple double-blind studies where vaccinated populations get compared with un-vaccinated populations, and the number of cases of influenza goes down. If you somehow think that the vaccine is ineffective, then just why do fewer people get sick after getting the vaccine? Or do you think its some sort of massive conspiracy involving thousands of medical researchers, government officials, and the medical community?

Edited August 16, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Here is an interesting offer for $10,000,

When someone wins the 10 grand I'll take another look.

You know, out of curiosity I thought I'd try to find more information out about that particular offer.

It appears to be offered by a website called NaturalNews.

Well, the offer is a total scam. You only posted 2 of their conditions... They actually had other conditions you didn't mention, including proof that the vaccine causes no side effects for a year after injection. The only problem is, the deadline was earlier this year (a lot sooner than 1 year after the vaccine was introduced). So, the author deliberately set things up so that he would never have to pay out, regardless of what the evidence was.

And you fell for it.

Not only that, this 'NaturalNews' web site was, just as so many other anti-vax resources, running its own on-line store to sell its cheesy products. Why exactly would you trust a resource like that?

[Pliny]

You were the one that made the claim. It is your duty to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will automatically assume that your claims are indeed baseless. (And if its been posted in previous threads, it should be no problem to track down where and when.)

Hey, did you know that George Bush was actually an alien reptile clone? There's undeniable proof! Well, I can't be bothered to provide it, but it exists! You should trust me and go look for it!

Here are some staisitics from 2000 - 2006

Flu deaths/annum

Now I imagine that every year more and more people are following faithfully in lockstep with "science" and getting their flu shots. But year to year the deaths don't seem to be diminisihing. Your little argument about the average age of flu victims increasing is pretty weak especially without citing the peer reviewed study.

It doesn't matter what information I get Segnosaur, you are a skeptic. You don't know your nose is sitting on your face because there hasn't been a study. There are several of you here on this forum and you all exhibit the same symptoms of inability to determine anything for yourself or form an opinion without a peer reviewed published study. You have great "faith" that science has proven everything we need to know and there should be a published study for it.

Dealing with you ignoramuses who use science in this manner actually proves nothing but your own inability to know something. Science has a long way to go before everything has been decided.

There is much to learn but you will have to wait until the published studies comeout and even then, since science doesn't find truths you will never be sure of what's up. Things could change tomorrow and you will find yourself in the soup.

If I were you I would retain a little of that skepticism for science itself and hone some of my reasoning skills instead of lazily accepting everything the authorities place in front of you.

[segnosaur]

On the claim that there has been no decrease in the death rate due to vaccination...

You were the one that made the claim. It is your duty to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will automatically assume that your claims are indeed baseless. (And if its been posted in previous threads, it should be no problem to track down where and when.)

Here are some staisitics from 2000 - 2006

Flu deaths/annum

Now I imagine that every year more and more people are following faithfully in lockstep with "science" and getting their flu shots. But year to year the deaths don't seem to be diminisihing.

Ummmm... first of all, your link doesn't work.

Secondly, you REALLY want to use 2000-2006 as your time period? The fact is, influenza vaccination programs were already wide spread by 2000 especially among the elderly (one of the most high risk groups), and in many cases had plateaued. (See: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2802%2901421-3/abstract ) If you want proof, you have to go back more than 1 couple of decades, long before vaccination was common.

Frankly, I think even if the number of dead was stable, it would still be a victory. After all, the total population is increasing. You'd expect the number of dead people to rise as well.

Since you seem to be unable to actually understand things like facts, data, etc. here's something to consider: In Italy in the 1970s (before vaccination was widespread), more than 5 flu seasons had a death rate of more than 5 out of 100,000 people. Between 1990 and 2002, after vaccination became common? Not one year had a death rate over 5 out of 100,000. (See: http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/13/5/694.htm figure 1). Granted, I don't think the vaccine was the only factor, but its a lot more relevant than your comparison (when most people at risk were already vaccinated).

Your little argument about the average age of flu victims increasing is pretty weak especially without citing the peer reviewed study.

My 'argument' was a proactive attempt to deal with false arguments you might introduce. Since your 'claims' seem to be based on false evidence, it wasn't really necessary.

It doesn't matter what information I get Segnosaur, you are a skeptic.

Ummm... of course I'm a skeptic. But do you even know what a 'skeptic' is?

A skeptic is not someone who automatically dismisses everything. A skeptic is someone who basically follows the evidence. We examine the quality of data (including the source, looking for possible problems) and develop our opinions.

If you actually had real proof, then I'd be open to have my opinions changed. Heck, its happened before. But the weak arguments that you are providing are not convincing at all.

You don't know your nose is sitting on your face because there hasn't been a study. There are several of you here on this forum and you all exhibit the same symptoms of inability to determine anything for yourself or form an opinion without a peer reviewed published study.

Skeptics like myself hold peer reviewed double blind studies in high regard because, while they are not perfect, they are better than the alternative, and a darn sight better than anecdotes and the opinion of quacks trying to sell cheesy books.

Dealing with you ignoramuses who use science in this manner actually proves nothing but your own inability to know something. Science has a long way to go before everything has been decided.

Ummm, so? I never claimed that "science" knew everything. But its the most effective way of learning about the world

If I were you I would retain a little of that skepticism for science itself and hone some of my reasoning skills instead of lazily accepting everything the authorities place in front of you.

Well, keep in mind that your reasoning skills made you claim that there was a $10,000 offer for proof of flu vaccine effectiveness. Yet even a cursory glance at that 'offer' showed that it was not winnable, not because the evidence wasn't there, but because the offer had contradictory conditions that would prevent it from being won.

Should we really trust the opinions of someone who cannot identify such problems? After all, it was pretty basic logic and took me about 30 seconds to find out.

Edited to add: Keep in mind that I'm not just accepting what the "authorities" are putting in front of me... I'm accepting the work of hundreds of people, both inside and outside the government, including academic researchers and peer reviewers who are not affiliated with the government in any way.

Edited August 17, 2010 by segnosaur

[Guest TrueMetis]

Don't bother segnosaur with pliny skeptic is a bad word, and following the evidence is the same as not being able to form an opinion.

[Pliny]

Well, I have spent the last couple of days doing some looking into statistics on the flu and the flu vaccine. All things considered, I do not believe that the efficacy or risks involved with flu vaccines are worth the efforts behind their promotion and use.

Now here is the difference between the position of the "skeptic", the Segnosaur's and True Metis's of this forum, and I'm sure the skeptics of many other forums who expose themselves as the "true-believers" in the current scientific method, their arguments never vary, since they enjoy parroting scientific study and claim anyone of a differing opinion is just too ignorant to the point of being a danger to society. There are those proponents of skepticism that feel someone disagreeing with scientific conclusion and consensus should be shot or strung up on the nearest Oak tree. These are the radicals of skepticism. The ones we see on forums might smile or nod in agreement with that idea thinking of it in a jocular manner. If it were not for the earnestness of those who hold such extremist views it might be considered a joke but it isn't. It is very serious. Now I can't really say it is evil to hold the view that society must yield to scientific consensus and to it's conclusions. It is a desire to "help", to help us understand the world around us, to advance civilization and to provide those of us not engaged in the scientific process, the politicians, the lawyers, the doctors, the economists, and all of society, information to improve our lives as individuals and keeping in mind always the general welfare of us all.

So here is the fault of the skeptic. They do not allow for dissent.

It irks them to no end if someone should disagree with "science".

I have found myself on the other side of "science" on many occasions. The skeptic never has been on the other side of "science". Lone "scientists" who differ with the consensus are quickly discredited as quacks and charlatans and subject to all manner of insult, demoralization and intrusion into their personal lives. So basically, when it comes to "science" we are to be of a singular opinion - according to the skeptic. In the extreme, as I have mentioned, contrary views need to be routed out and their protagonists nullified.

I recognize my position as being an opinion and I don't offer my opinion as advice nor would I ask someone to blindly accept my opinion as the final word on a subject. I would ask others to form their own opinions based upon their own due diligence. This formulates the basis for discussion and debate, with the skeptic the discussion and the debate is over not based upon opinion at all but on "science". Now, as far as my opinion goes, I hold it for my own reasons, but new data or information may persuade me to change my position and I would hope that others doing their due diligence bring forth that information, as I would, in those discussions.

In exercising one's "due diligence", yes you are alone. It is unfortunate but some, maybe even most people, may not bother at all with "due diligence" and just accept the consensus of authority or

the current expert. There is, to the skeptic, and it is probably his greatest concern, the danger that someone may fall victim to someone else's opinion.

This is indicative of their view of the public as generally being ignoramuses. They are being very helpful to the general public by informing them that they need not do any due diligence whatsoever, they need only to listen to the one clear voice of the scientific method.

The problems with this line of thought is that we will inexorably wind up with no one allowed to have an opinion.

Of course, science does not hold opinions. Science is used by many to forward their own objectives but the skeptics use is to forward their opinions. Of course, to the skeptic, they aren't opinions, and thus you are expected to agree. Not agreeing is moronic.

What the skeptic has brought us is a means to cauterize thought and critical analysis by using the scientific method to lazily grasp on to and "use" in order to escape any personal responsibility for their positions. They need not get personally involved, in other words, they can remain detached in any scientific discussions and present the latest opinion of science.

Although, it must be stressed that science does not offer opinions only the latest in theory and the scientific method which is clearly enough for them to feel secure in forwarding their opinions.

As for the issue of flu vaccines, I wish every one to understand my opinion in the matter is an opinion. It differs from the "opinion" of skeptics who have decided to forgo any personal point of view on the matter, or any matter for that fact, and accept, because they understand, and others are not intelligent enough to understand, science and the scientific method.

I recommend not allowing "skeptics" to make your decisions for you.

They will recommend the same, I'm sure, because any reasonably intelligent individual will reach the same conclusions as they do.

Unfortunately, they don't view the general public as reasonably intelligent and must therefore protect the public interest and attempt to eliminate all contrary opinion - even if it is just opinion. Their belief is that the general public can't tell the difference between fact and opinion. In reality, what the skeptic forwards is his opinion, although he will adamantly deny having an opinion, as his view is based entirely in science. How true! As an individual, he holds no opinions he will admit to. they are the opinions of his fellow skeptics. Should they get into trouble, should the scientific consensus shift, it's of no concern to them - they hold no personal opinions.

I am going to be a little bit mean here and call skeptics, mere shells of an individual and I hope this debunks the myth that no one but the skeptic may hold an opinion.

...and that's my opinion!

Edited August 19, 2010 by Pliny

[bjre]

Well, we didn't have to wait for the next "superbug" it out there and right on its center in Pakistan and India. I sure we'll quite a few by next spring. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100811/world/eu_britain_superbug

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-trashes-superbug-report-says-its-doctored/articleshow/6301982.cms

India trashes 'superbug' report, says it's doctored

CHENNAI: A day after the Lancet report on drug-resistant 'superbug' NDM-1 created a global scare, India has hit out at the study, which it said was funded by pharma companies that make antibiotics to treat such cases.

While the Union health ministry issued a statement on Thursday which also takes offence to the naming of the bug after the national capital, the paper's Chennai-based lead author Karthikeyan Kumarasamy dissociated himself from parts of the report.

"The study was funded by the European Union and two pharmaceutical companies, Wellcome Trust and Wyeth, which produce antibiotics for treatment of such cases. It also needs to be highlighted that several of the authors have declared conflict of interest in the publication,"

the health ministry said.

Doctors have criticised the report, saying it appeared to be aimed at hitting at India's booming medical tourism that was taking away business from the West.