About FLU Vaccines

[GostHacked]

Even if you get the vaccine for the flu, can you still be a carrier of the virus?

[Guest Manny]

Even if you get the vaccine for the flu, can you still be a carrier of the virus?

Certainly other strains of flu, yeah.

I think someone mentioned, there could be a limited opportunity for exposure by carrying the vaccine on the hands or clothes, thus spreadng it to other places where people might get infected. That sounds logico

Also note this little tidbit of information -

"Vaccines do not have the problem of resistance because a vaccine enhances the body's natural defenses, while an antibiotic operates separately from the body's normal defenses. Nevertheless, new strains may evolve that escape immunity induced by vaccines; for example an updated influenza vaccine is needed each year."

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

[Mighty AC]

If you are infected by one of the (typically) three strains covered by the vaccine you can still be an internal carrier. However, you will be contagious for a much shorter period as the antibodies required to incapacitate the virus are already present in your blood stream. Thus, your chance of infecting someone else is greatly reduced.

Viruses aren't alive like bacteria, but in general the various flu strains can survive on hard surfaces for 2 to 8 hours. Anyone can spread around these external viruses, so simple hand washing is always a good idea.

[segnosaur]

My initial post did question about the false sense of security that flu vaccines may give others.

Yes, its possible that some people mis-understand what exactly the flu vaccine does and what it protects against and assumes it does more than it does. Sadly you can't force people to educate themselves.

But, so what? They're still better off getting the flu shot (with its benefits) than not getting it. Last time I got vaccinated I didn't see too many people running out into the street encouraging strangers to spit on them just because they were protected.

Having the flu vaccine does not mean you cannot pass the virus to others.

No, but it greatly reduces the chance that you will.

You get the flu shot for your own benefit.

Inflenza is a communicable disease. Its spread from person to person, primarily through water droplets in the air caused by people coughing.

If more people got vaccinated, there would be fewer people coughing and potentially spreading the flu to other people (possibly people who cannot get vaccinated due to medical conditions such as allergies to components in the vaccine.)

So yes, getting the flu shot benefits you... but it also benefits those around you.

Children are notorious for giving and passing the virus. They sneeze and cough, they ooze....they wipe their faces on your clothes. Those little fingers have been everywhere. Even if you keep washing their hands....you wouldn't be able to keep up. At least adults know enough to wash their hands as often as possible and to cover their mouth area when they sneeze or cough.

Yes, children are less hygenic and can pass things like flu around more effectively than adults. (All the more reason to get your children vaccinated).

But that doesn't mean that adults can't pass the virus onto children. Even if kids are spreading it amongst themselves at some daycare or school, there still had to be a "patient zero", a child who caught influenza from someone other than another child at daycare. So, what makes more sense, that:

- The first child to have caught the flu got it from some adult idiot who thought "I don't need to get vaccinated! The flu is no big deal"

or

- The 2 year old pre-school child is sneaking out at 3 in the morning to party with others?

With any communal disease, the more routes you stop from the disease getting passed the better. Yes, there will always be people who should be considered higher priority for vaccinations, but that doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't eventually get the shot.

Those grocery carts where you sit your child on are one of the deadliest carriers, I bet my bottom bippy!

Nope, they're not.

As I mentioned before, by far the most common method of transmitting the flu is from water drops in the air. While there is a small chance of catching the flu from touching surfaces, it would probably be a very rare thing. (The influenza virus transmits best when it infects deeper tissues.) That doesn't mean that you can't get other diseases from touching contaminated surfaces.

And by the way, even if you could easily pick up the flu from things like grocery carts... that's not an excuse to avoid vaccinations. After all, the germs on the carts have to come from somewhere (since the virus only survives a few hours on surfaces)... quite likely an unvaccinated idiot who gets infected then coughs on the handle.

[segnosaur]

The numbers of vaccines (of various sorts) we've been putting into our children......the human body could only take so much.

That shouldn't be a concern.

The human body runs across many many germs (bacteria, viruses, etc.) in a year. Your body has to build up antibodies against anything it comes across. The fact that you're introducing a few extra in an occasional vaccine won't be taxing the immune system significantly any more than it already is.

Could there be some eventual kind of interaction between these vaccines?

Probably not.

Usually, when vaccines are given, the viruses used in them is dead. Deactivated. No longer living. There's no real way for 'interaction' (exchange of genetic materials) between viruses in that situation because the're unable to infect cells (where the exchange of genetic material would take place.)

The bigger danger is from people who don't get vaccinated, since they could (in theory) be hosting multiple viral infections at once.

Who's to say what side effects would be in say 20 years from now?

We've been vaccinating people for various diseases for centuries. Its an imperfect science, but we've had a lot of successes.

Yes, there may be occasional screw-ups. But if there were any sort of significant problem, why haven't we seen any sort of wide-spread problems before ?

Do they help create superbugs?

As it has been pointed out multiple times.... no they do not.

The bigger danger of creating 'superbugs' are from people who don't get vaccinated, since when they get sick their body becomes a germ factory, producing all sorts of fresh viruses (some of which may contain mutations that make them more dangerous).

[Guest Manny]

You seem to be very well educated in the use of vaccines and such. Is that your occupation?

[segnosaur]

you don't just get the flu shot for your own benefit... you get it to help prevent others from getting sick. Even if you consider the flu 'no big deal', you could end up passing it on to someone who could, you know, die.

Or they could get it from any of a few hundred million other people. Forgive me for not looking too guilty.

Perhaps you should feel guilty.

If someone died from something I had done, then I'd certainly feel at least some sense of guilt, even if the death couldn't be directly attributed to me. But then, I'm not an amoral psycopath. Well, at least not much anyways.

By your reasoning, I should feel no guilt about throwing lit matches in the forest, even if a forest fire occurs (that desolates huge areas of forest) just because "The fire could have started from other ways (like maybe arsonist squirrels.).

In an earlier post I suggested people shouldn't panic and avoid exagerating the problems. But Jesus Christ on a Pogostick... use a bit of logic here. People do die from the flu. Roughly 18,000 people died from H1N1 between the middle of 2010 and 2011. Where exactly do you think they caught the flu from? Mostly from idiots who didn't get themselves vaccinated because they thought the flu was "no big deal".

And how many people die every year from car accidents? Mostly killed by idiots that thought they could drive without crashing.

So... because people people die from one cause, we should ignore people dying from other causes?

Hey, more people die from heart disease an cancer than they do from car accidents! Should we immediately eliminate all efforts to reduce deaths from car accidents? Get rid of all laws (like seatbelt laws)?

No, getting drunk and not getting vaccinated are not morally equivalent. DOING something is never morally equivalent to NOT doing something. One is positive action, the other is lack of action. Clear moral differences there. Look into it.

You know, if getting vaccinated actually caused significant hardship then yes there would be a moral difference.

However, given the fact that the vaccine is: A: Overall beneficial to the vaccinated person (i.e. even with the risk of potential side effects there is still less risk than catching a full-blown flu), B: low cost, and C: relatively easy to get in many locations (where I live they had open, and free flu-shot clinics all over the city) then not acting should be harder to justify morally.

If I saw someone that was on fire, I would call 911. I'd consider it the moral thing to do. It would take little effort, wouldn't put me at risk, and wouldn't really cost me anything. Unlike you, who would consider it just as moral to break out the marshmallows to roast over their burning corpse.

Secondly... here's a question... did you actually like having the flu? Did the fever make you feel good? Did the chills and aches that tend to come with the flu make life enjoyable? Most people would probably say no... So why risk putting yourself through that unnecessarily?

Because it's not so much to risk. Do most people enjoy colds? Nope. And yet they still go to work, still go to school, even though they might be infected there.

Ummm... you missed the actual question.

I never asked "can you continue living your life if you come down with the flu". The question is Do you like the feeling when you're sick.

How much does the annual effort at developing flu vaccines cost society? Could this medical research and vaccine production money be better spent on more serious illnesses?

Actually the flu vaccine is actually a very good investment for society.

You see, what you seem to forget is that while many people will shrug off a flu and continue life, not everyone does. Some people end up taking time off work (which harms productivity in the economy). Some people end up taking various drugs (which may thrill the people who make aspirin, but those who have to pay... not so much). People also end up taking trips to see either their doctors (which clogs up our health care system) or even get admitted to hospitals, some even having to spend time in the ICU.

In 2009, there were 15,000 admitted to hospital due to the flu in Canada. It was estimated that it cost hospitals an estimated $200 million to deal with those admissions. And this was just for hospital admissions... doesn't include the costs for people visiting their family doctor, nor the cost to the economy in terms of lost productivity. (See: http://www.cihi.ca/c...release_23nov10)

Want more evidence?

Here's a study where they compared a group of vaccinated individuals with a group of unvaccinated individuals. All were adults, all were working. The result? Not only did the vaccinated group end up loosing fewer days of work (less than half that of the unvaccinated group), it was estimated that for every dollar that was spent on vaccination saved the company $2.58. (See: http://journals.lww....ine_in_a.6.aspx)

Yet more evidence: Here in Ontario, they've expanded the flu-vaccination program. Instead of targeting just those who are 'at risk', (e.g. the elderly, children, etc.) they've decided to target everyone. A recent study showed a net economic benefit to Ontario because of that.

From: http://www.plosmedic...al.pmed.1000256

A study published in 2008 showed that, following the introduction of the UIIP (universal influenza immunization program), vaccination rates in Ontario increased more than in other Canadian provinces. In addition, deaths from influenza and influenza-related use of health care facilities decreased more in Ontario than in provinces that continued to offer a TIIP (targeted influenza immunization program).

...

...the introduction of the UIIP reduced the number of influenza cases by nearly two-thirds and reduced deaths from influenza by more than a quarter compared with what would have been expected had the province continued to offer a TIIP.... Furthermore, the reduction in influenza cases halved influenza-related health care costs...

So, Ontario is getting more people vaccinated against the flu, and we're seeing medical costs decrease as a result. (Plus there's that little issue of fewer people dying.)

Edited to add:

Just wanted to add one little caveat. Yes, I do realize that there are a lot of factors that can go into just how cost effective a vaccine is... the match of the vaccine to the circulating strains, the virulence of the circulating strain, the timing of the vaccine launch with the peak of the flu season, the demographics of the innoculated population, etc. Some years, vaccinating as many people as possible will be a good thing. Some years, it may not be such a good investment. However, on average its likely an economic benefit to vaccinate as many as possible.

Another good point. Vaccines to serious longstanding diseases have had many years or decades to be subjected to studies and to be determined safe. On the other hand, flu vaccines are hastily developed every year, and there is not sufficient time to subject them to thorough long term safety studies

Yes, its true...the development cycle for the influenza vaccines is very short...

However, as I pointed out before, there is very little variation in the process from year to year. The method of manufacture is well known, the various additives have been tested in other versions of the vaccine, etc.

Yes, in a perfect world, it would be great if we could test vaccines completely. Set up 100-year studies to ensure a baby vaccinated before their first birthday has no bad side effects when they're in their 90s. But such through testing makes no sense in the real world. Not only would it be cost-prohibitive to run such a study, you will end up with thousands of people dying in the mean time while you attempt to run such comprehensive tests.

So, just with most vaccines or new drugs, they do generalized tests. They do the tests on thousands of individuals. They run them on so many people that, even if there are problems somewhere down the road with small populations, the end result will still be a net benefit.

Edited January 31, 2013 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

You seem to be very well educated in the use of vaccines and such. Is that your occupation?

No, it is not. Just a strong interest that I have. (At one point I was thinking of going into microbiology as a profession, but I ended up going into Computer Science.)

Here are the qualifications that I do have:

- Both a B.Sc. and and M.Sc. (Having the M.Sc. gives me experience dealing with peer-reviewed articles, where I get at least some information from)

- University-level courses in Zoology, Microbiology, chemistry, and genetics. (the university I went to had a curriculum that had fairly broad requirements. Still, I went above the basic requirements to take more than I needed because I was interested in the stuff) I also took multiple courses in statistics, which helps at least understand some of the discussions about probability, statistics, etc. that many articles mention

- Experience with skeptic groups (Such as the JREF), which has helped me greatly tune my B.S.-meter

- I have attended conferences where I've talked with various scientists doing research into biology, astronomy, etc.

I have to admit, I'm not exactly an expert (and I'd gladly defer to any immunologist or microbiologist out here), but to be honest, much of the science that has been discussed is not at an expert level.

Of course, nobody should ever trust anyone just because they appear to be an expert. (And I assume nobody is trusting me because of what I've written here.) What they should trust in the evidence. I've done my best to back up most of what I've claimed. Consider that in this thread:

- I have posted multiple articles, from sources like peer-reviewed journals, mainstream media, etc. On the other hand, how many times have we seen anti-vax posters here try to justify their positions by "hand waving"? (Hey, the flu's no big thing!)

- I have done my best to deal with all the issues/questions raised here (well, as I had available time), and have attempted to do so by addressing concerns with logic, science, and when possible, references. On the other hand, look at the number of people here who have ignored points I've raised. Heck, look at the people who have accused me for being an employee for "vaccine-manufacturers". What does that say about the quality of their argument if they have to resort to such accusations?

[segnosaur]

You pays your money and takes your chances......these people in Sweden lost the bet during the last H1N1 scare:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Emelie is plagued by hallucinations and nightmares. When she wakes up, she's often paralyzed, unable to breathe properly or call for help. During the day she can barely stay awake, and often misses school or having fun with friends. She is only 14, but at times she has wondered if her life is worth living.

Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunized with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in 2009.

http://health.yahoo....-swine-flu-shot

I notice you left out a few quotes from the article you referenced, including:

Sweden's mass vaccination saved between 30 and 60 people from swine flu death..

So, 200 people with Narcolepsy vs. up to 60 people dead. I wonder how many of those 60 people would have preferred narcolepsy to death?

Also, here's an article that covers some of the same info:

From: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/swineflu/news/jan3013narco-jw.html

lthough the signals in Finland and Sweden matched the background data they found, mismatches with age-specific diagnostic rates and pandemic vaccine coverage rates indicates that factors apart from the vaccine might also have a connection to the rise in narcolepsy cases that health officials detected.

So, at this point, despite your eagerness to condemn the inflenza vaccine, we do not have solid evidence that the vaccine was the cause.

It should also be noted that that so far the problem with narcolepsy seems to be concentrated in only a few countries. We haven't seen any evidence that North America was affected.

[segnosaur]

I read this one a few days ago-

Pneumonia Vaccine Spurs 'Superbug' Infecting Children

That article seems a little... strange. I would certainly take it with a grain of salt.

Keep in mind that the article doesn't really say that the vaccine itself causes the 'superbug'. Instead, it says that kids protected from one infection (via vaccine) are coming down with these other related strains of bacteria.

However, that doesn't seem to make much sense... there's no reason I can think of why a child (even if not vaccinated) can't have sequel infections by the different strains.

[TimG]

Yes, in a perfect world, it would be great if we could test vaccines completely.

No matter how much testing is done there is a non-zero chance of a negative side effect from the vaccine. This risk must be weighed against the risk of harm caused to oneself or society by not taking the vaccine. This calculation is easy for many deadly diseases like polio or small pox. Where the calculation becomes complicated is with diseases where death or disability is an unlikely outcome unless one is already at high risk of dying from something else if the flu does not get you. Edited January 31, 2013 by TimG

[Argus]

Some evidence that vaccines are dangerous. Vaccines are a dead end road. We know that viruses will learn to evolve and build resistance to vaccines, because of the small population that always survives. This gives rise to the next generation of more virulent viruses. Then the drug regimen runs out, end of the road.

You are confusing vaccines with anti-biotics.

[Argus]

Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention has seen exactly this. The people who get the shot get sick more often than those who don't.

Utter nonsense.

[Guest Manny]

You are confusing vaccines with anti-biotics.

What about the link I provided? That news article was about a vaccine.

[segnosaur]

You are confusing vaccines with anti-biotics.

What about the link I provided? That news article was about a vaccine.

I already addressed your link in post 60.

While the title of the article was something like "vaccines spur superbug", it appears to be rather sketchy. The vaccine itself was not involved in creating antibiotic resistance. Instead, it was suggesting that stopping disease A through vaccines somehow was allowing disease B to thrive. Problem is, I can't see why a child could not contract both disease A and B (sequentially), so that the vaccine may not have made a difference.

[cybercoma]

Utter nonsense.

Just pay attention. That's all you need to do. It's way better than scientific, controlled, and peer-reviewed research into the matter. Duh.

[Guest Manny]

I already addressed your link in post 60.

Yeah but you kinds just said, you dont like it. I mean it "seems" something. But it's a recognized news source, ran on AP.

You said you believe in evidence. There is some.

it was suggesting that stopping disease A through vaccines somehow was allowing disease B to thrive. Problem is, I can't see why a child could not contract both disease A and B (sequentially), so that the vaccine may not have made a difference.

I wouldn't know if its feasible myself. Maybe virus A somehow prevented virus B from flourishing, and when A got wiped out, the more rare but deadlier B came to the foreground. Or the presence of virus A would activate the immune system, some of which was capable of giving it a head start on beating virus B if it invaded. Remove virus A, no immunity, no warning. Now bring on virus B.

[segnosaur]

Re: claims of anti-backterial vaccine leading to "superbugs"...

I already addressed your link in post 60.

Yeah but you kinds just said, you dont like it. I mean it "seems" something. But it's a recognized news source, ran on AP.

You said you believe in evidence. There is some.

Keep in mind that I didn't outright dismiss the article. I believe the phrase I used is "take it with a grain of salt". Which means there could be some validity, but it could also be a case of reporters misinterpreting what the scientists were saying.

Yes its a recognized news source. Usually they're trustworthy. But, they do make mistakes. After all, most journalists go to school to take, well, journalism. (Well, it was Fox News, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

My suggestion... find a good skeptic web forum and post the article there, asking if anyone can give more information or suggestions on what's happening. (I regularly read/post in the James Randi web site. They have a 'science' subforum, and many of the people there are more knowledgable about the stuff than me.)

it was suggesting that stopping disease A through vaccines somehow was allowing disease B to thrive. Problem is, I can't see why a child could not contract both disease A and B (sequentially), so that the vaccine may not have made a difference.

I wouldn't know if its feasible myself. Maybe virus A somehow prevented virus B from flourishing, and when A got wiped out, the more rare but deadlier B came to the foreground. Or the presence of virus A would activate the immune system, some of which was capable of giving it a head start on beating virus B if it invaded. Remove virus A, no immunity, no warning. Now bring on virus B.

A couple of points:

- The article was regarding bacteria instead of viruses (small point, hope you don't think I'm nitpicking)

- I don't think that bacteria B (the 'superbug') was deadlier than bacteria A (the one the vaccine protected against.) It may be more resistant to antibiotics, but that doesn't mean it has a greater chance of causing mortality. (That was the impression I got from the article anyways)

- Maybe it's possible that infections from one strain were providing immunity for other strains. (I know that happens with some influenza strains but I'm not sure if its happening here.). But its also possible that its just a natural shift in bacteria populations, and we just happened to notice it when the vaccine was rolled out. Remember though, for this to have actually happened, there would have had to have been a very wide-spread infection rate with the original strain to give immunity, something the second strain hasn't achieved yet

[Wayward Son]

While the title of the article was something like "vaccines spur superbug", it appears to be rather sketchy. The vaccine itself was not involved in creating antibiotic resistance. Instead, it was suggesting that stopping disease A through vaccines somehow was allowing disease B to thrive. Problem is, I can't see why a child could not contract both disease A and B (sequentially), so that the vaccine may not have made a difference.

While I agree that the article appears a little sketchy, and I agree that vaccines in almost all cases reduce the chances of a superbug being developed the possibility of a decrease in spread of A leading to an increase in B has been seen before. One example is the related oral and genital herpes viruses. Concerted efforts in the 40s and 50s led to a dramatic decrease in transmission of the oral herpes virus to children. This was related to an increase 20 years later in genital herpes. Although there were several contributing factors, one reason was that people who had been previously infected with the more harmless oral herpes virus easily tackled the subsequent related genital herpes virus. Those who had no exposure to more harmless virus were less protected when they came in contact with the more severe virus. However, that doesn't mean that the solution was to have everyone infected with oral herpes.

[segnosaur]

Here's another reason to get vaccinated.... it actually makes you less racist!

Sounds strange, but that's what a study by scientists at Harvard, MIT and the U. of T. found. They took 2 populations (one vaccinated, the other not) and gave them surveys asking how they felt about things like immigration, the obese, etc. What they found is that people in the vaccinated group were more accepting of others that were different. Here's the logic behind it:

Thousands of years ago, human civilizations were a lot more isolated. As a result, it was possible for citizens to get used to certain diseases in their own town, but have no immunity to the diseases that exist in the next village over. As a result, people became naturally distrustful of others, less someone from that other town sneeze and end up wiping out your population as a result. By extension, this includes people who look different.

When you get vaccinated, you are less likely to be concerned about diseases. As a result, you become more tolerant of people who are of different races.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/12/05/study-vaccines-hand-washing-can-reduce-prejudice-against-immigrants-the-obese-crack-addicts/#.UNvRG2_qgus

http://www.cracked.com/article_20263_5-scientific-ways-to-trick-yourself-into-being-good-person.html

[Pliny]

Here's another reason to get vaccinated.... it actually makes you less racist!

Sounds strange, but that's what a study by scientists at Harvard, MIT and the U. of T. found. They took 2 populations (one vaccinated, the other not) and gave them surveys asking how they felt about things like immigration, the obese, etc. What they found is that people in the vaccinated group were more accepting of others that were different. Here's the logic behind it:

Thousands of years ago, human civilizations were a lot more isolated. As a result, it was possible for citizens to get used to certain diseases in their own town, but have no immunity to the diseases that exist in the next village over. As a result, people became naturally distrustful of others, less someone from that other town sneeze and end up wiping out your population as a result. By extension, this includes people who look different.

When you get vaccinated, you are less likely to be concerned about diseases. As a result, you become more tolerant of people who are of different races.

Vaccines, because they make you immune and safer make you more friendly? How Canadian - the U of T contributors

obviously played a major role.

[Accountability Now]

First and foremost I believe that vaccinnes have done wonderful things for humans however I do think western medicine has taken it too far. The number of vaccinnes for children have increased a fair amount and worse yet the schedule in which they get them is shortened (ie more vaccinnes over a shorter time). I think that science is starting to see the effects of heavy metals (vaccine preservative) and the issues it can cause. Obviously for most people these issues are minimal to non-exististent but I don't know how I feel when the swine flu vaccine says that 1 in 10,000 people may suffer neurological disorders from getting the vaccine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix Personally, I would rather take my chances with the bug but that is my choice.

I'm not overly knowledgable on the vaccine issue but I did pay particular notice to the Swine flu pandemic of 2009. In particular I found it very interesting that the producer of the vaccine (Glaxosmithkline) was suffering from its lowest stock value in 12 years in May of 2009 and then voila...there is a pandemic for which they have the cure...thus rocketing their stock back to above normal values. http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GSK#symbol=gsk;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

A bit conspiracy theory....sure. However it makes you wonder who actually pushes the buttons to say a pandemic is warranted or not. Pharmaceuticals is after all a multi billion dollar industry.

[Wayward Son]

First and foremost I believe that vaccinnes have done wonderful things for humans however I do think western medicine has taken it too far.

Are you basing that on a hunch, or do you have a scientific or evidence-based reason for it?

The number of vaccinnes for children have increased a fair amount

All of our childhood vaccines put together expose children to about 4% of the antigens that the smallpox vaccine alone used to. We live in a sea of viruses and bacteria, so children are exposed to countless antigens every day. There is absolutely no evidence for things like "immune system overload."

and worse yet the schedule in which they get them is shortened (ie more vaccinnes over a shorter time).

Why is this worse? Japan lengthened their vaccine schedule in the 80s and then reversed the decision because, not only were there no benefits, but it had also resulted in increased deaths from vaccine preventable causes

I think that science is starting to see the effects of heavy metals (vaccine preservative) and the issues it can cause.

Examples of journal articles showing these findings you think science is seeing?

Obviously for most people these issues are minimal to non-exististent but I don't know how I feel when the swine flu vaccine says that 1 in 10,000 people may suffer neurological disorders from getting the vaccine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix Personally, I would rather take my chances with the bug but that is my choice.

Well 1) It actually states that it is less than 1 in 10,000 2) at the time the patient information leaflet was made they simply could not have known the actual likelihood for something that rare and 3) patient information leaflets are simply legal speak designed to minimize legal liability for outcomes that may or may not actually be linked to the vaccine. Large jury awards have been given out in the past for vaccine injuries in which their was no evidence that the vaccine caused the injury, and lots of evidence that things other than the vaccine caused it. However, when juries look a large pharmaceutical company with deep pockets, and a poor child with a terrible condition where do you think that their sympathy lies? Combine that with the fact that most people know almost nothing about the immune system, and most of what they do know is wrong, and that most people hold suspicions, based on emotional instead of evidence that vaccines must be dangerous on some level. Combine all that and companies that make vaccines need to go overboard when it comes to legal liability.

When it comes to things like neurological complications, most of them will be minor. The influenza virus is known to cause neurological complications at a higher frequency than the vaccine. One study in Australia found that almost 10% of children brought to hospital with the swine flu had neurological complications.

I'm not overly knowledgable on the vaccine issue but I did pay particular notice to the Swine flu pandemic of 2009. In particular I found it very interesting that the producer of the vaccine (Glaxosmithkline) was suffering from its lowest stock value in 12 years in May of 2009 and then voila...there is a pandemic for which they have the cure...thus rocketing their stock back to above normal values. http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GSK#symbol=gsk;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

A bit conspiracy theory....sure. However it makes you wonder who actually pushes the buttons to say a pandemic is warranted or not. Pharmaceuticals is after all a multi billion dollar industry.

The WHO has a set of standards for declaring something a pandemic. The swine flu pandemic is the only instance I know of where they delayed actually calling it a pandemic for a couple weeks after it met the standard. The reality is the opposite of your conspiracy. As for GSK having a cure.....um.....every single influenza vaccine maker had access to the exact same thing at the exact same time. There was nothing magical or unusual about it at all.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Wayward Son

[Accountability Now]

Are you basing that on a hunch, or do you have a scientific or evidence-based reason for it?

http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66

Look at the chart....the US had three vaccines prior to 1988. After this point they add 7 all before the age of 1? I'm not saying these aren't good vaccines but I am suggesting that we should be looking at delaying some of these especially for those with poor mitochondrial function or poor liver function. Most if not all of these vaccines contain high heavy metal counts used a preservative.

All of our childhood vaccines put together expose children to about 4% of the antigens that the smallpox vaccine alone used to. We live in a sea of viruses and bacteria, so children are exposed to countless antigens every day. There is absolutely no evidence for things like "immune system overload."

The only part of the vaccines that I'm worried about is the heavy metals used for preservatives. They replaced mercury to try and prove it wasn't the trigger for all the issues around vaccines however what did they replace it with? Aluminum...another heavy metal. The people people affected by this have poor liver function and can't remove these heavy metals which wreaks havoc on various systems including brain function.

When it comes to things like neurological complications, most of them will be minor. The influenza virus is known to cause neurological complications at a higher frequency than the vaccine. One study in Australia found that almost 10% of children brought to hospital with the swine flu had neurological complications.

Can you cite this?

The WHO has a set of standards for declaring something a pandemic. The swine flu pandemic is the only instance I know of where they delayed actually calling it a pandemic for a couple weeks after it met the standard. The reality is the opposite of your conspiracy. As for GSK having a cure.....um.....every single influenza vaccine maker had access to the exact same thing at the exact same time. There was nothing magical or unusual about it at all.

They delayed the pandemic because they knew it was a moderate strain. Ultimately it became a risk management thing when they realized what it could do...not what it would do. I can appreciate the concern and certainly wouldn't want their job! I don't blame the WHO for calling it a pandemic even though it wasn't. They obviously had time to get an earful from those involved including the pharmaceutical reps. Interestingly enough, shortly after this event the laws changed on how doctors and pharmaceutical reps can do business. No more behind the scenes trips, dinners or other incentives! As for GSK...other could have done it but didn't. You don't think GSK had the most motive considering their share position?

[Bryan]

Just pay attention. That's all you need to do. It's way better than scientific, controlled, and peer-reviewed research into the matter. Duh.

That same peer review that keeps telling us the earth is warming, that dietary fat causes heart disease, that vioxx was safe, etc, etc??? Right, you close your eyes like a lemming and go with that.