H1N1 vaccine - Should we Leap before we Look?

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

1. The H1N1 vaccine is still in testing phase. It's also been fast-tracked, with very limited research concerning the short term as well as long term side effects.
2. It has not been FDA approved. (It takes 7 years to approve a new drug for usage by the public)

From http://www.flu.gov:

"Clinical trials conducted by the National Institutes of Health and the vaccine manufacturers have shown that the new H1N1 vaccine is both safe and effective. The FDA has licensed it. There have been no safety shortcuts.

From: http://www.medpagetoday.com/ProductAler ... ines/15230

FDA Likely to Approve H1N1 Vaccine In Advance of Data
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: July 23, 2009
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Click here to rate this report
GAITHERSBURG, Md., July 23 -- The FDA is likely to approve 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) vaccines before trial data can prove their safety and effectiveness against the virus.

Approving a vaccine without safety and immunogenicity data is not uncommon, FDA officials said during a daylong meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The committee met to hear updates on H1N1 trials from the FDA, NIH, and the five companies that are applying for FDA approval of pandemic H1N1 vaccines.

In fact, the FDA approves seasonal influenza vaccines every year using its "strain change" process, in which it doesn't require vaccine manufacturers to provide safety and efficacy data.

What is different about how the FDA is likely to handle approval for a vaccine for pandemic H1N1, however, is that the agency doesn't normally approve vaccines while major clinical trials of safety and immunogenicity are ongoing.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

I meant the former (answering your first question). It's been shown that the those who have gotten sick and those who have died, the majority are pregnant women and the very young for Swine Flu. The first two on the list on the CDC page are these two groups, because they're most at risk.

There's little data available because it's been so short lived. Really, all the data you find on CDC has been since the whole Swine Flu rage came about. So how many months has it been?

And the CDC website -- granted, it's tagline says that it's "Your online source for credible Health Information", yet it's a gov't site. And there's ads on it for Flu.gov, another gov site. And it's sponsored by USA.GOV. It's not a medical journal, it's a government site with flu information. I'll continue my research on legit medical sites, thanks.

I guess I'm still not following you here, which is unusual since I usually see things more or less eye-to-eye with you.

I don't find the specific data where it has been shown that the majority of those who have gotten sick and who have died from H1N1 have been pregnant women and very young children. The age data on the CDC website shows that the highest rate of illness has been in the 5-24 y.o age group, followed closely by the 0-4 y.o. age group. It does show have the highest rate of hospitalization has been in the 0-4 y.o. age group. It also shows that the highest rate of death has been in the 25-49 y.o. age group, with 5-24 y.o. coming in a distant 3rd and 0-4 y.o. having the lowest rate of death (by far) of all age groups. The CDC also says that pregnant women have higher than average rates of hospitalization from H1N1 than the general population, but that they account for only 6% of H1N1 deaths (hardly the majority). It is to be expected that they would have a higher risk of complications - just like they do from the seasonal flu - since pregnant women have lowered immune systems. If you have differing information, please point me in the right direction to find it.

That's all somewhat irrelevant to my initial question, though, which was why you said the data is limited primarily to these two groups. Just because data may show greater risk to these groups doesn't mean there's not data for other groups as well. There must be data for other groups, actually, or they wouldn't be able to make a comparison.

Of course the only data on this particular strain of flu can only be from since it began. But, given the time restraints, I think quite a bit of data has been gathered. I guess what it means to have a little or a lot of data is all relative though. Perhaps the question is whether we have enough data to be making any judgements. I think we addressed that earlier in this thread though,and my answer was that we have what we have and we must make judgements that take the limitations into consideration. And I think that's what's happening. We also have to remember that this is just a dfferent strain of a virus that we already know a lot about.

What I understand the least, though, is your implication that all information that comes from government entities is invalid. (I understand this even less than I understand your belief that nothing relating in any way to for-profit drug companies could be valid.) So BOTH the private AND public sectors are now ruled out as legitimate sources?? The world's leading sources of public health knowledge and informtion are all invalid just because they have .gov at the end of their websites? Really? :? What motive does the CDC have to lie about the numbers of people who have died from the flu? Do you really think they're just making these deaths up? Or do you think they're incorrectly distributing them by demographic group to mis-represent the situation? I just don't get it. Neither the CDC, the NIH, the Department of Health & Human Services, the FDA, the state public health offices, the county health councils, nor the public hospitals are to be trusted?? What about the WHO - are they out too? I know they're not medical journals, but have you found that the majority of good, peer-reviewed medical jornals disagree with all these organizations? And are you suggesting that the info put out by the government is not peer-reviewed? I really don't get it. :? Please point me toward the "legit medical sites" to which you refer.

Also, you stated in another post that the FDA had not approvd the H1N1 vaccine. Is the FDA itself not a good source to find out what they have and haven't approved? And are you suggesting that your source that contradicts the FDA's website is more valid?

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here.. just really don't get it.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

From: http://www.medpagetoday.com/ProductAler ... ines/15230

FDA Likely to Approve H1N1 Vaccine In Advance of Data
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: July 23, 2009
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Click here to rate this report
GAITHERSBURG, Md., July 23 -- The FDA is likely to approve 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) vaccines before trial data can prove their safety and effectiveness against the virus.

Approving a vaccine without safety and immunogenicity data is not uncommon, FDA officials said during a daylong meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The committee met to hear updates on H1N1 trials from the FDA, NIH, and the five companies that are applying for FDA approval of pandemic H1N1 vaccines.

In fact, the FDA approves seasonal influenza vaccines every year using its "strain change" process, in which it doesn't require vaccine manufacturers to provide safety and efficacy data.

What is different about how the FDA is likely to handle approval for a vaccine for pandemic H1N1, however, is that the agency doesn't normally approve vaccines while major clinical trials of safety and immunogenicity are ongoing.

Thanks for the info. I can't help but note that this article is speculative and from before the vaccine was actually approved. Do you have any current information supporting this?

Also, you left this part out: "We have decades of experience with H1N1, that's why we feel we can do this with a strain-change," said Dr. Baylor.

Not to mention that this is just a slight recipe change, as they do every year, from the billions of doses of flu vaccine that have been given out over many, many years.

Will they EVER have ALL possible information about this flu or any flu or vaccine or anything in life? No. But we've got to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have. Right now we know that 1) risk of complications and death from the flu in general VASTLY outweighs the risk from the flu vaccine in general, 2) the H1N1 vaccine is nearly identical to the flu vaccines we have used in the past and all studies so far show that there is no additional risk from this vaccine versus the ones we have used in the past, and 3) all studies so far show that the risk of the H1N1 flu is much higher amongst the general population than the flu we generally see.

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

I don't find the specific data where it has been shown that the majority of those who have gotten sick and who have died from H1N1 have been pregnant women and very young children. The age data on the CDC website shows that the highest rate of illness has been in the 5-24 y.o age group, followed closely by the 0-4 y.o. age group. It does show have the highest rate of hospitalization has been in the 0-4 y.o. age group. It also shows that the highest rate of death has been in the 25-49 y.o. age group, with 5-24 y.o. coming in a distant 3rd and 0-4 y.o. having the lowest rate of death (by far) of all age groups. The CDC also says that pregnant women have higher than average rates of hospitalization from H1N1 than the general population, but that they account for only 6% of H1N1 deaths (hardly the majority). It is to be expected that they would have a higher risk of complications - just like they do from the seasonal flu - since pregnant women have lowered immune systems. If you have differing information, please point me in the right direction to find it.

That's all somewhat irrelevant to my initial question, though, which was why you said the data is limited primarily to these two groups. Just because data may show greater risk to these groups doesn't mean there's not data for other groups as well. There must be data for other groups, actually, or they wouldn't be able to make a comparison.

Just one article...this is not the one I read the other day, I read several the other day, I don't rely on one site for stats.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... GW20090729
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Pregnant women infected with the new H1N1 swine flu have a much higher risk of severe illness and death and should receive prompt treatment with antiviral drugs, U.S. government researchers said on Wednesday.

While pregnant woman have always had a higher risk of severe disease from influenza in general, the new H1N1 virus is taking an exceptionally heavy toll, the researchers said.

What I understand the least, though, is your implication that all information that comes from government entities is invalid. (I understand this even less than I understand your belief that nothing relating in any way to for-profit drug companies could be valid.) So BOTH the private AND public sectors are now ruled out as legitimate sources?? The world's leading sources of public health knowledge and informtion are all invalid just because they have .gov at the end of their websites? Really? :? What motive does the CDC have to lie about the numbers of people who have died from the flu? Do you really think they're just making these deaths up? Or do you think they're incorrectly distributing them by demographic group to mis-represent the situation? I just don't get it. Neither the CDC, the NIH, the Department of Health & Human Services, the FDA, the state public health offices, the county health councils, nor the public hospitals are to be trusted?? What about the WHO - are they out too? I know they're not medical journals, but have you found that the majority of good, peer-reviewed medical jornals disagree with all these organizations? And are you suggesting that the info put out by the government is not peer-reviewed? I really don't get it. :? Please point me toward the "legit medical sites" to which you refer.

I rely on facts to support my views, and in my opinion the gov't sites are not based on facts. They're based on gov't. If you want to continue to side with gov sites, that's your prerogative, but I prefer to go to the professionals, which is the science and medical journals. The researchers, the one's actually doing the work. Once you get gov't involved, factual info can get lost, as we've seen with the whole global warming issue in Bush's administration with censoring scientists' research. This is just one reason why I choose not to rely on .gov anything other than gov't and global issues. When you have the CDC site sponsored by USA.GOV and Flu.gov, it's all gov't related, not medically. It is less credible in my opinion because gov't has a bias. Professional medicine and the journals that report the research....do not. It's there to provide the facts.

I also follow news about the environment. The EPA is supposed to have their interests in protecting the environment. Yet with Bush's EPA, they were making decisions that didn't have the interest of protecting the environment. This is the same reason I don't go to the gov. resources for medicine. Who knows if they're TRULY looking out for our health. Remember, there's the insurance industry and lobbyists they have to cater to, and also our fave, Big Pharma. If I wanted true, not tainted info about medicine I don't go to the gov't sites.

Also, you stated in another post that the FDA had not approvd the H1N1 vaccine. Is the FDA itself not a good source to find out what they have and haven't approved? And are you suggesting that your source that contradicts the FDA's website is more valid?

I thought about that last night, I knew I mentioned both. I heard that the FDA did not approve it from a nurse locally, but then found out that they did approve it,last night while reading, very quickly. It usually takes 7 years for the FDA to approve anything. They approved it in emergency fashion without their typical safety inspections. That's a reason for concern!

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

From: http://www.medpagetoday.com/ProductAler ... ines/15230

FDA Likely to Approve H1N1 Vaccine In Advance of Data
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: July 23, 2009
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Click here to rate this report
GAITHERSBURG, Md., July 23 -- The FDA is likely to approve 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) vaccines before trial data can prove their safety and effectiveness against the virus.

Approving a vaccine without safety and immunogenicity data is not uncommon, FDA officials said during a daylong meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The committee met to hear updates on H1N1 trials from the FDA, NIH, and the five companies that are applying for FDA approval of pandemic H1N1 vaccines.

In fact, the FDA approves seasonal influenza vaccines every year using its "strain change" process, in which it doesn't require vaccine manufacturers to provide safety and efficacy data.

What is different about how the FDA is likely to handle approval for a vaccine for pandemic H1N1, however, is that the agency doesn't normally approve vaccines while major clinical trials of safety and immunogenicity are ongoing.

Thanks for the info. I can't help but note that this article is speculative and from before the vaccine was actually approved. Do you have any current information supporting this?

Also, you left this part out: "We have decades of experience with H1N1, that's why we feel we can do this with a strain-change," said Dr. Baylor.

Not to mention that this is just a slight recipe change, as they do every year, from the billions of doses of flu vaccine that have been given out over many, many years.

Will they EVER have ALL possible information about this flu or any flu or vaccine or anything in life? No. But we've got to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have. Right now we know that 1) risk of complications and death from the flu in general VASTLY outweighs the risk from the flu vaccine in general, 2) the H1N1 vaccine is nearly identical to the flu vaccines we have used in the past and all studies so far show that there is no additional risk from this vaccine versus the ones we have used in the past, and 3) all studies so far show that the risk of the H1N1 flu is much higher amongst the general population than the flu we generally see.

That's right I did leave that out, I know it's from a few months ago, still doesn't make it totally irrelevant. The reason why I left that out is because I haven't found any truth to that statement. Have you? Decades of experience??
To question your points:
1) Risk of complications or death vastly outweighs the risk of flu vaccine? How many people do you know personally that back that up? How about that favorite term many docs are using ..."underlying healthy complications contributing to sickness / death"? They use that a lot, which is very vague.
2) The H1N1 vac is nearly identical to to flu vaccines? Where's your proof on this? This vac is too new to prove such a thing widely. I know you've been talking strains, but it's still new. It's just now being given. It's too early to tell what the outcomes will be on it. We all know the flu vac does not work on everyone (but does help those with weak immunities). That's why it's voluntary. Have you seen all the side effects for the H1N1? I'll find them, and the side effects for children is a bit lengthy.
3) According to the scare from this past Spring, yes. But it was hysteria and difficult to pinpoint if there were really as many cases as they were saying that came in, not to mention many were not serious. I'll take my chances.

Jeanwah

scb - just to show that not all docs are behind recommending the H1N1 vaccine...

Swine Flu Vaccine: What To Do?
posted by Dr. Frank Lipman Oct 11, 2009 5:00 pm

Summer is over and the question I am being asked most frequently in my practice is, “what do I do about Swine flu?” My patients are wondering whether or not they should get vaccinated and the simple answer I give most of the time is ..NO!

From what you may have read, you might think that the swine flu vaccine is the answer to swine flu. Unfortunately this is not true and until we know that the vaccine is safe, I cannot in good conscience recommend it to most of my patients.

From the outset, let me say, I am not anti all vaccinations, rather I am pro vaccine safety and freedom of choice.

This is why am I not recommending the swine flu vaccine:

1. At this stage, for the most part the swine flu seems benign.

Over a million people in the US have already come down with swine flu, many of them without even knowing that they had it. The vast majority of people who get the swine flu recover after a week or so of high fever, aches, and respiratory distress. It’s not pleasant, but except in rare circumstances, it is not fatal. Most people who’ve been infected by swine flu think so little of it, they believe they just had a really bad cold or a regular flu. So unless the swine flu evolves to a much more virulent form, there’s no need for mass vaccination.

2. We don’t know if the vaccine will be effective.

Vaccines are only useful against the specific viral strain that was available at the time of their manufacture. But influenza viruses mutate quickly, and as the WHO has already said, the real concern with H1N1 swine flu is that it will combine with seasonal flu in the Fall, creating a new strain that will of course be immune to all available vaccines.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

Just one article...this is not the one I read the other day, I read several the other day, I don't rely on one site for stats.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... GW20090729
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Pregnant women infected with the new H1N1 swine flu have a much higher risk of severe illness and death and should receive prompt treatment with antiviral drugs, U.S. government researchers said on Wednesday.

While pregnant woman have always had a higher risk of severe disease from influenza in general, the new H1N1 virus is taking an exceptionally heavy toll, the researchers said.

This says the same thing as the CDC website, and I can't help but notice that this source you think is more reliable than the federal government gets its info from the federal government. :?

Regardless, saying a group (like pregnant women) has a higher risk of severe illness and death from the flu is totally not the same thing as saying they account for the majority of severe illness and death. Just one example of how easy it is for laypeople to misinterpret & misrepresent data... which is why I trust professionals instead.

Jeanwah wrote:

I rely on facts to support my views, and in my opinion the gov't sites are not based on facts. They're based on gov't. If you want to continue to side with gov sites, that's your prerogative, but I prefer to go to the professionals, which is the science and medical journals. The researchers, the one's actually doing the work. Once you get gov't involved, factual info can get lost, as we've seen with the whole global warming issue in Bush's administration with censoring scientists' research. This is just one reason why I choose not to rely on .gov anything other than gov't and global issues. When you have the CDC site sponsored by USA.GOV and Flu.gov, it's all gov't related, not medically. It is less credible in my opinion because gov't has a bias. Professional medicine and the journals that report the research....do not. It's there to provide the facts.

I also follow news about the environment. The EPA is supposed to have their interests in protecting the environment. Yet with Bush's EPA, they were making decisions that didn't have the interest of protecting the environment. This is the same reason I don't go to the gov. resources for medicine. Who knows if they're TRULY looking out for our health. Remember, there's the insurance industry and lobbyists they have to cater to, and also our fave, Big Pharma. If I wanted true, not tainted info about medicine I don't go to the gov't sites.

How can the government sites not be based on facts when they are the ones collecting the data?? I ask you again, do you think they're making this data up?

I do share your skepticicm of the government in general - and I'm always arguing on here that I want medical professionals, not politicians, to inform my medical decisions - but the fact is that the scientists at the CDC and such places ARE medical professionals, not politicians. It just so happens that our world-renowned public health organizations are funded with public money by the government. (Who else should fund them? If they were funded privately, there would be even more of an appearance/threat of bias.)

So, I totally agree with you that we should go with the professionals, the researchers, the ones actually doing the work. But the CDC, the NIH, the state public health offices, etc. ARE the professionals. Where do you think the info for the medical journals comes from? At this point, the CDC is the main primary source. And, I ask you again, what reputable medical journals are disagreeing with the CDC, et al?

Also, what bias does the public health sector of the government have? And, while I'm usually the first one to say that medical journals and professional organizations are the place to go for unbiased info, by your logic I don't see how we can say that ANY information is free enough of bias to be valid. Didn't you already say that professional medicine is not to be trusted because they're all in cahoots with Big Pharma, or am I thinking of someone else?

Jeanwah wrote:

I thought about that last night, I knew I mentioned both. I heard that the FDA did not approve it from a nurse locally, but then found out that they did approve it,last night while reading, very quickly. It usually takes 7 years for the FDA to approve anything. They approved it in emergency fashion without their typical safety inspections. That's a reason for concern!

How is approving a different strain of the same vaccine - as they do every year to keep up with the various flu strains - lacking their typical safety inspections?

_

Jeanwah wrote:

scb wrote:

Thanks for the info. I can't help but note that this article is speculative and from before the vaccine was actually approved. Do you have any current information supporting this?

Also, you left this part out: "We have decades of experience with H1N1, that's why we feel we can do this with a strain-change," said Dr. Baylor.

Not to mention that this is just a slight recipe change, as they do every year, from the billions of doses of flu vaccine that have been given out over many, many years.

Will they EVER have ALL possible information about this flu or any flu or vaccine or anything in life? No. But we've got to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have. Right now we know that 1) risk of complications and death from the flu in general VASTLY outweighs the risk from the flu vaccine in general, 2) the H1N1 vaccine is nearly identical to the flu vaccines we have used in the past and all studies so far show that there is no additional risk from this vaccine versus the ones we have used in the past, and 3) all studies so far show that the risk of the H1N1 flu is much higher amongst the general population than the flu we generally see.

That's right I did leave that out, I know it's from a few months ago, still doesn't make it totally irrelevant. The reason why I left that out is because I haven't found any truth to that statement. Have you? Decades of experience??

Huh? How is speculative information possibly relavent once actual information has become available? That's like saying if we want to know whether or not Pearl Jam played a show at Red Rocks on October 1st we should consult an unofficial thread from June saying they might play there rather than checking the Red Rocks schedule or the Pearl Jam tour schedule to find out whether or not they did. :? :?

As for having decades of experience with H1N1, again, do you think they're making that up? There was an H1N1 pandemic in 1918, which, by my math, was 9 decades ago. There was another outbreak in 1976. Do you think with all the flu research they do that they just decided to let this strain go and never study it? And then lie about it? :?

Jeanwah wrote:

To question your points:
1) Risk of complications or death vastly outweighs the risk of flu vaccine? How many people do you know personally that back that up? How about that favorite term many docs are using ..."underlying healthy complications contributing to sickness / death"? They use that a lot, which is very vague.

First of all, judging the risks and benefits of the flu and its vaccine based on my personal acquantances is the opposite of scientific knowledge. Billions of cases of the flu and of people who have received the vaccine have been collected and analyzed over the years to show that the risk of complication or death from the flu vastly outweighs the risk of the vaccine. Vaccines are one of greatest public health interventions of all time, and the flu vaccine is the best method we have to protect against the flu. I would provide source sto back that up, but you'd probably say they weren't reliable.

Secondly, I actually know quite a number of people to back that up. Plenty of my friends, family, and co-workers are out with the flu right now. I'm having to create back-up plans for coverage at work for when even more people start dropping. We're also trying to figure out how to best handle the outbreak in our population of pregnant patients. 50% of our pediatric population has the flu. My otherwise healthy, 13-year-old cousin got the flu from her older sister and it has now turned into pneumonia and bronchitis. We're being accredited this week at work and the senior coordinator is out with the flu. My partner for a class project can't meet because her kids have the flu. A whole bunch of my Facebook friends/family have the flu. By contrast, I have never known one person who has had an adverse event due to the flu vaccine.

As for "underlying health conditions" being vague, the CDC website spells it out more clearly if you'd like to take a look.

Jeanwah wrote:

2) The H1N1 vac is nearly identical to to flu vaccines? Where's your proof on this? This vac is too new to prove such a thing widely. I know you've been talking strains, but it's still new. It's just now being given. It's too early to tell what the outcomes will be on it. We all know the flu vac does not work on everyone (but does help those with weak immunities). That's why it's voluntary. Have you seen all the side effects for the H1N1? I'll find them, and the side effects for children is a bit lengthy.

How can you say it's too new to prove that it's nearly identical to the other vaccines? You only need to know what goes in it and how it's made to know this, and the people who made it know what they put in it and how it was made. And the FDA knows what they approved to go in it and how they approved it to be made. And they say it's nearly identical.

As for outcomes, once again, we know what we know. So far we know that no one they have given it to (through trials or otherwise) has had side effects different than they would with the regular flu vaccine. And we know that there has been no increase in the amount of cases of side effects. And they are being hyper-vigilant about tracking any possible cases of side effects that may occur.

I would like to see your list of side effects for H1N1, but let me ask you this: Are they different from the side effects of the regular flu vaccine? Have these side effects actually been observed or are they speculative? What is your source? Do the risks of side effects outweigh the risks of flu?

Jeanwah wrote:

3) According to the scare from this past Spring, yes. But it was hysteria and difficult to pinpoint if there were really as many cases as they were saying that came in, not to mention many were not serious. I'll take my chances.

Huh?? How can you say it was difficult to pinpoint if there were really as many cases as they were saying? As who was saying? We're talking about actual data here, not anecdotal "evidence". There are criteria (such as labs) for determining what should be counted as a case, and then you count them. How is that difficult? I just don't understand how scientifically gathered, epidemiologic data can just be ignored. :? :?

_

Jeanwah wrote:

scb - just to show that not all docs are behind recommending the H1N1 vaccine...

Swine Flu Vaccine: What To Do?
posted by Dr. Frank Lipman Oct 11, 2009 5:00 pm

Summer is over and the question I am being asked most frequently in my practice is, “what do I do about Swine flu?” My patients are wondering whether or not they should get vaccinated and the simple answer I give most of the time is ..NO!

From what you may have read, you might think that the swine flu vaccine is the answer to swine flu. Unfortunately this is not true and until we know that the vaccine is safe, I cannot in good conscience recommend it to most of my patients.

From the outset, let me say, I am not anti all vaccinations, rather I am pro vaccine safety and freedom of choice.

This is why am I not recommending the swine flu vaccine:

1. At this stage, for the most part the swine flu seems benign.

Over a million people in the US have already come down with swine flu, many of them without even knowing that they had it. The vast majority of people who get the swine flu recover after a week or so of high fever, aches, and respiratory distress. It’s not pleasant, but except in rare circumstances, it is not fatal. Most people who’ve been infected by swine flu think so little of it, they believe they just had a really bad cold or a regular flu. So unless the swine flu evolves to a much more virulent form, there’s no need for mass vaccination.

2. We don’t know if the vaccine will be effective.

Vaccines are only useful against the specific viral strain that was available at the time of their manufacture. But influenza viruses mutate quickly, and as the WHO has already said, the real concern with H1N1 swine flu is that it will combine with seasonal flu in the Fall, creating a new strain that will of course be immune to all available vaccines.

I know that not every single doctor agrees, but what about the medical profession as a whole? What about those expert researchers you speak of? I don't even know who this guy is or where this article came from.

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

scb - just to show that not all docs are behind recommending the H1N1 vaccine...

Swine Flu Vaccine: What To Do?
posted by Dr. Frank Lipman Oct 11, 2009 5:00 pm

Summer is over and the question I am being asked most frequently in my practice is, “what do I do about Swine flu?” My patients are wondering whether or not they should get vaccinated and the simple answer I give most of the time is ..NO!

From what you may have read, you might think that the swine flu vaccine is the answer to swine flu. Unfortunately this is not true and until we know that the vaccine is safe, I cannot in good conscience recommend it to most of my patients.

From the outset, let me say, I am not anti all vaccinations, rather I am pro vaccine safety and freedom of choice.

This is why am I not recommending the swine flu vaccine:

1. At this stage, for the most part the swine flu seems benign.

Over a million people in the US have already come down with swine flu, many of them without even knowing that they had it. The vast majority of people who get the swine flu recover after a week or so of high fever, aches, and respiratory distress. It’s not pleasant, but except in rare circumstances, it is not fatal. Most people who’ve been infected by swine flu think so little of it, they believe they just had a really bad cold or a regular flu. So unless the swine flu evolves to a much more virulent form, there’s no need for mass vaccination.

2. We don’t know if the vaccine will be effective.

Vaccines are only useful against the specific viral strain that was available at the time of their manufacture. But influenza viruses mutate quickly, and as the WHO has already said, the real concern with H1N1 swine flu is that it will combine with seasonal flu in the Fall, creating a new strain that will of course be immune to all available vaccines.

I know that not every single doctor agrees, but what about the medical profession as a whole? What about those expert researchers you speak of? I don't even know who this guy is or where this article came from.

Listen, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't rely on gov't to tell me what's best for my health. I also have shown points how the H1N1 is not proven safe. You seem to want to believe that the medical community as a whole think it's wisest to get the vaccine and I disagree. But what do I care what doctors say? They make mistakes all the time. I'm done.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

Listen, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't rely on gov't to tell me what's best for my health. I also have shown points how the H1N1 is not proven safe. You seem to want to believe that the medical community as a whole think it's wisest to get the vaccine and I disagree. But what do I care what doctors say? They make mistakes all the time. I'm done.

I'm just truly trying to understand what sources of information you think are actually valid and find where they say that the medical community as a whole disagrees with the CDC... and I still don't get it. :? :?

ETA: Can anyone else provide me with reputable information demonstrating that the medical community as a whole believes that the CDC is not a valid source of information on the flu?? Maybe I'm missing something.

_

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Listen, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't rely on gov't to tell me what's best for my health. I also have shown points how the H1N1 is not proven safe. You seem to want to believe that the medical community as a whole think it's wisest to get the vaccine and I disagree. But what do I care what doctors say? They make mistakes all the time. I'm done.

I'm just truly trying to understand what sources of information you think are actually valid and find where they say that the medical community as a whole disagrees with the CDC... and I still don't get it. :? :?

ETA: Can anyone else provide me with reputable information demonstrating that the medical community as a whole believes that the CDC is not a valid source of information on the flu?? Maybe I'm missing something.

One more thing: I want to be clear that I'm not just pulling my faith in the validity of the CDC out of my ass. I work at the primary hospital for my state and know that, although CDC guidance isn't always 100% clear and no knowledge is 100% perfect, the CDC is considered the primary source of accurate, valid information when dealing with such illnesses. Our hospital (as a whole, not just a couple of naive docs) is using CDC info to inform its decisions on how to handle this flu season on a population level and an individual treatment level. They wouldn't do that if they thought there was data out there that was more valid.

soulsinging

JR8805 wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

My suspicion is that you are correct about that. I don't recall anyone ever getting a flu vaccine when i was a kid. now even walgreen's gives them away. and every year there's a new panicked epidemic... avian flu, swine flu, SARS... and every year... like 10 people die in an impoverished country and that's it. this is all a huge hoax to drum up business. it's a flu people. i bet 99% of everyone on this forum do not even know anyone who knows anyone else that even heard of someone dying of a fucking flu.

and if i get it and go down, +1 for mother nature. a little natural selection might not be such a bad thing for this overpopulated planet.

What a nice thought. Why don't you write letters to the parents of the 76 American children that H1N1 has killed so far this year telling them what a great thing it was for the planet that their child died?

"The regular flu kills between 46 and 88 children a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That SUGGESTS deaths from the new H1N1 virus COULD dramatically outpace children's deaths from seasonal flu, IF swine flu continues to spread as it has."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_ ... _swine_flu

sure, do you have their addresses for me?

wow, a wopping 130 kids died of flu out of... how many million/billion born? how does that stack up to poverty and all the other diseases out there? the fact is, the odds of dying of a flu in america are so miniscule that it's absurd. this isn't about public health, it's about business.

and i capitalized the important parts of that quote you gave... when you notice those, you realize they don't know a damn thing. they're guessing. like they did with bird flu and sars and whatever was right before that. this is much ado about nothing.

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Listen, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't rely on gov't to tell me what's best for my health. I also have shown points how the H1N1 is not proven safe. You seem to want to believe that the medical community as a whole think it's wisest to get the vaccine and I disagree. But what do I care what doctors say? They make mistakes all the time. I'm done.

I'm just truly trying to understand what sources of information you think are actually valid and find where they say that the medical community as a whole disagrees with the CDC... and I still don't get it. :? :?

ETA: Can anyone else provide me with reputable information demonstrating that the medical community as a whole believes that the CDC is not a valid source of information on the flu?? Maybe I'm missing something.

I didn't mean to make it seem like the med. community as a whole believes the CDC isn't a valid source. I only meant that *I* don't consider it valid. Any health network supported and sponsored by the gov't makes me question the accuracy. Gov't has bias and usually an agenda. Medical Journals have no reason to not be objective.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Listen, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't rely on gov't to tell me what's best for my health. I also have shown points how the H1N1 is not proven safe. You seem to want to believe that the medical community as a whole think it's wisest to get the vaccine and I disagree. But what do I care what doctors say? They make mistakes all the time. I'm done.

I'm just truly trying to understand what sources of information you think are actually valid and find where they say that the medical community as a whole disagrees with the CDC... and I still don't get it. :? :?

ETA: Can anyone else provide me with reputable information demonstrating that the medical community as a whole believes that the CDC is not a valid source of information on the flu?? Maybe I'm missing something.

I didn't mean to make it seem like the med. community as a whole believes the CDC isn't a valid source. I only meant that *I* don't consider it valid. Any health network supported and sponsored by the gov't makes me question the accuracy. Gov't has bias and usually an agenda. Medical Journals have no reason to not be objective.

Well much of that is debatable, but let's say it's true and medical journals are the only valid source of info. What are the medical journals saying about it?

Sludge Factory

Jeanwah wrote:

...But the state maintains that the objective is to reduce the possibility of infecting patients...

I just don't understand this mentality. That health care workers need to be immunized to protect the patients. Shouldn't the onus lie on each individual as to whether or not they should get vaccinated and that it is their own fault if they choose not to and became infected from someone else?

All those who believe the vaccines work can freely choose to get vaccinated, those who don't believe it shouldn't be forced to since those who do believe should have gotten it and will be protected from the unvaccinated. What am I missing here?

Sludge Factory

Commy wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Commy wrote:

shouldn't people that have to be around the high risk patients be immunized from some of these strains?

why is this such a conspiracy? maybe some agency is making bank on a bs flu strain, and they're selling vaccines that we dont' need...but these are health professionals...they are around high risk individuals all day,,,the old and sick...they of all people should be immunized.

1. The H1N1 vaccine is still in testing phase. It's also been fast-tracked, with very limited research concerning the short term as well as long term side effects.
2. It has not been FDA approved. (It takes 7 years to approve a new drug for usage by the public)
3. It is not an emergency situation where it's spreading like wildfire.
4. There are safety issues. Formaldehyde and mercury have been found in several cases so far.
5. NYS Health Board does not entrust their medical professionals to "do the right thing" for the patient's health, but rather force them?
6. Health professionals are not the only people coming into contact with many sick people on a daily basis. What about teachers, students, grocery store clerks?
6. It's against our civil liberties. I know there's a bunch of Libs on here. How would you feel about getting forced by state gov't to be injected or YOU LOSE YOUR JOB?

the idea of it being "forced" seems to be taking over the common sense behind the rule. it should be up to the individual, but really this is common sense. you give some 90 year old some hard core flu strain his/her death is on your hands. it makes more sense to get immunized so that scenario doesn't play out.

This, this is what I just posted about before I read into the thread more...if that 90 year old is worried about the hard core flu strain, shouldn't that 90 year take responsibity for themselves and get immunized on their own, thus not relying on others to be immunized?

_

Sludge Factory wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

...But the state maintains that the objective is to reduce the possibility of infecting patients...

I just don't understand this mentality. That health care workers need to be immunized to protect the patients. Shouldn't the onus lie on each individual as to whether or not they should get vaccinated and that it is their own fault if they choose not to and became infected from someone else?

All those who believe the vaccines work can freely choose to get vaccinated, those who don't believe it shouldn't be forced to since those who do believe should have gotten it and will be protected from the unvaccinated. What am I missing here?

1. Vaccines are not 100% effective.

2. Not everyone is able to get the vaccine (e.g. people with serious allergies to chicken eggs).

Sludge Factory

scb wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

...But the state maintains that the objective is to reduce the possibility of infecting patients...

I just don't understand this mentality. That health care workers need to be immunized to protect the patients. Shouldn't the onus lie on each individual as to whether or not they should get vaccinated and that it is their own fault if they choose not to and became infected from someone else?

All those who believe the vaccines work can freely choose to get vaccinated, those who don't believe it shouldn't be forced to since those who do believe should have gotten it and will be protected from the unvaccinated. What am I missing here?

1. Vaccines are not 100% effective.

2. Not everyone is able to get the vaccine (e.g. people with serious allergies to chicken eggs).

Very good points. I could see the vaccines are not 100% effective being argued both ways, though and I still believe that they shouldn't be mandatory at all.

decides2dream

Sludge Factory wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

...But the state maintains that the objective is to reduce the possibility of infecting patients...

I just don't understand this mentality. That health care workers need to be immunized to protect the patients. Shouldn't the onus lie on each individual as to whether or not they should get vaccinated and that it is their own fault if they choose not to and became infected from someone else?

All those who believe the vaccines work can freely choose to get vaccinated, those who don't believe it shouldn't be forced to since those who do believe should have gotten it and will be protected from the unvaccinated. What am I missing here?

i agree with this, but also imagine...


right now, someone may be seriously ill. someone seriously ill i do not believe is a good candidate for a vaccine, no? their systems may already be so compromised. thus why some may believe healthcare workers should immunize. not saying i believe in forced vaccinations, but i can at least to some extent see the rationale behind it.