H1N1 vaccine recall

Yes; there were more allergic reactions than they expected, so they're pulling all of one lot#.  In Ontario, there were 1,500 doses from this batch, and they were not distributed (I had to look into this for work, as we had received 500 doses).

No kidding on the no long term health problems, in the case of the 39 year old fellow, originally from here, whose funeral was last week, you bet  he does not have to worry about long term health problems, his kids just have to worry about having no  father...

He died from the vaccine??

allergic reaction to it

Do you have a link for this?

nope,  just know cause the funeral was here last Friday..

Yes, I heard there was one death due to an anaphalactic reaction, but I thought it was in Saskatchewan.

I had the flu shot last saturday.   My arm still hurts a bit, in fact.    Knowing a number of people who have gone through this flu convinced me to have it.   While I was not worried about being one of the few fatalities associated with H1N1, it's still a very unpleasent way to spend a few days, and full recovery takes longer than you'd think.

Yes, I had concerns over how this vaccine was rushed.  But then, with pregnant women, children, hockey players and hospital directors not dropping like flies from two weeks ago, I figured there was knowt to fesh about.  

As for long term health effects or side effects, I have to think about that over my fifth coffee of the day, and a cigarette whose number I will not divulge.

Maybe he had been living in Sask, if it was his death reported on the news even

all I know is that he was brought back here for the funeral and to be buried and that he died from  a allergic reaction to it, the town was a buzz with the news last week.

What about the guy who had his H1N1 shot, went home, and found out he had won the lottery?

What I find hilarious are the reassurances that there are no long term side effects, they know this how? 

Because they are superior human beings, from the same circles that fed thalidomide to pregnant women. 

And now this:
 
Drug Company appointment 'quite inappropriate'
 

http://www.thenhf.com/vaccinations_125.htm

From Ranger's link:

This horrifying predation?  Water fluoridation.

Montréal does not fluoridate its drinking water.

You heard me.

We know a communist body-fluid conspiracy when we see one.

You can wallow in the history of this debate in CBC's digital archive, ou aux archives de Radio-Canada [17].

Oh yeah, the biggest mansions here are owned by dentists.

Crude but worthy,  

Swine Flu Pandemic Peaks in Ukraine:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Swine+pandemic+peaks+Ukraine/2264428...

"1.6 million fall ill, while 388 die in three weeks..."

Well, I got my shot about an hour ago, and so far have had no ill effects.  Nor has my daughter, who got the shot a week ago.  Or the blond guy, who got his this morning as well.

However, a woman I knew died a week and a half ago from complications arising from possible H1N1.  She was 59, a fitness instructor, fit as a fiddle and looked about 15 years younger than she was.  No underlying health issues.  So we'll chalk her up next to remind's example, how about it?

Because it should have the same long term side effects, if any, as the seasonal flu vaccine that's given every year. It's produced by the same process.

That's right, Doug; these doctors who are saying, "There's not enough evidence for the H1N1 shot" are being disingenuous, IMV.  They know perfectly well there's a new flu shot every year due to the genetic slipperiness of influenza type A, and it's no less "experimental" than the H1N1.

Just got my H1N1 shot. I've already had three long-term side effects. Aside from that, everything is

Interestingly enough, there is a new process being developed for making flu vaccine that involves caterpillar cells. Side effects may include turning into a butterfly.

So, anyway, getting back to the thread topic, GSK produced a bad batch of flu vaccine. Does that make you any less confident about getting the shot?

How many reasons do you need to become concerned about the safety of the vaccine?

Or does just one word from the health authority person quell all your concerns?

  It seems to me that the evidence piles up that shows that getting the vaccines for flu is a mistake, but just 30 seconds of Dr. David Butler-Jones saying "everything is fine, go get the shot, it is your duty" and people go and get in line. How low does their credibility have to get before you stop putting faith in the health authority?

   The stats show that the people who get the annual flu shots are more likely to get the flu annually; And that those who do not get flu shots are not getting sick as often, or as severely, as compared to people who get the flu shot annually. The Canadian study that showed those who get the seasonal flu shot will get sicker with H1N1, and then all that was just ignored as if it was never announced. Even Sineed parroted the line in another thread!!

Ah! So it IS true... those who get vaccinated are at a greater risk from flu, but then the health authorities say it is only because those who get the annual flu shot are "more susceptable"? Who could swallow such lies??

  I only know one person who got the advanced H1N1 flu shot, and 4 weeks later they came down with H1N1. Anecdotal, or are there others and it is just not being reported? She got the combination seasonal and H1N1... WE TOLD YOU SO!! It makes your immune system WEAKER!!!

 Modern medicine is all about CTP-OTS {"Create The Problem, Offer The Solution"} where they make us sick and then they offer to care for us with drugs and vaccines.

  The stats are clear - of people who become ill, those who refuse the doctor's treatments tend to be healthier than those who accept whatever the doctor offers them. If you get sick, they make sure you will become a repeat customer. And no, the doctors are not aware of their role in this game of life and death.

I've been getting the seasonal flu shot every year that I can remember, and haven't had the flu in a very long time. I still get the common cold, but there's no vaccine for that as far as I know.

There is no evidence to show that getting the flu shot is a mistake; quite the opposite, really.  The flu puts you at risk of pneumonia and the risk of death from pneumonia grows as you get older, or if you have a suppressed immune system, or are pregnant.

What stats?  There aren't any such stats.

Again, this is not true.

That study has never been released, so none of us have been able to look at it and see if it's valid.  Also, these results have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world.  Similar studies in the US, Britain and Australia did not find any association between the seasonal flu shot and getting the H1N1 virus.

Was your friend actually tested for H1N1?  Couple of things: people can come down with strains of flu that aren't in the shot.  There's another flu, H3N2, that's going around; your friend could have had that.  Inoculations don't make your immune system weaker - they increase your immunity.

I think what's happened in our culture is that we have a short collective memory.  We don't remember when women had lots of babies partly because they had no choice but also taking into account the children that were going to die.  We don't remember the polio epidemics.  We don't remember people cutting a thumb and dying of sepsis a week later.  

Here's some facts:

More facts here:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/vacc/myth-mythe-eng.php

More confident.

1) This may have been a "bad batch" or it may have been a statistical anomaly.  I haven't seen the results of any investigation.  Could it have been a bad batch?  Sure, and if it was it is, so far as I know, the only one documented in the world so far.  Could it have been a statistical anomaly?  Sure, statistical anomalies do occur, and if that was the case it is, so far as I know, the only oen documented in the world so far.  

2) A small number of severe allergic reactions (6, I believe) over several provinces was tracked down pretty quickly.  The system put in place to ensure safety has worked well.

3) Reported cases of severe side effects like GBS, at least last time I checked was extremely low. 

I don't know.  At least one reason, maybe two...depends on the reasons and so far I haven't seen anything worthy.  I have seen a whole pile of bs being spread like say the Desiree Jennings case. 

He has me at "hello."

We obviously have different definations of "evidence" and "piles."

Has this study been published yet?  or peer reviewed?  If so where and by who?  I looked for it in the past and it was not the case, at least at that time.  Nor has anyone been able to replicate similar data anywhere.  Edit: I noticed that Sineed has just posted a reply and it has not been published.

Again, we seem to have a different definition of "true" and "lies"  (probably "swallow" too). 

I agree with you, Christian Science is the way forward. 

Modern medicine creates the problem.  Eg: Smallpox, polio, water fluoridation and the list could go on for a very long time.  That is why life expectancy continues to fall and child mortality continues to increase.

No wonder the doctors are not aware of their role in making everyone sick, but you have pulled back the curtain.  And repeat customers...for sure.  Hell, the elderly relatives of mine who are not in great shape see their doctors once or twice a year, but they also see a chiropractor every week or two (guess what?  No back problems! ...unfortunately, no back problems before either) and a naturopath about once a month.

Sineed, thank you for being here. You too, Trevormkidd.

I had my shot yesterday, and my arm still aches. I'll let you know if it kills me.

You have nothing to worry about, as you have already had three long-term side effects.  These things come in threes (proven medical fact).

Cheers, Unionist!

Tylenol is your friend.  (Or ibuprofen, if you prefer it and it doesn't bother your stomach.)

The vaccine recall is a consequence of 6 allergic reactions out of tens of thousands of doses.  But I think Noah is expressing a reasonable reaction - there has not been good info communicated generally.  You have to look for it.  There's huge announcements made, like about that study that found a link between the seasonal flu and H1N1.  After that?  Nada.  With info like this, what are people expected to think?

(I imagine at the moment that study is being peer-reviewed, etc, preparatory to being published.  Peer reviews usually result in revisions, major or minor; the whole turn around time can be weeks to months.)

And the public health agencies are not taking into account the "Jenny McCarthey" factor that's sweeping North America and driving down immunization rates.  Cases of measles are going up, and children are dying of vaccine-preventable diseases.  As I've observed on previous of these threads, it only takes a second to link to a disreputable site proclaiming that vitamin C cures cancer or vaccines weaken your immune system, but more time to refute.

No, it's not.

Okay, I'll bite.

What's wrong with Tylenol?

It damages the liver and kidney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Chicago_Tylenol_murders

Really? because of Jenny McCarthy ?

Yes.

Few people (if any) are more responsible for the rise in measles than McCarthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8tqQ5tZ0g

Link to the "Jenny McCarthy Body Count"

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.htm...

Obviously this is extremely unfair to Jenny McCarthy.  That said, if you click on the links you will end up at the weekly Morbidity and Mortality reports from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta GA (the top infectious diseases people in the world).  Here's what the numbers are stateside for some vaccine-preventable diseases in terms of the number of cases:

Measles - 2004: 37 cases;  2008: 140 cases;

H. influenzae type b (causes meningitis: potential high mortality rate, or deafness, brain damage): 2004 - 19 cases;   2008 - 30 cases;

Mumps - 2004: 258 cases; 2009: 473 cases so far.

If you OD on it but so are most drugs dangerous in overdose.

Takes a substantial dose to damage the liver; say, 4g, or eight extra-strength tablets all at once.  Kidney damage can occur after years of high doses.  But occasional doses, or even daily therapeutic doses will be safe.

I mix my pain relievers.  Not together.   But, aspirin one day, acetomitophen the next occassion, ibuprophen the next, and, thanks to an absessed tooth and a pliant dentist, I now have a supply of torridol for just in case.  

Really, I'm very lucky and I know it-- particularly working like I do.  I get aches and pains and owies, the odd headache-- maybe something bordering on a migraine once a decade.  Usually, I tough these things out.   I don't usually take pain relievers because the pain is too much, but rather because I get fed up with fighting it.

Actually, for the absessed tooth I did mix a toridol with an acetomitophen, just to get the ball rolling.  No, it was two torridol and one acetomitophen.  That genuinely hurt, that did.

Visit the dentist regularly, boys and girls.

We were talking about childbirth in another thread.  Amoung other things, being witness to childbirth made me revise my context of pain.

Careful with the Toradol there, Tommy; that one can be dangerous - strong stuff, and very, very hard on the stomach.

When Arctic Pig had his soft palate graft, the dental surgeon gave him a script for 30 Toradol, and he took 1, and found it was all he needed for having part of his soft palate cut away and attached elsewhere in his mouth - yikes!

Let me look at the bottle, brb...... Novo ketorolac, 10mg.  Rebecca West says it's toradol by another name, and a google seems to confirm that. 

Interestingly,  I had none of the side effects-- I even scarfed a few down without food, without any problems-- except one that was listed as rare:  puffiness around the eyes.  My eyelids swelled up, but at the time I attributed it to some wierd manifestation of the infection.  

The dentist and I talked about the pain killers for the abscess.  I asked for Tylenol 3's, because I thought he was going to prescribe something like percs which I wanted no part of for a number of reasons.   But he said these were actually a level down from Tylenol 3's, which suited me just fine.  

They worked pretty good for the abscess, and later for a day or two after the extraction of the tooth.

But since waking up at 1:00 AM with that abscessed tooth, and having pretty much nothing all night for it, I've developed a trepidation of being without some kind of contingency plan for such events.   

The trepidation will wear off in time.

Ditto on the thanks to Sineed and Trevor.

My arm's a little tender today, too.  I'll take a couple of ibuprofen before bed and I expect it'll be better in the morning.

309 deaths in Canada from H1N1 this year, and the "pandemic" has peaked.

Yup, somebody made a lot of money.

Flu seasons have multiple peaks.

What is it with oversimplification of real facts and the spinning of elaborate fantasies the like of which we've seen all over these threads?

lol.

I think knowing the number of deaths in Canada this year from H1N1 puts things in perspective.

[edited. No need for snarkery. The facts speak for themselves.]

jas, it's amazing how offput some are here when we question big Pharma.  It is kind of funny.  Maybe it's just coincidence the only time I went to a Dr in the last 13 yrs, I ended up getting my only illness in the last 13.  I advocate for education on health because I know eventually I will need to see a Dr again.

Hopefully, it's not, "Here, take this pill."

Who has objected to you criticising Big Pharma?

No, what I'm objecting to is the dissemination of information that is just plain wrong and conclusions based on incorrect or vastly oversimplified information and the refusal to learn anything new and of flaming thermonuclear stupidity.

.

Brings to mind a quote:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

I have no problem with people posting reasons for getting the shot. Why do you seem to have a problem with people posting information that is skeptical? Where are the posts in this thread that are just plain wrong or resulting in conclusions of flaming thermonuclear stupidity?

Um, maybe that means the vaccine worked?

Post 13.  Post 23.

I couldn't find this quote from RANGER's link???

It was under "Fluoridation," on the left hand side of the page.

I knew someone would say that.

I've addressed your rebuttal to #13.

#23, I wasn't sure about but no it still does not deserve the label given. 

So, it's not from his link, correct.

I could use some choice words for those that push the Pharma agenda here, would that be right, no.  There is much good information posted.

Let's stick to the posts and deal with them.

But isn't it a possibility?  I mean, does the fact that Y2K turned out not to be a disaster necessarily mean that all the Y2K prep was a con game? 

And I do appreciate very much you and others Sineed, for posting why people should get the shot.

Globe and Mail, Aug '09

1) Nice job lopping off the "maybe" off Sineed quote.

2) It is obviously a possibility, but is too early to know.  We would have to compare with rates in other countries where the vaccine rollout was slower and a smaller percentage of the population was vaccinated.  However, as of 10 days ago 6.6 million Canadians were already vaccinated and this vaccine has a been highly effective.  Obviously that must slow the spread of infection.  Also we would have to look at what percentage of front line health care workers recevied the vaccine as they are more likely to catch the virus due to frequent contact and therefore also more likely to spread the virus.  I have no idea what their numbers are, my purely ancedotal experience is that the percentage of friends of mine who are front-line health care workers and who received the vacccine is way up compared to normal.

How would this be gauged?

According to Trevor's statistics, 27 million Canadians have not had the H1N1 shot. 309 deaths so far.

I would have to see the actual pandemic plans which said this, however, in all the reading I have ever done about influenza viruses the general consensus seems to be that if a novel strain does come in waves the first wave does not have the greatest impact.  The reasons for this is not firmly established, but for instance, John Barry in the book "The Great Influenza" states that the leading theory proposed by virologists is that first wave is the viruses first kick at the can spreading among a new host (humans in this case) for the virus and it is "learning" how to spread more effectively in this new environment.  The second wave (and often third wave) if they occur are far more serious as the virus has had a couple beneficial mutations and goes on a tear.  After that the virus falls into an equilibrium with its new environment and in generally pretty tame. 

I can't say if that is true, but that is what happened with the Spanish flu for which the first wave was pretty harmless.  From an evolutionary perspective it also makes for more sense to me.  The virus has been mutating to fit with previous hosts for thousands of generations, it seems unlikely that it would be strongest when it first jumps to a new species, instead of later on after it has evolved towards life in the new host. 

How many deaths would be appropriate Jas?  At what number of deaths do you consider it appropriate for the pharmaceutical industry to become involved? 

I also wonder how many does of tamiflu have been given in Canada to stop the spread of this virus.  I know several people who have received it.  A lot of effort has gone into stopping the spread of this virus.  How many lives have been saved?  I don't know.  How many times has the spread of the virus been stopped by the vaccine or tamiflu?  I don't know.  But I think that saving lives and stopping the spread of illness is a good thing, even if means that a pharmaceutical company makes a profit. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10713598

At what number of deaths in a given population do you consider it appropriate for mass vaccination plans where otherwise healthy people are lining up for hours at vaccination clinics? It's hysteria. There's no other word for it.

I am not sure if the intent of this post is to make the claim that that the first wave (1918) was the worst and subsequent waves were not.  If that was the intent then that is not the case.  In the case of spanish flu the first wave was in early 1918 and was mostly harmless.  The second wave started in August and was very deadly.  The strains in 1957, 1968 and 1977 were all novel strains.

IIRC, the waves of Spanish flu became more and more deadly as the strain mutated over the course of 2 years.  It was not particularly virulent in its first wave.

No, just that in one year 40 million people died. Approximately 10,000 times the number who have died in our little pandemic. Point taken, though. That may have been the second or third wave, I don't know. I believe we are in the second wave of our little pandemic and vaccines were rolled out 5 - 6 weeks ago.

I think it appropriate to produce a flu vaccine every year using the best scientific evidence.  I think that it is appropriate to take any novel strain of influenza which has the ability to spread from person to person very seriously considering the well established history of this virus.  I think that it is appropriate to produce enough vaccine so that anyone who wants to receive it can. 

As to healthy people lining up for hours at a vaccination clinics, I think that it is unfortunate and hopefully if any similar future project occurs it is rolled out better.  However, I have no problem with any healthy person wanting to protect themselves as well as their children and other loved ones who may be more vulnerable through stopping the line of transmission. 

Why would a healthy person want to receive a vaccine for something that is not indicated? And why should the government provide it for them?

While we're into government providing things that are not necessary, I would like to receive cheesecake every Friday, please.

But here's the thing:  You're wrong.  It is indicated, from a public health perspective.  You're persistently ignoring the big picture.  Get some specs already.  It's not like people haven't linked and argued and laid it out for you.

Depends on who you ask.  It has been widely reported that we are in the second wave.  However, I asked the virologist who I know about this about a week and a half ago.  He said that in his opinion this was still the first wave as waves are distinct based on a genetic change.  He considers the reporting of two waves to just be natural ebb and flow of a single wave.  He also has some doubts that there will be a second wave because of the lack of genetic change, but it is the flu which is completely unpredictable.  This strain could basically die out early next year, or it could be much stronger by early next year.  Its like rolling dice and that is why I wear a seltbelt and look both ways before crossing the street.

I find it very difficult to call either side of this issue wrong.  It's not helpful.  jas is posting legitimate concerns.  And I haven't even been remotely convinced it's a good thing but I don't begrudge the government offering it.

Much of that whole cloth fancy came from you.

You know what they say about if you repeat it enough times.

'Tis unfortunate, Tigana

You posted a link that said vitamin C can cure cancer!!!!!!!  You've posted links that purport vaccination against H1N1 is part of the New World Order's plot to commit genocide!!!!!!

Are you trying to tell me these aren't fantasy?!

Motherfucking Christ on a bicyle......

I resent Canadians' money being used for this scare campaign. What is indicated, what is real, is a need for better food for children, mothers, seniors and the poor, treatment for TB and other highly communicable diseases that are ripe to explode into the general population; and good general medical care for all Canadains, not pill doctors and the shot brigade.

And I am astonished that a public servant who admitted here that pharma is corrupt and its products are questionable nevertheless continues to prop up this bogus initiative.

I don't and no, she's not. See, one is based on facts gathered by people who know their asses from a hole in the ground and the other is based on made up altmed bullshit from snake-oil salesmen. Read the freaking threads. Look at the reputable links (hint #1: ignore Tigana's, they're a special brand of crazy). If you're still not convinced by the sensible arguments put forward, it's because you've already decided not to be.

Thanks for leaving my mother out of it. If she were still here, she'd bake you a custard pie.

The devil is in the details, and that's what you ignore to smear people, so I suggest you go get those links and we'll discuss them.

Are There Pigs Behind Swine Flu?

http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/11/442272.html

"Behind the current panic about swine flu may be one of the most audacious pharmaceutical scams of all time..."

Timebandit your comment has been flagged and will be reported to Derrick.

So why tip me off?  Whatever.  I haven't said anything I haven't already said in other threads, nor have I called names.  I may have been blunt, but you are in the habit of posting links that are on the loony end of the scale and I don't see the value in mincing words at this point.  Courtesy just encourages you.

Publishing something on a website with minimal editorial control does not make it fact. 

So is that a denial?

Listen, sunshine, you brought up your mother and in a context that could be construed as a bias in the subject matter being debated.  My only mention of that reference was actually pretty sympathetic. 

In my history on this board, I haven't smeared anyone.  Called them on inconsistent arguments, check.  Pointed out the unreliability of their information, check.  Gotten bloody sarcastic, check and check again.  Smearing, no. 

nor does publishing something on a website with maximum editorial control...

Timebandit, your hostility does your argument no favour.

Suggesting that someone should "ignore Tigana's, BLEEP is seriously offensive.

Mostly I have been staying away from these threads, Skdadl is correct, they do just go round and round and round.  Clearly some here find the government to be credible and big pharma to be trustworthy.  I don't and for me all the links one way or another make little difference, I think sound nutrition is the best support for our health and the whole of idea of the population lining up in panic for vaccines seriously creeps me out. 

I notice that a lot of people my age are refusing the vaccine, but then forty years of watching the lies spill from true snake oil salesmen can do that to you, it can make you very skeptical.  A good friend of mine, a public health nurse, is not taking the vaccine and she is someone who feels vaccines are important but in this case she figures it is, just as Gardasil was and is, purely about profit for big pharma.

That would make sense, ennir, if the only information we had was from the government.  Your premise is false.  The fact that you either don't read links that demonstrate this or pay any attention to posts that make this point demonstrates a bias that goes beyond reason.

Yes, nutrition is the best path to good health.  But it won't stop a pandemic flu.  We've been over this.  The facts, the science are not on your side.  The idea that we can eat in a way that prevents picking up a virus is just plain wrong and parroting it in the face of information to the contrary is just plain ignorant.

And your friend?  She's just a case in point that educated people can buy into teh stoopid, too.  My SIL is an RN and sent me a mercola.com link.  She didn't bother to get into the site, really look at the man's credentials and what he's selling or consider what he has to gain from his pitch.  She's a lovely, intelligent woman - but she's still wrong.

ETA: I don't really care if you're offended that I've said Tigana's links are crazy.  They are, for the most part.  I could put it all nicey-nicey, but that wouldn't adequately express what I'm communicating.  Vitamin C curing cancer is a crazy-assed idea.  Deal with it.

Perhaps.  However, I see little to be gained in putting things more diplomatically - there are certain posters who aren't going to be swayed anyway, and those who will likely have been already by more knowledgeable than I.  What I'm mainly expressing here is a level of frustration with the willful ignorance floating around this subject. 

Illness is a part of life and nature. It's also nature's way of handling pathogens in a population - and overpopulation. Perfectly healthy people who are not immune compromised but who seek innoculation against every little thing that comes along are like people who want to control the weather because "we like it sunny all the time" and "we don't want to be inconvenienced." I think it's a really unnatural and unhealthy way of looking at our lives and our world. It seems to come from a distrust of nature and of our own bodies' ability to handle illness.

I can live with that, but when people come into these discussions and castigate others for not falling in line with regard to mass vaccination programs, that to me is utterly offensive. When these threads started here the "death toll" from H1N1 in Canada was even less than it is now. Less than 309 people out of 33 million. And we had posters here insulting others because they didn't want to run to get their shot. It's completely irrational. And you're the ones who are compromising our long-term collective ability to handle illness without outside agents.

You are smart, I am stupid, blah, blah, blah.  What I notice is that those of us who are refraining from the vaccine seem not to find it necessary to insult the intelligence of others but there are a number of pro-vaccine folks, such as you, who find it entirely acceptable to do so. What that says to me is that you are abusive and not a poster I can respect.

Thanks for your post jas, I agree.

Grizzly bears are a part of life and nature, too, but I tend to take basic precautions against being eaten by one when I hike in the mountains.

Your first fallacy is in assuming that people who seek vaccination against H1N1 seek inoculation against "every little thing".  This one is, for most people, a special case.  We've already laid out the reasons why vis public health, superior communicability, demographic differences. 

Next, you draw the analogy of people who want to control the weather.  Well, to the extent that we can, we do.  It`s called central heating, and yes, life is inconvenient and much less pleasant without it.  Less healthy, too.  Should we actually trust nature?  What for?  Nature has no interest in our well-being.  You can count on nature to assert certain laws - one being that if you pick up a virus, you`re going to get sick whether you eat your wheaties or not.  It`s nice that you``ve got your little theory, there, but what is it based on?  If it`s your gut feeling, that`s not good enough.

I haven`t castigated anyone for `not falling in line`, whatever that means.  I have gotten snarky at people who repeatedly post incorrect information and downright medical fraud as fact.  If that offends you, well, I don`t actually care.

I never called you stupid.  Ignorant, yes, even willfully ignorant because when presented with evidence-based information you tend to ignore it.  And every time you natter on about nutrition being the be-all and end-all in regard to viruses, you do insult the intelligence of people around you by expecting us to take your clap-trap seriously.

Clap-trap, you might want to look up the various definitions of that word.

Your attitude is hostile, you want to quibble about the use of the word stupid?  LOL

True.

Here's nature at work, solving overpopulation:

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/plague.htm

So far as I know, there is nothing in the babble use policy that regulates "attitude". 

I'm not quibbling about the word stupid.  I'm pointing out that you are making a false claim.  You claim I called you stupid.  I didn't.  I called you ignorant.  There's a difference.  If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look up the meanings of both those words before you attempt to school me on any more word definitions.

I've had quite enough of bandits stealing my time. 

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/h1n1-swine-flu-fatality-rates-overreaction/

I found this graphic interesting and there are sane reasons from both sides of the debate to get a flu shot or "not", I would just hope folks get the best available information, that said seeing 500 people lined up outside a gymnasium because their scared is not good information to go on.

I notice you aren't arguing the "you're smart" part of my statement.  lol 

And you said that a friend of mine who is a public health nurse had "fallen to stoopid" or some such phrase, my statement was a general summation of your argument.  Can you comprehend that?

Wow. good thing they didn't have H1N1 to contend with at the same time. They would have had 309 more bodies to deal with.

Not sure what your point is here. I think it's generally agreed that most plagues and epidemics and many diseases of the past have been controlled largely, at least in the "first" world, by sanitation, nutrition and access to clean water.

@ ennir:  I said "bought into".  I also pointed out that my SIL, who is well-educated and intelligent (and also a nurse) did the same.  Your post wasn't a summation, it was an accusation.  I didn't call you stupid.  I didn't call your friend stupid.  In fact, I called her "educated".  How very, very mean of me.  What I actually did was call the idea that there's a big ol' conspiracy out there centred around H1N1 vaccination so you shouldn't get the shot stupid. 

AND VACCINATION.

There is a conspiracy behind the H1N1 shot? I thought it was just about pharmaceutical companies making money on non-existent epidemics.

.

actually, those who have researched the history of medicine credit mainly sanitation, nutrition and access to clean water. I'll try and get some names for you.

Which are all examples of humans placing controls on nature. This is a response to your comments about people wanting 'control nature' and not just trusting our bodies to deal with it's natural effects because illness is a natural phenomenon and a way of dealing with over populations. Water borne illness is completely and 100% natural. Do you trust your body to fend off any critters and crawlies that live in it and drink just any old water?

Of course those examples are ways that we can mitigate widespread illness. We do them and promote doing them because we know that nature as glorius as it is also is full of critters and crawlies that like to use us for their own respective natural function and it's in our best interest to try to place some controls on it. If we don't we end up with things happening like this example.

Okay, so you don't comprehend.  lol

I could care less about any big conspiracy theory, I don't need one to know that our goverment and big pharma are untrustworthy and even if I was inclined towards vaccinations the way this one has been delivered has been nothing but a disaster, one day pregnant women are told that they should not take the vaccination with the aduvant, they stop production of the vaccine with it to make some for pregnant women without it and then announce that pregnant women may take the vaccine with the adjuvant, and that is just one example of the idiocy of this campaign.

No, which is why clean water is cited as one of the biggest improvements historically in public health. But, actually, our bodies do contend with microscopic critters and crawlies of all kinds on a 24-hour basis. They are a part of life.

I'm not discounting the role of sanitation and potable water.  However, with diseases such as smallpox, vaccination played a big role as well.  It should not be discounted any more than improved sanitation.

So you're objecting to the vaccine, not because of any issue with the vaccine itself, but because its delivery was flawed?

I don't find it overly meaningful.  For instance it could have included the fatality rates of lightning strikes, shark attacks and space travel.  All of which would be very high, but have a very low incidence rate.  It is looking at it in a simplified one-dimensional way.

It was exactly those kinds of diseases on which this research was conducted. But I'll have to dig up those sources again.

In smallpox vaccination played a massive role because it is not the type of disease that would be largely impacted by better nutrition and sanitation - in the early 1960s about 2 million people were still dying a year of smallpox and by the end of 70's it was erradicated because of one thing and one thing only - vaccinations.  Influenza is also not largely impacted by better nutrition and sanitation (Both are mainly transmitted by airborn droplets).  If it was it would be easy to correlate the severity of the impact of influenza in comparing areas of the world with better nutrition and sanitation versus areas with poorer nutrition and sanitation.  Diseases like plague and hantavirus are a different matter.

However, paralytic polio was greatly affected by improved sanitation - that is actually when it BECOMES an issue.  Polio is a scourge of better sanitation.  Thankfully though we have vaccination.

Jas,
The making the argument that we should just trust nature and our bodies to fend of natures natural illnesses is a bit inconsistent then isn't it. If our bodies deal with critters all day then why the need to control the water we put into them? I'm not arguing for or against the flu shot just this idea that getting a vaccine is somehow tantenmount to people controlling nature for convenience sake, like controlling weather (implication that this idea is bad) and not trusting our own natural abilities to fend off illness as some sort of generalized statement or philosophy.

I understand that what you're talking about is likely much more nuanced and a matter of degree and to a point I do agree that many people depend on fixes or bandaids solutions for bad health but just don't see it as cut a dry. The fact is that we control nature all of the time for our convenience and health with your examples being big ones. There's nothing more controlling nature for convenience then agriculture.

Washing your hands before you eat, or after you go to the washroom is controlling nature.  So is brushing your teeth. 

"Controlling nature" were your words. I talked about a mistrust of nature and a lack of faith in our own bodies' ability to handle illness. I don't drink toilet or pond water for the reasons I cite above. I doubt many of us do. But I don't see the need for hysteria and mass vaccination in cases of isolated outbreaks of flu with an infection rate that hasn't even approached a whole integer percentage of any population, global or national, and a death rate that is even smaller, especially relative to seasonal flu.

You brought up controlling weather which by definition would be controlling nature.

Nature gave smallpox.  Medical science took it away.

I don't see how that is possible.  Zero is an integer, so right from the very first case it had surpassed that whole integer percentage.

@ jas:  False premise.  The outbreaks are not isolated.  It is a flu that spreads more quickly and effectively than other flus.  We've been over this.  This is the bit that is so frustrating about this topic -- the pertinent information is ignored and the misconceptions are repeated ad nauseum.

I'm not sure what we're arguing anymore except that perhaps you don't want to admit that there has been some hysteria about this and you have bought into it in your own way. The facts on H1N1 infection and mortality have been cited. If you feel that those figures suggest a threat to healthy, non-immune compromised adults then you are free to line up at the public health clinic like anyone else. Just don't be snerking at those who don't quite feel the same panic as you, OK?

Alright. Switch my phrasing to mistrusting nature and it's still the same. We do things to water to make it clean because we know our bodies can't handle the illnesses that dirty water throws at us. You don't drink toilet water because nature will likely throw illness at you that your body will find difficult to handle do you not? Do you not refrigerate food to help ensure the food remains safer to eat? Foodborne illness is also perfectly natural. My point being that arguments made about 'convenience' do to the mistrust of nature on the broad scale you made it is just inconsistent.

Well I see a difference at talking about the hysteria related to risk and suggesting that people who do go out and get it are just mistrusting nature for the sake of convenience and that that's somehow just bad because illness is natural and such. Yeah illness is natural, it also is generally horribly inconvenient, sometimes even death inconvenient which is why as whole people do like to do things like drink clean water, eat good uncontaminated food, get rid of our waste so we don't live in it and whole lot of other convenience measures that help our bodies deal with nature.

Also, Trevor has not yet indicated how the "success" of the vaccination campaign would be gauged.

No, I think most of us are open to the idea that there has been some hysteria and fearmongering - on both sides of the issue.  Personally, I don't feel panic at all.  I don't get the impression that most of us on the pro-vaccine side are panicked.  But yes, there has been a lot of media hype around H1N1 and both for and against vaccination. 

That doesn't necessarily mean that vaccination is bad idea.

You asked how we know that the vaccine has effective.  I didn't think it was worth my time to repeat on babble that the vaccine is extremely well matched to H1N1 virus which is circulating and that the trials showed that more than 90% of recipients exhibited a robust immune response to the vaccine.  It has been said again, not that it matters.

You, btw, never answered as to how many people would need to die before you would be ok with the pharmaceutical industry becoming involved in preventing further deaths.

Well I'm not in anyway pro-omg I have to get it and everyone else should run and get it. Neither was I that concerned or particularly worried about my own bodies ability to handle it if I did. I don't generally get sick, I eat well, have been concerned about nutrition and food for years and do take supplements like high doses of Vit D long before the flu scare came around. Still got it and it really sucked the pooch. My body handled it and I was extremely careful to not pass it on. It was however horribly inconvenient because it's effect lasted for more then three weeks. I lost income (self employed) had to postpone having the work I waited for two years to get done on my house, fell behind in processing the harvest and actually lost some of it, lost the time in doing work needed for the spring, had to bow out of two events I had volunteered for and since several other people who volunteered were sick as well one came close to being cancelled and on and on. The vaccine for me is pretty much a moot point but if I could go back to before getting that flu and get something that would make it less likely that I'd have to go through all the inconvenience I know what I personally would choose. From a personal viewpoint the whole thing just generally sucked and a month later I'm still working on things that got screwed up from being sick like that.

I don't pay much attention to the media.  However, on babble the hysteria and fearmongering has been almost completely one-sided, at least when I look at the first two threads of the 7 (I believe) that have appeared here.

Swine flu has been "remarkably stable" but it is mutating.  Some of the mutations attack the lungs much more severely than what we got here.

The most serious one so far  has turned up in norway and france.  One of the french cases combines this mutation with resistance to antiviral drugs.

So I guess if you get that version, they will not be able to treat you.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8383471.stm  

 I got bad pneumonia this year with 5 days in hospital (non flu related).   

Way more pain that I thought it could be.   Thought I had dislocated a disk or 2 in my back. or had a charley horse in the back muscles.

I do not think that type of death would be pleasant.  (I do not mind dieing but I do not need the pain).

Now, at least if this severe version comes back this way in the 3rd wave, those of us who got vaccinated have a fighting chance.

According to the WHO, there were over 1,000 deaths last wk, a sharp rise bringing the world total to nearly 8,000.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5AN24220091127

Bit of an alarming note from China:

It's the H5N1 we really need to worry about.  The rest is just being cautious.

whoops - double post

Yes, simple, comparing swine flu to other diseases, adding shark attacks and pianos falling on your head would have definatly made it more complicated. thanks for clearing that up. 

You missed the point which is that you have to at minimum look at the incidence rate along with the fatality rate.  What should I personally be more worried about?  According to your link I should be 91 times more worried about dying from TB than H1N1.  Why?  I looked up the stats and 111 people died of TB in Canada in 2006 and most of those patients also had AIDS.  Whereas, as has been posted, 309 people have already died of H1N1.  It also says that I should be 10 times more worried about dying of the plague and that's....pretty stupid.  The reality is that I don't actually worry about dying from any of them, but, as with all things I try to take appropriate precautions such as getitng a vaccine.

Well, if I had the choice, I would prefer to die of average  seasonal flu, (average age of death about 80) and not swine flu (aveaage age of death about 54)   As a male, my life exptancy is "only" 78 anyway!,  An average death from swine flu would cut 24 years off my average life.

But an average seasonal flu death would give me an extra couple of years!

It is even worse for females. They live longer to start with and they get most of the serious cases of swine flu and are more highly represented in the deaths.

Yes, simple, comparing swine flu to other diseases, adding shark attacks and pianos falling on your head would have definatly made it more complicated. thanks for clearing that up.