Free flu shot, anyone?

[BurningYears]

haha yes!
pound it!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/09102...bump_pound_flu

[LChoy]

Thanks for getting out the release so quickly

The vaccine has officially been approved today. Alberta has changed its strategy a little this time. 90% of the flu strain in circulation is H1N1, so we'll be really promoting people get this vaccine. However, it would also mean the seasonal flu shot will be phased out except for high risk groups. (pregnant, young, elderly, chronic disease, Immunocompromised)
If you want to get your season flu shot, I recommend getting it in the next couple of days, otherwise it may be difficult to find.
For everyone else, this is the largest vaccination campaign in a very long time. I recommend getting the H1N1 vaccine as we are in the 2nd phase of the influenza season. H1N1 vaccine will be available for all Albertans 6 months and older at no cost

http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/714.asp
http://alberta.ca/acn/200910/2716178...231331BDB.html

Lchoy

[Ace]

Does getting the N1H1 Vaccine give you 100% protection (immunity)?

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Ace

Does getting the N1H1 Vaccine give you 100% protection (immunity)?

Physicians will say most vaccines that come out will give 60% to 90% protection, and the range will be narrowed down after a year when the data comes in. Initial testing however shows the efficacy of the vaccine nearer to the 90% mark.
short answer, no vaccine can give you 100% protection
However, this vaccine is really unique in that it'll be the most closely monitored in history, due to the awareness and controversy surrounding H1N1. Every major country is collecting data and analyzing it in real time, something that was only recently possible

[Shazam]

God I hope this isn't the vaccine that turns us all into zombies.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Burninator

When comes to matters that can be evaluated using the scientific method (like this issue) I consider myself to be open-minded to the facts. Someones way of thinking is irrelevant. If your way of thinking involves faulty reasoning, poor or no evidence, pre-scientific medicine or magic, then you are not supported by the facts. We all live in the same world and the same rules apply to everyone regardless of the way you think.

I guess my main concern is long-term, which is something that cannot be tested quickly.
As for the facts, everybody has facts but we all trust different people. Stats can be skewed, fudged, thrown around however any bias prefers. On a case like this, I think everybody should do what they personally feel is right.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Mark

I guess my main concern is long-term, which is something that cannot be tested quickly.

True, but flu vaccines have been used for a very long time and monitored pretty closely without any evidence of such effects. The one difference for the H1N1 vaccine from previous vaccines is the adjuvant, but they've been used for over 10 years in Europe without any adverse effects. There's also no biological reason why long-term effects would be affected.

Of course I'm biased in that I don't want to get influenza, and the flu vaccine will only be truly effective if a very large proportion of the population gets it since protection isn't 100% (the estimates I've heard are that around 60% of the population would need it to prevent a pandemic). So, out of pure self interest, I want everyone to get the vaccine.

[Top Shelf]

An interesting article in favor of not getting the H1N1 shot.

http://vran.org/in-the-news/swine-fl...eriment/#ref-8

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Top Shelf

An interesting article in favor of not getting the H1N1 shot.

http://vran.org/in-the-news/swine-fl...eriment/#ref-8

Anything on VRAN should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when it cites people like Joseph Mercola and Russell Blaylock (Mercola's contribution is rather thoroughly refuted here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851). The actual peer-reviewed studies referred to are all buried in a sub-file with no links; I don't have time to go through them all (particularly since there are no links - possibly to discourage people from following up on them), but I know some of them do not say what the authors of this paper seem to claim they do, and from the titles I suspect a lot of them have nothing to do with squalene or vaccinations. The one claim in that article that is valid is that there aren't really any safety data on pregnant women and young children for squalene-containing vaccines - that's why the non-adjuvated version is recommended for those groups.

Organizations like the Public Health Agency of Canada and the CDC actually want people to be healthy, as do the doctors and scientists working for these organizations, and they have a lot more expertise on evaluating the science than fringe groups like VRAN.