[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would call it instinct. A species without the ability to sense danger of ingesting something unknown probably wouldn't last long. It should be fairly obvious that it's not a wise thing to do.

And yet ignoring our instinct and ingesting unknown things has doubled our lifespan and increased our quality of life immensely. Ignoring our instincts and staying in a monogamous relationship has allowed society to advance.

Instincts are great when they make sense, and an annoyance when they have to be ignored and overcome for something better.

Instincts were formed out of the depths of a barbaric history.

Reason > instinct.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't see how that doesn't make sense. If something was botched before and now we have incomplete information and are testing it with lowered standards than usual, I think people should be a little worried. I know if or when I get the shot, I'll be monitoring my health a little more closely.

When you say "something is botched before", you would have a point if you were comparing two similar things.. but you aren't, only superficially. There's 30 years of change in science, ethics, methodology, analysis, statistics, etc between then and now.

It's like saying the Flames today should win the cup easily because they won in 89... it's still the Flames.

I don't see where the testing has lower standards than usual either.. from earlier:

Because H1N1 is caused by completely novel strains of virus that have not previously circulated in humans there are no historical data that vaccines against the strain are effective. This is the cause of the concern some of you have. However, the basic recipe for the vaccine remains same. The adjuvant used by GSK has been tested in approximately 45,000 people around the world and has been evaluated by Health Canada and other regulatory authorities as part of the review of the H5N1 vaccine in the pre-pandemic period. No significant safety concerns regarding the use of the adjuvanted vaccine were detected. It has also satisfied Health Canada's preliminary clinical trial standards. What is missing now is the data from a larger sample group, which for seasonal vaccinations, would not normally be available until after the influenza season is over.

Because H1N1 hit pandemic status so quickly, a vaccine had to be created rather quickly for it. As mentioned above, much of the regulatory work has already been completed before the Pandemic hit. The evaluation process will continue concurrent with production of the vaccine. Also due to the nature of a pandemic, more testing has put into this vaccine through cooperation between countries than a regular seasonal vaccine.
In the larger scope, in terms of safety testing, H1N1 has undergone more testing and scrutiny than the season flu shot, but less than a vaccine for a totally new vaccine.

Novel vaccine > H1N1 vaccine > Seasonal Flu vaccine

Which doesn't equate to "lower standards".

How much testing would satisfy you?

There's always risk when dealing with medication or putting anything into the body, but I still haven't seen anything that clearly shows that that risk is excessive or unwarranted.