Who's getting the H1N1 shot?

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You can buy a lot of things at health stores that I wouldn't necessarily want to inject into my bloodstream.

The human body is extremely sensitive to some changes in chemistry. Just because a background level of something exists, it does not mean that it is ok to raise it by any amount.

That's true, but just because the body is sensitive to some things doesn't mean that it is sensitive to this thing. With positive evidence that it is not significantly harmful and a lack of evidence that it is harmful, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that it's not harmful, until more information comes available.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Didn't they say on the news last night that they were going to allow family doctors and pharmacists (who had a specific certification) to administer the vaccine soon?

Pharmacists would be nice... getting in to see my family doctor is usually a 1 to 2 month wait

[LChoy]

Part of the reason for the backlog was that the vaccine arrived earlier than expected.
Family doctors will be getting supplies soon as will qualified Pharmacists

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Ahahahahahahaha, No spitting. Selfish footballers.

Unless you are licking gobs off the pitch, how is it going to infect you?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

That's true, but just because the body is sensitive to some things doesn't mean that it is sensitive to this thing. With positive evidence that it is not significantly harmful and a lack of evidence that it is harmful, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that it's not harmful, until more information comes available.

At the very least, it's debatable:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=squalene+risks&hl=en

Many peer reviewed studies indicate health problems related to squalene. That to me says that there is a measurable risk and anyone taking it should be aware of that.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

I dunno, seems like heresay. There are 10 million healthy people in Europe that have been vaccinated and the base of the vaccine has been around for many years. The adjuvant additive bothered me a little at first because I thought there was a lack of research, but the more I looked into it and the more health professionals I talked to, the faster I realized that there was really no reason to be concerned.

However, there is a lot of BS information out there. Just go read the comment section on any of our local papers. It's really mind-blowing reading some people opinions on this thing.

Frankly, its really mind-blowing reading some CP opinions on this thing.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Just a question... I'm afraid of needles and would rather not have to SEE them giving it to me. Will they stick it in my ass cheek if I request it?

I'm afraid having your big harry ass exposed to all and sundry who are also there getting their shots is probably out of the question....
but I'm sure the nurse will let you bury your head in her chest while she's giving you the big bad needle.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

At the very least, it's debatable:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=squalene+risks&hl=en

Many peer reviewed studies indicate health problems related to squalene. That to me says that there is a measurable risk and anyone taking it should be aware of that.

The first one is a review which proposes squalene as the agent which results in lower breast cancer in women with a higher consumption of olive oil.

The second hit is a study about squalene acting to prevent induced cancer in lab tests, and how it might accomplish that.

The third one just talks about how squalene might be an antioxidant and about the lower cancer again.

The fourth is about how squalene fights arsenic.

The fifth is about squalene levels being measured to see if "enhanced absorption and reduced synthesis of cholesterol may be related to coronary atherosclerosis".

The sixth is about olive oil seeds being antioxidants and how much squalene is in them.

So nothing negative about it. I can't read them all, which ones are the "peer reviewed studies indicate health problems related to squalene"?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I have already declared myself to be with the wait and see crowd. Today on the way into work they said on the radio that 12 people have died in AB from H1N1. I'd need to know what state of health they were in, ages etc. to affect my decision. Also there are always a number of deaths from the flu every year.

Once they start on the general population and with more information I'll make an informed decision.

Maybe it might be too late for you by then. We might be in the middle of a H1N1 epidemic and even if you do get your shot, it won't become effective for another 2 weeks after you get it.
Apparently the H1N1 flu spreads very easily and quickly.

Ever hear of closing the barn door after the horse got out?

[mac_82]

For all you seasonal flu vaccination types:

Flu vaccines confer immunity for one to two years. Actually getting sick with the flu can result in immunity from that particular strain that lasts 20 years or more, CDC tests show. That's why older adults may have a certain degree of protection against H1N1 — because many of them were exposed to a close cousin of this strain that circulated before 1957.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...children_N.htm

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by mac_82

For all you seasonal flu vaccination types:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...children_N.htm

So what are you trying to say? The pull quote you used isn't from the article you linked to. The article supports vaccination:

Tun-Hou Lee, a professor of virology at the Harvard School of Public Health, [says] what does boost the immune system is vaccination.

[malcolmk14]

I went to Okotoks this morning. Got there around 10:50, they started injections at 12. I was out of there by 12:45.

The line was very long when I left.

[mac_82]

Originally Posted by Sliver

So what are you trying to say? The pull quote you used isn't from the article you linked to. The article supports vaccination:

Down near the bottom under: Most vaccine from killed virus.

Followed by:

So neither vaccination nor getting the flu ensure protection against future strains.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by mac_82

Down near the bottom under: Most vaccine from killed virus.

Followed by:

Not trying to be a dick but I think that's fairly common knowledge. That's why you get an annual flu vaccine.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Hmmm...that number does seem low. The percentage of stupid people should be much higher.

You made me spill my coffee!!!

[Suave]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

A friend of mine is an ER Nurse. During the summer there was a discussion about getting flu/H1N1 shots and she poo-poo'ed. She has worked in the ER for years and has never gotten the shot.

I spoke to her recently, and she is telling everyone she knows to get immunized and she has seen and heard a bunch of scary stuff.

An experienced ER nurse with stories about watching people being dumped after they were shot, who has had her ER locked down for fear of gangs looking to "finish the job", saying this is scary stuff.

Just to add to this I was talking to a Pediatrics Emergency Doctor today, although not in Calgary, and they set a record for admissions yesterday. The emergency department is now operating at over 200% capacity. Emails have gone out to all doctors on Mat leave, vacation etc., to see if they can come back. Not only is it a volume issue but they are also short staffed since a good number of them have already contracted H1N1 and are on sick leave. Let’s hope this doesn't really hit hard or else it's going to get ugly.

[mac_82]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Not trying to be a dick but I think that's fairly common knowledge. That's why you get an annual flu vaccine.

I actually found it quite interesting that when you body fights off the Flu on it's own the immunity lasts 18+ years longer than getting a vaccine. I had done a lot of reading on the subject and this was the first I had heard of how long the immune response lasts between the 2.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by mac_82

I actually found it quite interesting that when you body fights off the Flu on it's own the immunity lasts 18+ years longer than getting a vaccine. I had done a lot of reading on the subject and this was the first I had heard of how long the immune response lasts between the 2.

Just a note too. The annual flu shot is for the most prominent strains of the virus prevelant in that year. The other method you suggest involves catching the most prominent strain of that year. So by your logic you would get sick each and every flu season, but then be immune to that particular strain for a long time. Doesn't add up.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I went to Okotoks this morning. Got there around 10:50, they started injections at 12. I was out of there by 12:45.

The line was very long when I left.

Apparently, the line-up in Cochrane is short too. There's probably like 100 of these injection clinics in rural Alberta and only the 4 or 5 for all of Calgary.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

The first one is a review which proposes squalene as the agent which results in lower breast cancer in women with a higher consumption of olive oil.

The second hit is a study about squalene acting to prevent induced cancer in lab tests, and how it might accomplish that.

The third one just talks about how squalene might be an antioxidant and about the lower cancer again.

The fourth is about how squalene fights arsenic.

The fifth is about squalene levels being measured to see if "enhanced absorption and reduced synthesis of cholesterol may be related to coronary atherosclerosis".

The sixth is about olive oil seeds being antioxidants and how much squalene is in them.

So nothing negative about it. I can't read them all, which ones are the "peer reviewed studies indicate health problems related to squalene"?

For example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2eb70f12c286f1


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19388722

Both of which would argue that it is debatable that vaccines with adjuvant may do harm.

The question I have for you is, if given the choice between the vaccine with adjuvant and the one without, which one would you take based on the evidence (or lack there of)?

The fact that people with the choice or who are already sick are in fact getting the non-adjuvant formula speaks volumes I think.