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)?
You are ignoring every fact presented in this thread from numerous health professionals on the evidence and testing of the adjuvanted shot. Also, that's not the choice being offered. Right now the only choice you have is to get the adjuvanted shot or to not get the shot at all.
You are ignoring every fact presented in this thread from numerous health professionals on the evidence and testing of the adjuvanted shot.
I'm not ignoring it. They are going with the information they are being told because the government wants people to get it. They are only presenting their side of the story and are ignoring past botched mass vaccinations. There are doctors (maybe not CP specialists) who think we should be more cautious. I personally talked to someone with a background in this and he is being cautious about getting it. Sorry if I don't use CP as my primary site for making these decisions.
I'll weigh the risks and make the decision when I am ready and know more. I'm not going to go willy-nilly and get shot of something that has been barely tested just because of the hype.
Quote:
Also, that's not the choice being offered. Right now the only choice you have is to get the adjuvanted shot or to not get the shot at all.
I said "if" you had the choice. It's a hypathetical question.
Also, here is a good story about the botched immunization of the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak:
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.
The reason I mentioned it and quoted the article was just for this point:
Quote:
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.
If a hypothetical "flu shot" was available for this strain pre-1957, those that received it would have lost the degree of protection to its close cousin, the current swine flu H1N1. But those that wouldn't have gotten the shot have that "certain degree of protection".
Hypothetical situation aside, I just thought it was an interesting point. Not trying to fling mud in this pro-vax anti-vax debate.
The Following User Says Thank You to mac_82 For This Useful Post:
I wonder if Tower is bouncing off the walls wanting to post in this thread?
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Both of which would argue that it is debatable that vaccines with adjuvant may do harm.
I thought we were talking specifically about squalene being harmful, not vaccines with adjuvants. Don't move the goalposts...
The first link is dependent on the paper which I had mentioned had been questioned technically, so it's results should be questioned as well. Plus the second paper simply says "These results suggest that the production of ASA in GWS patients is linked to the presence of squalene in certain lots of anthrax vaccine.", which doesn't establish that it is harmful. That's all covered in the .mil link I provided.
The second link says "Our review indicates that, with rare exceptions, associations between vaccines and GBS have been only temporal. There is little evidence to support a causal association with most vaccines."
And a related paper said:
"An increased risk of GBS may be also related to vaccination, but with presently used vaccines this increase remains below one case of GBS per one million doses."
So still I don't see any health problems related to squalene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
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)?
All things being equal, the one without, because apparently you get more sore from the one with the adjuvant and could get a small fever.
That's with all other things being equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
The fact that people with the choice or who are already sick are in fact getting the non-adjuvant formula speaks volumes I think.
Because they've all read all the clinical trials and papers related to the topic, that's why their choices speak volumes? Most people walking in probably don't even know what an adjuvant is.
Give anyone a choice between two products which give the same end result (immunity to H1N1) and one has less "stuff" in it than the other, of course everyone will pick the "less stuff" one, even completely ignorant of everything else other than it has "less stuff", that's just human nature.
The reason I mentioned it and quoted the article was just for this point:
If a hypothetical "flu shot" was available for this strain pre-1957, those that received it would have lost the degree of protection to its close cousin, the current swine flu H1N1. But those that wouldn't have gotten the shot have that "certain degree of protection".
Hypothetical situation aside, I just thought it was an interesting point. Not trying to fling mud in this pro-vax anti-vax debate.
Yeah I read it too but I think you have to paste the whole quote to give it the context
Quote:
There are two types of vaccine available against both seasonal and H1N1 flu. About 80% is in the form of shots made from killed virus. FluMist nasal spray, which makes up about 20% of the H1N1 vaccine supply, uses live, weakened virus to provoke an immune response.
The live but weakened ("attenuated") virus creates all three immune responses, Lee says. "You can almost treat the FluMist as a natural infection," Lee says. The shots only provoke an antibody response.
One thing that is different is how long the immune response lasts. 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.
It makes sense because getting a seasonal vaccine only triggers 1 stage of the immune system while getting actually sick with influenza engages all parts of the immune system and creates a greater memory imprint. However, H1N1 vaccine is tailored specifically to that strain and with the addition of an adjuvant to cause a immune response, will confer a good immune memory to H1N1-like strains in the future.
Give anyone a choice between two products which give the same end result (immunity to H1N1) and one has less "stuff" in it than the other, of course everyone will pick the "less stuff" one, even completely ignorant of everything else other than it has "less stuff", that's just human nature.
A species instinctive nature is what keeps is surviving.
There is a reason that top government officials in Germany have secured the pure vaccine for themselves while distributing the adjuvant version to the public. It's because they could.... and I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens here.
I'm not ignoring it. They are going with the information they are being told because the government wants people to get it. They are only presenting their side of the story and are ignoring past botched mass vaccinations.
This makes no sense.. how do past incidents have anything to do with the test results of the current situation?
How is "Current tests with H1N1 vaccines show x y and z oh but keep in mind that 30 years ago there was a vaccine that had some problems!" in any way meaningful? That's just an appeal to emotion to try and scare someone.
Don't buy a car today because GM built some cars where they burst into flame makes about as much sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
There are doctors (maybe not CP specialists) who think we should be more cautious. I personally talked to someone with a background in this and he is being cautious about getting it. Sorry if I don't use CP as my primary site for making these decisions.
This is true, I've heard of some physicians being cautious, but outside of the unpublished report about the likelihood of getting the flu being twice as much after H1N1 vaccination, I haven't heard why those physicians are cautious.
A species instinctive nature is what keeps is surviving.
I would hardly call a seat of the pants judgment (that injecting less is better for you than injecting more) based on no information an instinct. Medical care hasn't been around long enough for evolution to make it part of our instincts.
OTTAWA — The lack of made-in-Canada medical evidence used to determine the safety of the H1N1 vaccine is a symptom of a weak and poorly funded public-health system, says one of this country's leading infectious disease experts.
Those weaknesses are apparent when quick, decisive action is needed to respond to a pandemic, Dr. Allison McGeer, director of infection control at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, said Tuesday.
"We, as a society, are unwilling to pay for public health in this country," said McGeer. "We systematically underfund public health badly and seriously. And if we don't fund public health, they can't do their job."
McGeer was responding to Health Canada's decision last week to approve the H1N1 vaccine without evaluating its safety and effectiveness in a single Canadian.
Instead, the federal drug regulator approved the pandemic flu shot based on the results of a small clinical trial conducted in Belgium.
The study involved 130 healthy adults, who were inoculated with the same version of Canada's vaccine, which is produced by GlaxoSmithKline under the trade name Arepanrix.
I would hardly call a seat of the pants judgment (that injecting less is better for you than injecting more) based on no information an instinct. Medical care hasn't been around long enough for evolution to make it part of our instincts.
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.
Quote:
This makes no sense.. how do past incidents have anything to do with the test results of the current situation?
How is "Current tests with H1N1 vaccines show x y and z oh but keep in mind that 30 years ago there was a vaccine that had some problems!" in any way meaningful? That's just an appeal to emotion to try and scare someone.
Don't buy a car today because GM built some cars where they burst into flame makes about as much sense.
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.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
There is a reason that top government officials in Germany have secured the pure vaccine for themselves while distributing the adjuvant version to the public. It's because they could.... and I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens here.
So? None of this does anything to establish that a) squalene is harmful and b) that the vaccinations are harmful.
All this proves is that someone decision maker in the German government decided to get a different one for government employees. You're "there is a reason" is true, but you haven't shown what that reason is or that it's a good reason. Some random bureaucrat probably read that the vaccine with the adjuvant in it caused more sorness, headache, and fever and decided the lost hours for the government staff due to reactions was worth getting the non-adjuvant version. Maybe the non-adjuvant version costs a lot more?
So? None of this does anything to establish that a) squalene is harmful and b) that the vaccinations are harmful.
Maybe you're not following me, but I never said that vaccines ARE definitely harmful. I am just saying that there is enough reason to believe that a rushed and poorly tested vaccine COULD be harmful and therefore people are perfectly within their right to not get vaccinated and don't deserve to be called names and what not.
Quote:
All this proves is that someone decision maker in the German government decided to get a different one for government employees. You're "there is a reason" is true, but you haven't shown what that reason is or that it's a good reason. Some random bureaucrat probably read that the vaccine with the adjuvant in it caused more sorness, headache, and fever and decided the lost hours for the government staff due to reactions was worth getting the non-adjuvant version. Maybe the non-adjuvant version costs a lot more?
It means the people making the decision thought it was a better option in light of the evidence they had. You know, the debate about adjuvants isn't new and didn't just start now. I'd be surprised if the politicians decision had nothing to do with with the unknown surrounding them with this particular vaccine.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Advice please.
OK. So a girl ended up coming back to my place on the weekend. She was kinda sick, but alcohol got in the way of both of our common sense I guess. Anyway, yada, yada, yada.....
She calls me today and tells me she has H1N1. I am showing no signs or symptoms. Does anyone know how long I would carry the virus before starting to feel it? I am really hoping I dodged a bullet here.
Update. I live in Thunder Bay and it seems to be spreading like wildfire here. Actually the Dr. told my friend that H1N1 is the only flu strain that is present in this area right now. Seems like every girl I know is displaying these "flu-like symptoms". Does anyone know how much more prevalent this may be in adult woman? Really there is no reason that I shouldn't have this other than that my body may be doing a better job of fighting it. Perhaps I am one of these contagious carriers.
__________________
I PROMISED MESS I WOULDN'T DO THIS
Maybe you're not following me, but I never said that vaccines ARE definitely harmful. I am just saying that there is enough reason to believe that a rushed and poorly tested vaccine COULD be harmful and therefore people are perfectly within their right to not get vaccinated and don't deserve to be called names and what not.
No but you were saying that squalene was.
I agree if the vaccine was poorly tested there would be reason to be concerned, but I don't think the vaccine is poorly tested. Less tested than others, more tested than some, due to the nature of the vaccine. Seems appropriate.
People are free to choose not to be vaccinated, just as others are free to question them on their decision and make points about doing something for the safety of others and such. And I don't recall calling anyone names, that's usually counter productive regardless the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
It means the people making the decision thought it was a better option in light of the evidence they had. You know, the debate about adjuvants isn't new and didn't just start now. I'd be surprised if the politicians decision had nothing to do with with the unknown surrounding them with this particular vaccine.
Exactly, they made the decision based on the evidence they had, AND the values and parameters they had set out. We have no idea if that evidence or parameters are any good.
Heck some governments still pay for homeopathy. Governments are stupid, that's why I like science.
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.
When you come across a grizzly in the woods.... instinct tells you to turn around and run like the devil was after you. Reason tells you to be calm, slowly back away, do not get the bear excited by acting like prey trying to rapidly escape.
but I still haven't seen anything that clearly shows that that risk is excessive or unwarranted.
Care to speculate as to why a flu vacine with an adjuvant has only been approved this year by HC when it would make perfect sense to have them for the harder to predict and more variable seasonal flu in years past?
I just don't get the absence of approval in the past.
