Who's getting the H1N1 shot?

[mykalberta]

Wow, the paranioa has hit all time proportion. My parents just called and told me to to get it.

Apparently in their Alberta retirement city of 12K they have run out of vaccine.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

No but you were saying that squalene was.

I was just pointing out that there have been adverse effects from squalene adjuvants in the past. You disregarded the article in its entirety, but I don't.

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.

What I have read is that for this vaccine to go through normal testing, it would take until sometime next year. I understand why they are not doing that, but it should still be a concern as adverse effects from past vaccines have taken several months to surface. The number of people tested is not the only variable to consider. And there seems to be a lot of different information out there regarding how much testing was actually done. Escuse me if i don't just take what is posted on here as the gospel. If I was in the medical profession and it was my OPINION that everyone should get vaccinated, I could say whatever I wanted. I'm a professional enviromental scientist and have worked in global warming studies, but I am sure that if posted my opinion on that and framed it with facts that supported my opinion (while leaving out facts that didn't), people would still be making up their own mind on the matter.

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.

Well you missed it then.

And mistakes 30 years ago are still pretty relevant considering we still make them all the time.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by fotze

You guys aren't getting it because you are scared of needles, right? Just admit it, we will understand.

I especially like getting the blood-gasses tested with the larger needle that has to get arterial blood. Because of this the needle has to go about half way through your wrist and bounce off the bone, ligaments and nerves all while bending the needle and moving around to find the artery.

that should ease the phobia of some of the posters

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I was just pointing out that there have been adverse effects from squalene adjuvants in the past. You disregarded the article in its entirety, but I don't.

I discount all articles, since science journalism is terrible. I asked for the evidence beyond the technically troubled GWS paper. I still have no evidence of adverse effects of squalene adjuvants, and with 22 million doses out there one would think that anyone interested would have studied them for it. It's possible no one is interested, but somehow I doubt that.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What I have read is that for this vaccine to go through normal testing, it would take until sometime next year. I understand why they are not doing that, but it should still be a concern as adverse effects from past vaccines have taken several months to surface.

Define "normal testing".. as has been pointed out, testing for a completely new vaccine would be till next year, and testing for seasonal vaccines is far shorter because the vaccine is identical, just the actual viruses used change. This one is like the seasonal; same vaccine, just a different virus. It's not a new vaccine, so a shorter testing period (but longer than the seasonal) is reasonable to those who do such things.

You or I can try to evaluate if that testing time is reasonable, but I don't think we'd be doing so based on anything resembling good reasons.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The number of people tested is not the only variable to consider. And there seems to be a lot of different information out there regarding how much testing was actually done. Escuse me if i don't just take what is posted on here as the gospel.

That's fine, but if you want your position to have merit you have to provide some support.. we have links to official sources, people who work in the industry posting, if you have information about how much testing has or has not been done then provide it. "There seems to be different information" isn't a compelling argument.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If I was in the medical profession and it was my OPINION that everyone should get vaccinated, I could say whatever I wanted. I'm a professional enviromental scientist and have worked in global warming studies, but I am sure that if posted my opinion on that and framed it with facts that supported my opinion (while leaving out facts that didn't), people would still be making up their own mind on the matter.

Sure, people most of the time think what they think for reasons far removed from the reality of the topic of thought. That's how the human mind works.. I don't get your point here.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Well you missed it then.

Missed what? I said I didn't recall me calling anyone names, I missed myself calling someone a name?

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And mistakes 30 years ago are still pretty relevant considering we still make them all the time.

So because we don't learn from some mistakes means that we never learn from any mistakes? This isn't a rational argument, it's an emotional one.

Mistakes from 30 years ago are very relevant because they are educational. Sometimes we learn, sometimes we don't, but to demonstrate that mistakes are being repeated requires evidence.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

I especially like getting the blood-gasses tested with the larger needle that has to get arterial blood. Because of this the needle has to go about half way through your wrist and bounce off the bone, ligaments and nerves all while bending the needle and moving around to find the artery.

that should ease the phobia of some of the posters

Yeah, I usually get those butterfly needles in my wrist when they take blood because they can never find anything in my arm after 10 tries on both sides.. and I have no problem watching that. But that one.. maybe I might look out the window.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

I discount all articles, since science journalism is terrible. I asked for the evidence beyond the technically troubled GWS paper. I still have no evidence of adverse effects of squalene adjuvants, and with 22 million doses out there one would think that anyone interested would have studied them for it. It's possible no one is interested, but somehow I doubt that.

That's the thing... I bet you could find anything "technically troubled" if you wanted to. Here's another article then (there are actually several):

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/320/7246/1363
https://www.mvrd.org/pdf/UofKReports.pdf

Define "normal testing".. as has been pointed out, testing for a completely new vaccine would be till next year, and testing for seasonal vaccines is far shorter because the vaccine is identical, just the actual viruses used change. This one is like the seasonal; same vaccine, just a different virus. It's not a new vaccine, so a shorter testing period (but longer than the seasonal) is reasonable to those who do such things.

I would describe normal as more than the 130 test subjects from a study done in Belgium over a short period of time... that no Canadian doctors or scientists were involved in. Again... is it tested longer than seasonal flu viruses? You'll have to do better than link to a someone's post. If my GWS articles are no good, how can a poster on CP be considered a better source?

And it's not an identical vaccine. This apparently the first time adjuvant is being used in a flu vaccine.

That's fine, but if you want your position to have merit you have to provide some support.. we have links to official sources, people who work in the industry posting, if you have information about how much testing has or has not been done then provide it. "There seems to be different information" isn't a compelling argument.

I don't know where you have been, but you can turn on the news or look on the internet and find sources from medical professionals that do provide different information. Go back through this thread if you have to.

Sure, people most of the time think what they think for reasons far removed from the reality of the topic of thought. That's how the human mind works.. I don't get your point here.

My point is that you can't just go to someone's post and use it as a "source" just because the person is in a particular profession. It's still an anonymous board.

Missed what? I said I didn't recall me calling anyone names, I missed myself calling someone a name?

Not you... people in general.

So because we don't learn from some mistakes means that we never learn from any mistakes? This isn't a rational argument, it's an emotional one.

Mistakes from 30 years ago are very relevant because they are educational. Sometimes we learn, sometimes we don't, but to demonstrate that mistakes are being repeated requires evidence.

I'm just saying that you can't take it for granted that because 30 years has gone by that we won't make the same mistake again (which is what it sounded like you were saying). Using time lapsed isn't really proof of anything. As far as I'm concerned, you're only as good as your last game. The last time they planned a mass immunization for Swine Flu, they messed up.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's the thing... I bet you could find anything "technically troubled" if you wanted to. Here's another article then (there are actually several):

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/320/7246/1363
https://www.mvrd.org/pdf/UofKReports.pdf

I didn't find it technically troubled, other scientists evaluated the paper and found it so. Getting published is the beginning, not the end.

For the links, the PDF one seemed very weak to me; it was reported in a psychological journal, not a medical one, and it seemed to depend a lot of self-reporting, almost assuming the vaccine - illness link rather than trying to establish it. If they're trying to establish a medical link, why publish in a psychological journal?

And both are only valid for people deployed in the Gulf War and related to multiple vaccines in a short time, as the first link says:

"Finally, our results should be viewed only in the narrow context of service personnel deployed to the Gulf war. The combination of multiple vaccines before deployment seems safe, and this study provides no evidence that vaccine regimens currently used in civilians are harmful."

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would describe normal as more than the 130 test subjects from a study done in Belgium over a short period of time... that no Canadian doctors or scientists were involved in. Again... is it tested longer than seasonal flu viruses? You'll have to do better than link to a someone's post. If my GWS articles are no good, how can a poster on CP be considered a better source?

Is 130 too few? I don't know, what's the normal number for a new vaccine? Maybe that's all they ever do? Without more information it's difficult to evaluate the number of 130.

Who cares where the scientists were born? That's just an appeal to emotion again.

I linked to Lchoy's post because he's been providing information from the FAQ provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And it's not an identical vaccine. This apparently the first time adjuvant is being used in a flu vaccine.

No but the adjuvant has been used elsewhere. To evaluate if having the adjuvant in the flu vaccine posts a significant risk compared with the known vaccine would require more knowledge of biology than I have, and the WHO held consultations to that effect already, and determined that there was no significant safety barriers to testing or implementing the vaccine.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't know where you have been, but you can turn on the news or look on the internet and find sources from medical professionals that do provide different information. Go back through this thread if you have to.

I see people (including doctors) saying "not enough testing has been done", but I don't see anyone actually being specific and saying "x testing was done, y is the amount of testing normally done, and z a and b are the reasons why this warrants more testing." It's all been fuzzy "it's not enough" statements that I've seen anyway, but I haven't read every post in the thread so I'll skim back and look.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My point is that you can't just go to someone's post and use it as a "source" just because the person is in a particular profession. It's still an anonymous board.

True, I should have mentioned that Lchoy was using the Public Health Agency of Canada as his source.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Not you... people in general.

Well my original statement was about myself; I can't be responsible for others.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm just saying that you can't take it for granted that because 30 years has gone by that we won't make the same mistake again (which is what it sounded like you were saying). Using time lapsed isn't really proof of anything. As far as I'm concerned, you're only as good as your last game. The last time they planned a mass immunization for Swine Flu, they messed up.

I didn't say that you can take it for granted that the same mistakes won't be made. I said that one can't assume that the same mistakes will be made, and to infer that they are making the same mistakes would require evidence to that effect.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't find it technically troubled, other scientists evaluated the paper and found it so. Getting published is the beginning, not the end.

For the links, the PDF one seemed very weak to me; it was reported in a psychological journal, not a medical one, and it seemed to depend a lot of self-reporting, almost assuming the vaccine - illness link rather than trying to establish it. If they're trying to establish a medical link, why publish in a psychological journal?

And both are only valid for people deployed in the Gulf War and related to multiple vaccines in a short time, as the first link says:

"Finally, our results should be viewed only in the narrow context of service personnel deployed to the Gulf war. The combination of multiple vaccines before deployment seems safe, and this study provides no evidence that vaccine regimens currently used in civilians are harmful."

My intention wasn't to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines or adjuvant is harmful, but only that the question is there and debated in the scientific community. People aren't just pulling these issues out of thin air which some people seem to think. I think it's a valid reason to take a wait-and-see approach with this vaccine.

Is 130 too few? I don't know, what's the normal number for a new vaccine? Maybe that's all they ever do? Without more information it's difficult to evaluate the number of 130.

Well, hypathetically speaking, if the adverse side effects appeared 1% of people, that sample size would be too small as there would be a reasonably big chance none of them would get it, or not enough to make it valid.... yet that would be a big enough number to be a concern imo.

Who cares where the scientists were born? That's just an appeal to emotion again.

It's not where they were born, but where they did the study. Every country has certain standards and we don't know if their standards are the same. Did they screen the test subject like we would? I bet most if not all the people getting the vaccine don't know. At least if it was a Canadian study, that information would be more accessible.

I linked to Lchoy's post because he's been providing information from the FAQ provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Well, it's different information than CBC is reporting.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/...-approval.html

That's the story for virtually all drugs — including vaccines. Yet it took only a few months for Health Canada to give the go ahead to Arepranix H1N1. That's the vaccine GlaxoSmithKline has developed exclusively in the Canadian fight against the swine flu pandemic.

The reason is that Section 30.1 of the Food and Drugs Act gives the minister of health the authority to fast-track a drug, "to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to human health, public safety, or the environment."

GlaxoSmithKline has been making all of Canada's flu vaccines for nearly a decade. Normally, it takes the company about six months to produce a season's flu vaccine - once a particular strain of virus has been identified.

No but the adjuvant has been used elsewhere. To evaluate if having the adjuvant in the flu vaccine posts a significant risk compared with the known vaccine would require more knowledge of biology than I have, and the WHO held consultations to that effect already, and determined that there was no significant safety barriers to testing or implementing the vaccine.

That's great news... but it will be even better news once enough time goes by that we actually know for sure.

I didn't say that you can take it for granted that the same mistakes won't be made. I said that one can't assume that the same mistakes will be made, and to infer that they are making the same mistakes would require evidence to that effect.

Nor can we infer anything else (like that we learned enough from the mistake). But if we're talking about vaccine track records, as most people who are demanding people go out and get it immediately (with no questions asked) are, then you need to bring up the mishaps as well as the successes. The truth is, vaccines in general, have been a great thing... but there is risk. When I see people talking down to others and calling them stupid and selfish for not getting the vaccine, I think it's necessary to point out that the apprehension is based on something real. It's not irrational.

[photon]

And that I can agree on.. there is always risk, and it should be weighed. And it's difficult for us as as the unwashed masses to weigh it, and I blame that on the shoddy media science reporting and science itself for communication sometimes.

And insulting someone never helps.

For some it's not irrational, but going by some of the people my wife and I have spoken with in the past few days, I know that for some it's completely irrational and that they do in fact deserve the insults I would hurl their way if I wasn't so polite. And I wouldn't call them stupid because it would absolve them of responsibility.

[Devils'Advocate]

*grumble* Some ass is going around the neighborhood putting home printer printed notes in everyones mailbox suggesting outright the squalene is going to give you Gulf War Syndrome. It was in there when I got home. Had I been home I would have held him for trespassing.

When some kid dies because their parents were afraid to get the vaccine because of these anti-government scare-mongers, I think they need to be charged with murder. I usually have no problem with conspiracy theorists - 9/11 was an inside job, the government is implanting us with tracking devices, the reason we switched to digital television is because the government put microchips in all the set top boxes to listen to our conversations. They are funny and make me laugh. BUT THIS ONE IS GOING TO COST LIVES. People are going to DIE because of this fear mongering. And it pisses me off.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

*grumble* Some ass is going around the neighborhood putting home printer printed notes in everyones mailbox suggesting outright the squalene is going to give you Gulf War Syndrome. It was in there when I got home. Had I been home I would have held him for trespassing.

When some kid dies because their parents were afraid to get the vaccine because of these anti-government scare-mongers, I think they need to be charged with murder. I usually have no problem with conspiracy theorists - 9/11 was an inside job, the government is implanting us with tracking devices, the reason we switched to digital television is because the government put microchips in all the set top boxes to listen to our conversations. They are funny and make me laugh. BUT THIS ONE IS GOING TO COST LIVES. People are going to DIE because of this fear mongering. And it pisses me off.

Luckily, due to the relatively milder symptoms of this strain the number of deaths likely won't be catastrophically high. However, the financial strain on the medical system could be (and likely will be) crippling. Talking to numerous family physicians, many clinics are functioning at well over 100% capacity. This will cost the government huge sums of money and will be worsened by the complications suffered by patients with chronic conditions being unable to see their primary care physicians.

I'm not sure how many people read the "Wired" magazine link posted earlier in the thread, but when did it come into style to discount the opinions of experts in their particular fields. If I want my taxes done, I have a CA do them; if I need to go to court, I hire a lawyer; but god forbid I trust physicians with decades of training when it comes to our health.

[automaton 3]

^^^I've talked to 2 nurses and 1 doctor that are friends in the last couple of days, and what they are telling me privately is....they're not sure either. Sounds like they are all leaning towards getting the shot out of an abundance of caution, but when the professionals that I know and trust are unsure it doesn't help my confidence much.

[pylon]

I went last night to get the vaccine, and I'm glad I did. It is not my health I am concerned about as much as those around me, particularily my mother who has a terribly weak immune system from past maladies. I have one co-worker who's wife is currently on life support and dying from H1N1 related pneumonia. Another coworkers friend who's pregnant daughter is currently comatose and had her baby removed a month early via C-section. And two other people I know who have gone through hell because of this virus. I do not wish to be an agent of death, and drop this on my mothers door step. As much as I hate vaccines, I am not that selfish.

Anyone telling you that health care workers are not taking this are not talking to many health care workers. I have asked 6 of my customers in the health care industry if they are getting vaccinated, and all 6 either have been or will be. And straight from the mouth of a family physician I spoke with yesterday.

"It is sad that uneducated fear mongers are talking people into not getting this vaccine. There is more mercury in a can of tuna, or a cigarette than there is in a vaccine dose."

I for one cannot understand how people are so bad at math. It is estimated that severe side effects from the vaccine causing death are around 1 in a million. It is estimated that un-vaccinated individuals have a 25-30 percent chance of getting this flu regardless of how healthy they feel they are.

Also, as pointed out by the doctor. Why would governments spend billion handing out free doses of this stuff if there wasn't sufficient evidence this could cripple the health care system? Especially in these economic times? The reason they are offering it is simply because they know if this thing gets loose it will cost billions more to rehabilitate those infected.

I feel bad for those who got sick before the vaccine was available, but I can't feel sorry for those who will succumb to this by choosing not to take the appropriate precautions, and listen to a bunch of fear mongering conspiracy theorists.

[theg69]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

^^^I've talked to 2 nurses and 1 doctor that are friends in the last couple of days, and what they are telling me privately is....they're not sure either. Sounds like they are all leaning towards getting the shot out of an abundance of caution, but when the professionals that I know and trust are unsure it doesn't help my confidence much.

FYI, the reason why health professionals are unsure stem from the fact that the initial clinical trial that tested the H1N1 vaccine was a sample size of 135 or so people (around that number) in Belgium, because there was such a rush to get it out. As such, it is not as thoroughly tested as other vaccines.

Secondly, the last time we have an influenza vaccine where one was rushed at this rate, the risk of developing Guillaime-Barre syndrome (a neurological disorder) was significantly increased with this vaccine compared to other regularly developed vaccines (granted this was a few decades ago and I hope our technology is much better these days).

However, all that being said, all the risk of getting the vaccine is still much lower than the risk of not getting it. FYI, there are a significant number of people in ICU at the PLC and other hospitals, and a lot of these were previously healthy individuals.

Now, I know the choice is very individual, but if you fit into any of the high-risk groups, I would strongly recommend you getting the vaccine.
I am surprised by the large number of nos on the board, TBQH.

BTW, I already got my vaccine a couple days ago, but mostly because I am in a high risk group, seeing numerous patients with flu-like symptoms on a daily basis.

[starseed]

I have had a terrible month, I would not be surprised if I contract this virus.

I will be getting this and a tetanus shot as soon as I have a few days to myself.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by theg69

Now, I know the choice is very individual, but if you fit into any of the high-risk groups, I would strongly recommend you getting the vaccine.
I am surprised by the large number of nos on the board, TBQH.

I'm going to contradict my earlier posts in this thread...

Both the flier that came in the mail from Health Canada yesterday and the current Alberta Health website say that people under 65 with chronic medical conditions, pregnant women, children between 6 months and five years old and healthcare workers are the high-risk groups. Or at least "the people who would most benefit from the vaccine".

It doesn't really fit the demographic of this website.

This is like a big game of "Telephone".

[Cain]

I read about half this thread, but it is incredibly large so if this is a repeat, I apologize.

I am not all that motivated to get this shot, but my father who is a talented doctor in calgary sent me an article to read. He is quite adamant that any risk that you might possibly associate with getting a flu shot compared to the possibility of actually getting the flu and the complications that follow astronomical in difference.

I'm not sure where people might be getting the idea that the H1N1 flu only goes after the elderly or young, nor that it is a pushover to overcome once you are affected. Younger people have no immunity whatsoever to this strain, whereas some of the older folk might have been exposed to a similar strain earlier on in their lives.

I'd strongly recommend that everyone gets this shot. Between my father who works here, and my uncle who works for the WHO and was an epidemiologist before that...they are both in agreement that it would be stupid, and as pointed out in the article, selfish not to. Both are very smart men in the medical field.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1339120/

[Boblobla]

Well, our poll reflects the poll in the globe and mail article.

[Ford Prefect]

Thanks to all those who aren't getting a flu shot. You shortened my wait time by half. Cheers.

Enjoy the flu.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

^^^I've talked to 2 nurses and 1 doctor that are friends in the last couple of days, and what they are telling me privately is....they're not sure either. Sounds like they are all leaning towards getting the shot out of an abundance of caution, but when the professionals that I know and trust are unsure it doesn't help my confidence much.

To be fair, being a doctor or nurse doesn't necessarily make someone an expert on flu vaccinations. Sure most doctors are probably in a better position to comment on the subject, but they aren't all experts on it.

It's the same as other professions. Would you ask a chemical engineer to have a look at the desing of your roof truss? Sure he probably knows more about it than a non engineer, but he's no expert.