Who's getting the H1N1 shot?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

I think this is a fair comment, though as always the devil is in the details..

While the H1N1 vaccine isn't exactly like the seasonal ones, it isn't like it's a brand new vaccine either. This is where real expertise would be important; how is the H1N1 produced, how different is the process, at the points of difference how is it different and how much potential risk could be introduced, that sort of thing.

It would be very interesting to talk to someone who makes these or really understands the making of them to comment on that kind of thing, to quantify the risk.

Obviously most in the medical community rate the risk low enough to warrant going forward, but without knowing how those risks have been quantified and evaluated, neither you nor I can make an informed judgment about the risks of the H1N1 vaccine with respect to what you are talking about.

My boss is a professional chemist and he is pretty apprehensive about the squalene. He was trying to explain to me how it works and why it can be bad. Most of it was over my head, but I trust his opinion. For the record, he still might get the vaccine... but is undecided like me.

As I posted, other vaccines with boosters such as squalene have been scientifically studied and peer reviewed reports suggest that it has caused negative health effect in people in the past.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Sliver

which seemed to get you a little hot under the collar. .

It's your constant name calling of those that weigh the risks differently to you that grated me.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I still don't know what evidence you are using to support your opinion as I haven't seen you provide any (unless I missed it - this is a long thread). Would be nice to see where you're coming from on this, but I guess if you don't care enough to provide me with any I won't worry about it.

As I said. I'm reading the same literature as you. You find it thorough, I don't. Simple as that.

Maybe you can help me out and answer one of my main concerns re. why it has taken a pandemic for HC to approve an adjuvant containing flu vaccine when common sense dictates that this would be best practice in years past?

It's simple things like that, that are bugging me.

I can't see cost being an issue as surely prevention is cheaper than cure? Wouldn't adjuvants (which are nothing new) in seasonal vaccines have possibly saved lives over the years?

As you say agree to disagree. I apologize for calling you hysterical.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My boss is a professional chemist and he is pretty apprehensive about the squalene. He was trying to explain to me how it works and why it can be bad. Most of it was over my head, but I trust his opinion. For the record, he still might get the vaccine... but is undecided like me.

As I posted, other vaccines with boosters such as squalene have been scientifically studied and peer reviewed reports suggest that it has caused negative health effect in people in the past.

Which studies? It was found that the Gulf War veterans who were supposedly disabled from anti-squalene antibodies didn't get ANY squalene from vaccinations.. the anthrax vaccine did not contain any squalene. And the study was found to have technical deficiencies as well.

And 22 million vaccinations since 1997 in Europe with squalene is a pretty big research base to find any problems with it.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/to...nd_answers/en/

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm also kind of curious as to how many people who have already, or are going to rush out and get it, and also think that people who don't are "ignorant", "stupid", or "selfish"... are in the groups that doctors want or need to inocculate first? They are recommending that healthy non-pregnant people wait until higher risk people get theirs. I am getting the impression that it is becoming more of a free-for-all.

As a side note, doctors are now warning people with egg allergies to not get the H1N1 vaccine (probably too late for some people who "rushed"):

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

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

Which studies? It was found that the Gulf War veterans who were supposedly disabled from anti-squalene antibodies didn't get ANY squalene from vaccinations.. the anthrax vaccine did not contain any squalene. And the study was found to have technical deficiencies as well.

And 22 million vaccinations since 1997 in Europe with squalene is a pretty big research base to find any problems with it.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/to...nd_answers/en/

See the links I posted. They're referernced somewhere in there.

And the vaccine wasn't supposed to contain squalene, but later they found there was contamination.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bagor

It's your constant name calling of those that weigh the risks differently to you that grated me.


As I said. I'm reading the same literature as you. You find it thorough, I don't. Simple as that.

Maybe you can help me out and answer one of my main concerns re. why it has taken a pandemic for HC to approve an adjuvant containing flu vaccine when common sense dictates that this would be best practice in years past?

It's simple things like that, that are bugging me.

I can't see cost being an issue as surely prevention is cheaper than cure? Wouldn't adjuvants (which are nothing new) in seasonal vaccines have possibly saved lives over the years?

As you say agree to disagree. I apologize for calling you hysterical.

I guess I trust the conclusions our scientists have drawn from the available data. I also have not seen one shred of evidence to support the anti-vaccine nonsense. You ask about adjuvants - how the hell would I know anything about that? It comes back to trusting the experts on this - experts who have everything to gain from helping me and nothing to gain from misleading me.

And forget about government bodies if that makes you feel more comfortable. I think you'd have an impossible time finding one single medical doctor in Calgary that is opposed to this vaccine.

Where I fail to understand your perspective is when you say you've read the same evidence I have read, but have drawn a different conclusion. How is that even possible? You've read the Health Canada site, the WHO site, the Mayo Clinic site and the FDA site - all of which are unanimous in their support of the H1N1 vaccine - yet you disagree with them. On what basis are you qualified to refute their findings?

I assume you're as tired of this back and forth as I am - reply if you like, I'll read your response and thank you, but at this point I think we've said everything we can.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm also kind of curious as to how many people who have already, or are going to rush out and get it, and also think that people who don't are "ignorant", "stupid", or "selfish"... are in the groups that doctors want or need to inocculate first? They are recommending that healthy non-pregnant people wait until higher risk people get theirs. I am getting the impression that it is becoming more of a free-for-all.

I put that on the province. Other provinces have separate handling for high risk groups, while here in Alberta we've got people who need to get the vaccine who are forced to wait long hours because they're standing in the same line as people who shouldn't be a priority. Separate it into two lines (or even better, have a special clinic dedicated to the at-risk groups), and those problems would disappear.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I put that on the province. Other provinces have separate handling for high risk groups, while here in Alberta we've got people who need to get the vaccine who are forced to wait long hours because they're standing in the same line as people who shouldn't be a priority. Separate it into two lines (or even better, have a special clinic dedicated to the at-risk groups), and those problems would disappear.

I heard on the radio this morning that a seperate clinic at the Speed Skating Oval has been set up for pregnant people, the elderly and small children only. If that's true, it looks like your concern has been addressed. Not bad reaction time by the CHR on our third day into this.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I put that on the province. Other provinces have separate handling for high risk groups, while here in Alberta we've got people who need to get the vaccine who are forced to wait long hours because they're standing in the same line as people who shouldn't be a priority. Separate it into two lines (or even better, have a special clinic dedicated to the at-risk groups), and those problems would disappear.

It should also be a moral decision. People who are healthy and not considered "high-risk" should make the decision to be socially responsible without the government telling them. People who are not in those high risk groups and are deciding to get the shot before others who need it more are being hypocrites if they are calling out other people for not being socially responsible by choosing not to get the shot.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I heard on the radio this morning that a seperate clinic at the Speed Skating Oval has been set up for pregnant people, the elderly and small children only. If that's true, it looks like your concern has been addressed. Not bad reaction time by the CHR on our third day into this.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../11555551.html

People at the Olympic Oval are upset the city's fifth vaccination clinic wasn't better prepared and say they are dealing with waits similar to the other clinics in Calgary.

Seems things are just as bad there as any other clinic in the City.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

See the links I posted. They're referernced somewhere in there.

I did see that, the study linked is the one that has technical deficiencies as another published paper describes (I can't figure out which one without reading all the papers, which I am not doing right now).

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And the vaccine wasn't supposed to contain squalene, but later they found there was contamination.

There was a possible contamination in the order of 1 millionth the amount of squalene in the anthrax vaccine compared to an actual use of squalene in the 20+ million doses of vaccine used in Europe. The measured contamination is on the order of 1/10th the concentration of squalene naturally found in a normal person's blood, produced naturally by the liver.

EDIT: It was even found that fingerprints contain squalene, and suggested that contamination could be possible during the testing if the glassware wasn't sufficiently cleaned:

http://www.anthrax.osd.mil/resource/...ll.asp?cID=319

I mean you can buy squalene in heath food stores in far higher concentrations.

So I still don't see the established risk of squalene.

[The Goon]

Reading through this thread, comments on news articles, and warring Facebook statuses, there certainly is a lot of vitriol being thrown around by both vaccine proponents and opponents.

Great that there is such open discussion and arguing of points, but man, some people are ready to get into fistfights over this.

[LChoy]

Sorry for for being absent from the thread. As you can imagine, we have been pretty busy

For Vaccine safety question, I spoke to someone in Public Health and refered me to the same FAQ I've been referring to.

The H1N1 vaccine in Canada is very similar to the season vaccine in production. The main thing about the vaccine is the strain itself (novel strain)

Alberta, as part of Canada's national pandemic plan has already done a lot of the work to support approval of the pandemic vaccine. The remaining data requirements necessary for authorization of the H1N1 flu vaccine are similar to what is required each year to support the seasonal flu vaccine in Canada.

Seasonal influenza vaccines have a special approval process. The seasonal influenza vaccine is licensed each year via the filing of manufacturing and quality data and revised labelling material together with clinical trial data from a small clinical trial that assesses the tolerance and immune response to the vaccine. Therefore to answers Bagor's original question, testing for seasonal vaccines are pretty short in nature since it's the same thing pretty much year to year, and the safety issue is already established. It is just the testing to make sure a proper immunlogical support is established.

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

The other new thing about the H1N1 vaccine is the use of an adjuvant vaccine.

Adjuvant vaccines aren't new as it is available in other vaccinations. However, it's the first time it is available for a influenza vaccine.

As part of how seriously the government is treating this pandemic, Clinical trials have indicated that the unadjuvanted H1N1 flu vaccine does not deliver as strong of an immune response as was observed in previous trials with the adjuvanted H5N1 (avian or bird) flu vaccine. Studies show that even the best unadjuvanted flu vaccines only protect six out of 10 people who get the shot. Experts believe an adjuvanted flu vaccine could boost protection rates to as high as nine in 10. The adjuvanted vaccine provides much stronger cross-protection against virus drift, which is common in influenza viruses. Adjuvanted vaccine provides a broader spectrum of immunity as it protects against infection and severe disease even when the virus begins to change. Another reason for adjuvant use is that the entire world is developing vaccines for H1N1, and that adjuvant allows for more of the strain to go around. Therefore Adjuvanted vaccines could also be developed faster and immunization can begin sooner, which is relevant to the current spread of H1N1

However, because the evaluation was taking place in conjuction with production, it was only recently that it got Health Canada's approval for use. For Pregnant women, Health Canada was waiting for further study to make sure that adjuvant was okay for pregnant women (as you can imagine, it's a longer process to do clinical trials for this population). Just in case, and to reduce fears that the government is giving pregnant women untested adjuvant vaccine, the government ordered a small quantity of non-adjuvant vaccine just for pregnant women. It was suppose to be the first thing to arrive, but the quicker than expect approval of the adjuvant vaccine meant that Alberta started immunization of using adjuvant first, even though Pregnant women is one of the high risk groups

Because adjuvant boosts the immune response, there is the chance we'll see some more adverse reactions than the general flu shot. You may get a one day fever or feel a little sick. This is also why an elaborate monitoring system is in place and the increase testing scrutiny

I hope I answer most of your questions.
Pm me or msg me if I forgot anything

[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.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

I did see that, the study linked is the one that has technical deficiencies as another published paper describes (I can't figure out which one without reading all the papers, which I am not doing right now).



There was a possible contamination in the order of 1 millionth the amount of squalene in the anthrax vaccine compared to an actual use of squalene in the 20+ million doses of vaccine used in Europe. The measured contamination is on the order of 1/10th the concentration of squalene naturally found in a normal person's blood, produced naturally by the liver.

I mean you can buy squalene in heath food stores in far higher concentrations.

So I still don't see the established risk of squalene.

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.

[Boblobla]

I am out of thanks, Thanks Lchoy.

[You Need a Thneed]

What I don't get is the big uproar about the number of clinics. What does opening more clinics help, if there is only the same number of people to give out the vaccine?

How fast the vaccine is given out is determined by the amount of people doing the work, and not the number of clinic.

Saying "why does Calgary have only 4 clinics when Winnipeg has 12?" is totally beside the point.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

What I don't get is the big uproar about the number of clinics. What does opening more clinics help, if there is only the same number of people to give out the vaccine?

How fast the vaccine is given out is determined by the amount of people doing the work, and not the number of clinic.

Saying "why does Calgary have only 4 clinics when Winnipeg has 12?" is totally beside the point.

That totally makes sense and is a better way to look at it, but it's not as dramatic so it probably won't catch on lol.

[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?

[Boblobla]

Ahahahahahahaha, No spitting. Selfish footballers.

a uk health agency has warned footballers to stop their "disgusting" habit of spitting as it could lead to the spread of the h1n1 virus. A spokesman for the country's health protection agency was quoted by the press association as saying: "spitting is disgusting at all times. It's unhygienic and unhealthy, particularly if you spit close to other people.
''footballers, like the rest of us, wouldn't spit indoors so they shouldn't do it on the football pitch. If they are spitting near other people it could certainly increase the risk of passing on infections."