H1N1 Topic: The 'flu and the vaccine

[dirtrider]

http://www.sph.umich.edu/about/polioannouncement.html
Is this the kind of information you are looking for?

You bet, it's exactly the type of info I was asking for. Thank you. They were lucky to have Dr. Francis take over and do what he thought was a proper double blind test. Although kids who were vaccinated still got the polio, it was statistically less than the kids that didn't.

"Percentages in the placebo areas were: 67.5 paralytic, 17.6 non-paralytic, 7.2 doubtful, and 7.6 not polio. Specifically, 33 inoculated children receaving the complete vaccination series became paralyzed in the placebo areas. This is opposed to 115 uninoculated children. Similarly, in the observed areas there were 38 such children who became paralyzed, as opposed to 330 uninoculated children."

Now getting back to 2009, after 54 years after the polio tests, there doesn't seem to be a requirement to do a similar study on any other vaccines. Including the H1N1 testing that's being done by the NIH (if the double blind studies are being done, I didn't find them). Isn't that a little shabby? The governments make each drug that comes on the market do untold amount of research and make them conduct many double blind test, so why are they so lax when it comes to vaccines?

You can't say with scientific certaintity,just because the polio vaccine worked statistically against a population of non vaccinated, that the same results will occur with other dieaseas, such as smallpox, chickenpox, etc. That's like saying becasuse we passed Vioxx , we can release a similar anti-inflammatory drug without any testing.....that just won't wash......and we know what happened to Vioxx, hey? I tried to dig up something for smallpox but not too much luck, maybe you might want to give it whirl......Here's what I did find that's close but........you can decide if it's a heresy website.

".....A careful review of all smallpox cases occurring in North America and Europe during the period between 1950 and 1971 did show that those who had been previously vaccinated had a lower fatality rate than those who had never been vaccinated. Of the 680 smallpox victims during that period, 79 had never received vaccine and 41 of them died (52 percent). Of the 70 people with smallpox who were vaccinated in the previous 10 years, only one died (1.4 percent). Those people vaccinated over 20 years prior to exposure only had a fatality rate of 11 percent. Interestingly, the number of smallpox victims who had never received vaccine (79 total cases) was nearly equivalent to the number of cases with a history of vaccination in the previous 10 years (Mack, 1972).

The results of that study suggest that smallpox vaccine does significantly reduce the death rate from acquired smallpox, though it did not prevent the disease in those people. This lone survey of smallpox cases is often cited as proof that the vaccine reduces fatalities from smallpox......"

http://xrl.us/bgeaku

Here's a little historical prespective on your link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114166/

I couldn't read you last link as you have to subscrib.

[caffeine]

I'll have to call you on that. Those links absolutely does not address what we are talking about.
Especially the last two links one was for the safety and immunogencity of the H5N1 virus using 3 different adjuvants......now why is this relevant?

The other link was for the immunogencity of 2 different formulation of the H5N1 vaccines and it's effectivness in the cross protection against one of avian influenza strain. Nice smoke and mirrors but not even close to what we are writing about.

If you read the studies, it does answer your question. They all did serum antibody titers. At different times throughout the study period. This measures the amount of antibodies in the blood. If this value increases post vaccination, that means that the vaccine has had an effect. When you have more antibodies to a particular virus, your body has a better chance of defending against it. This is done for nearly every vaccine study. Some vaccines, or types of vaccines work better in this regard than others. Different ratios bring different reductions in the risk of contracting any given infection - ie influenza. If a vaccine doesn't meet these thresholds, it doesn't make it to the market. When you ask questions like "does it provide immunity for what you are being vaccinated for," your answer is here. Yes it does. Does providing immunity mean that you won't get the flu? No it doesn't. It means that your body is better prepared to fight off the flu. So, I know that one of your questions was "does it provide immunity for what you are being vaccinated for." Yes. Yes it does.

I think you were questioning the cost benefit too? Another question all together. A good question, harder to answer. The link on "herd immunity" is interesting, and that is the population benefit of vaccines. For that to occur, the vaccine has to work, but the program also has to be rolled out properly. Costs assoicated with that are high. Is the benefit there for the flu? Not sure, depends on what costs you think are reasonable. Is the benefit there for H1N1? This virus seems to spread faster than some of the seasonal strains. And while many experience mild symptoms, it is also associated with more severe respiratory complications in others. Are governments over reacting? Maybe. I lean towards "no," but that's just my opinion. As for safety? I am satisfied with the studies on safety at this point. All though each new vaccine that is developed is developed for a different strain, the ingredients in the different types of vaccines are the same. They have been tested, and will continue to be tested. Something may occur that changes my opinion on that, but that hasn't happened yet.

[Scadam]

Here's a very science-based viewpoint that's only a month old. It focuses a lot on the seasonal flu but might answer some of your questions (I noticed the phrase "double blind" quite a few times), and it has links to other information.

Flu Vaccine Efficacy
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040

Probably the most important link referenced in the article above is PubMed which has 19,000,000+ citations for biomedichal articles archived - you should be able to do your own research for as many questions as you want to hear the answer to:

US National Library of Medicine
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Use it much the same as google, without having to wade through false information - I'm sure you noticed when googling for the truth about the Sabin quote that there are hundreds if not thousands of links to articles/blogs repeating that same false information, but only one to the truth.

[dirtrider]

If you read the studies, it does answer your question. They all did serum antibody titers. At different times throughout the study period. This measures the amount of antibodies in the blood. If this value increases post vaccination, that means that the vaccine has had an effect. When you have more antibodies to a particular virus, your body has a better chance of defending against it. This is done for nearly every vaccine study. Some vaccines, or types of vaccines work better in this regard than others. Different ratios bring different reductions in the risk of contracting any given infection - ie influenza. If a vaccine doesn't meet these thresholds, it doesn't make it to the market. When you ask questions like "does it provide immunity for what you are being vaccinated for," your answer is here. Yes it does. Does providing immunity mean that you won't get the flu? No it doesn't. It means that your body is better prepared to fight off the flu. So, I know that one of your questions was "does it provide immunity for what you are being vaccinated for." Yes. Yes it does.

With all due respect caffeine, a measure of serum antibody titers after a vaccine is not a test of
the vaccine's effectivness against the virus.....all it does is measure's those particular subjects immune response to the virus. They are not double blind studies. For one everyone produces different amounts of antibodies for a given antigen. As I understand it, there is also a threashold where if enough antibodies are produced, the body elicits an immune response to the antigen, too much of it, then you get the dieaseas. I think that's how HIV works, they test for antibodies to see if you have it, but if you have too much, then you have AiDs....but then HIV is an another animal all together isn't it?....but I'm sidetrtacking. I'll finish off with this quote........ for now......or maybe we should agree to disagree?

"....What health officials also don’t tell you is that their claims of vaccine effectiveness are based on a misleading measure – the ability of the vaccine to produce antibodies against the virus. It is well known in immunology that circulating antibodies are not necessarily a measure of immunity from disease....."

scadam - I just read parts of your link.....some of the flu studies in fact seems to do DB studies, it's a fairly long articles with various other links....so I'll have to read them later. Thanks for the links tho'.

[caffeine]

Drtrider

Your quote is correct, `not necessarily a measure.` But those are the key words. `Not necessarily.` It very often is a measure, depending on the virus. HIV is so very different than influenza, so a comparison there doesn`t even remotely apply. HIV is a very interesting subject as well, but it`s like apples and oranges when comparing it to influenza.

Sure, we can agree to disagree.

It is interesting to go through this back and forth with posts. But it doesn`t really do justice to the complicated nature of the topic. It is easy to search around and find a quote to dispute a point that superficially at least seems to make sense, but when you drill down does not apply. There are countless viruses circulating out there. Vacinnes work for some, and for others we haven`t found a way to produce a vaccine that works. Each year, vaccines are produced for a few different types of flu strains. But still circulating out there, are all of the other flu strains of years past. Some vaccines provide cross-protection to other similiar viruses, some do not. This is one of the complicating factors in doin some of the types of studies you are asking for. The guiding principle behind doing a randomized, double blind, controlled study is to to keep it 100% controlled, so you can isolate and measure accurately your primary outcomes. It is easier to do with a therapeutic agent in a specific disease state. Does and anti-biotic work on a certain bacteria. Does an anti-hypertensive work on high blood pressure. Does insulin work in type 1 diabetes. Even then, it is a snap shot in a controlled environment. It gives you some direction, but doesn`t tell the whole story, in a world that is not a controlled environment. Does an anti-hypertensive work on high blood pressure - yes. In the real world, do people still have high blood pressure when they are on anti-hypertensives - yes, because they may take the pills, but they still eat like crap, add too much salt and don`t exercise. It`s hard in trials with therapeutic agents, but even harder in trials with prophylactic agents like vaccines. You can control easier for things like safety, and efficacy in individuals immune response (which in influenza we know affects the ability to fight off the infection, in HIV we know does not because the virus works differently).It`s much harder to do a controlled study after the fact - ie looking at people who had the vacinne, and got sick vs. those who did not. In actual fact, this would not be a controlled study, it would be more like a retro-spective analysis, that looked at the question, but did not control for other confounding factors.

So, anyways, this is getting a little long-winded. We were probably sniping back and forth at each other on previous posts, which I guess takes away from the arguments, and on my end I will try to avoid that and apologize if I offended. We can agree to disagree. I do encourage you, in the friendliest way possible, to have a look at a few things such as `levels of evidence`` which expalins the different types of scientific studies, where they are more useful, and where they are less useful. There are several different levels, they all have their strengths and weaknesses, and they all provide only a wedge of information which you then have to integrate with all of the other known information to get a clear understanding. My position, based on my knowledge and experience with topic, and first hand knowledge with how and why studies are designed the way they are, is that what has been done, and what is available for influenza vaccines, including h1n1 is appropriate. However my mind is open to change if info comes along to refute that. Studies are a world of statistical analysis and probabilities, and the real world is just the real world and you try to predict what will happen based on those probabilities. At this point in time, I believe that the probable benefit of having seasonal flu vaccine, and h1n1 vaccine is greater than the risk of not having it. Factoring in cost, I still believe this to be true, especially for the elderly and children. (Less so for adults, unless they are health care workers, teachers, etc.).

So, there you go, I know you don`t agree, but thanks for the back and forth and discussion. Cheers.

[dirtrider]

Your quote is correct, `not necessarily a measure.` But those are the key words. `Not necessarily.` It very often is a measure, depending on the virus..."

Exactly my point caffeine, if it is a measure, do you not have to quantify it against a control group? To see if the antibodies produced by the vaccine somehow imparts a statistically significant immunity against the virus? That is exactly what Dr. Francis did with the polio vaccine. Fifty five years after his study, where he measure a controled unvaccinated group in a randomlized population to ones that were vaccinated, his results are still valid today. It's beyond repproach even from anti-vaccine opponents....and I have to point out that this study was done in the real world.

I started this discussion railing against the cost benefit of the H1N1 vaccine especially in the light of the contradiction between the "mildness" of this flu versus the "scare". I am not an anti vaccine advocate. I've dutifully taken all my vaccines and at the urging of the government, I've gotten my
annual flu shots. But during the course of my discussion and research on the topic on this board, I am seriously having doubt about the effectivness and safety of our current flu vaccine program.
My background, interests, and my job are all science based, so I am not too swayed by sham websites and take them with a grain of salt....of course with the exception of the Sabin quote.

I've done a lot of reading about the flu, from production, to testing, distribution, reporting, analysis, etc in the last couple of weeks. What I've found is shocking.....from how flu shots are manufactured, how the strains are determined (guesses), how there is an appalling lack of testing for both the effectiveness of the vaccine aginst the virus and the safety(none), the outright exaggeration of the flu deaths (guesses as well) and of course the associated costs with what I think are questionable results. IMO, as the flu vaccine program stands today, it's a sham.

I guess I'll leave it at that and perhaps if there are changes to some of my concerns, I'll start taking taking the flu shots again. All in all caffeine, it's been a pleasure discussing this with you. For now anyways, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Cheers

[kompili]

Below is a great link for all those who rushed to get the flue shot. Merry Xmas

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO INVESTIGATE WHO IN JANUARY 2010

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?opt ... 05&lang=en

[Phoenix Within]

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO INVESTIGATE WHO IN JANUARY 2010

I Googled this. Most of the websites carrying this article are either anti-vaccine or conspiracy theorists and survivalists. Not one legitimate news agency. Another kompilete fail.

[Lady tehMa]

Odd experience . . .

I got the H1N1 shot in Nov. I never have gotten a flu shot before but my doc rec'd it and so I sucked it up and went. In early December, my friend and I got sick. I was over whatever we got in about 4 days, and for a change it didn't go into my lungs. I have asthma, and every single time I get sick I get complications of some sort, and end up coughing for weeks. This time it did not hang on. My friend, who has no lung issues, is still coughing and fighting this thing. It is acting like a stubborn cold, she's been coughing for weeks. Never before have I gotten over something more quickly than she, never before have I been less affected by something lung-related. We are both boggled by this thing.

And the only variable that we can isolate, is the shot. I got it, she didn't.

[Queen K]

Oh I spotted the flaw in all those anti-bacterial soaps immediately. Hmmm, if regular soap has been effective in cleaning off our germs in a good way since...the Medieval days, then suddenly we have this superstrong anti-bacterial soap that still won't get all the germs, that means those germs are the strong ones left to proliferate and what do we have? Superbugs.

The antibacterial soap/superbug link has been done on several CNN and other news stories. I believe North Americans are too vulnerable to superbugs.

And what was that about Penicillan? It may become obsolete?

Anyway, the H1N1 vaccine can't come quick enough for those us who just want to line up and get the damn shot.

What do we have here?

[Queen K]

REPORT TYPO | SEND YOUR FEEDBACK |
Disinfectant use could cause superbugs
Last Updated: Monday, December 28, 2009 | 3:24 PM ET Comments22Recommend34CBC News
Using disinfectants, such as those found in hand sanitizers, could lead to the growth of superbugs resistant both to the cleansers and to antibiotics, researchers warn.

The findings are published in the January 2010 issue of the journal Microbiology.

Scientists at the University of Ireland in Galway found that when they added the disinfectant benzalkonium chloride to common bacteria called Pseudomonas aeruginosa, increasing the amount of the germ-fighting solution over time, the bacteria learned how to survive. They also became able to withstand a commonly prescribed antibiotic, ciproflaxin, even though they had never come in contact with it.

Benzalkonium chloride is found in hand sanitizers, wet wipes and moist towelettes.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria cause urinary tract, respiratory system, bone and joint and gastrointestinal infections and can be lethal in people who are immuncompromised, such as those with cystic fibrosis, cancer or AIDS. It is increasingly being found in hospital settings and has become an important cause of hospital-acquired infections.

The researchers discovered that over time the bacteria became more efficient at ridding their cells of both the disinfectant and antibiotic. They also found that a mutation in their DNA made them resistant to antibiotics.

The researchers say the findings illustrate how dangerous a mix of weak disinfectant and Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be.

"In principle, this means that residue from incorrectly diluted disinfectants left on hospital surfaces could promote the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria," Dr. Gerard Fleming, lead author of the study, said in a release. "What is more worrying is that bacteria seem to be able to adapt to resist antibiotics without even being exposed to them."

The authors suggest more studies be conducted on the interplay of multiple disinfectants in eradicating bacteria and preventing the development of antibiotic-resistant strains.

[Fancy]

Time to bump this up. I am in favour of the flu shot with those with compromised immune systems. There seems to be some misinformation out there - maybe there is some current reports available?

Some people may think there are alternatives for the elderly though I can't think of any offhand. Thoughts?

[Fancy]

Some links to check out and points to ponder regarding the preservative thimerosal that so many are concerned about. Single–dose units don't contain thimerosal nor do the nasal sprays according to some authorities.

The single–dose units are made without thimerosal as a preservative because they are intended to be opened and used only once. Additionally, the live–attenuated version of the vaccine (the nasal spray vaccine), is produced in single–dose units and does not contain thimerosal.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

Where can I get flu vaccine that does not contain thimerosal?

Ask your health care provider for a single-dose flu vaccine which either contains trace amounts (preservative-free) or no thimerosal (i.e. thimerosal-free). There is not a list of clinics that provide thimerosal-free flu vaccine.

Sanofi Pasteur has a flu shot for children age 6 months to 3 years that is thimerosal-free. They also make limited amounts of thimerosal-free flu vaccine for older ages.

Novartis produces a limited amount of preservative-free (only a trace) flu shots for persons 4 years of age and older.

Two additional flu vaccines are also available for persons age 18 years and older; thimerosal-free, single dose Afluria and preservative-free single dose Fluarix.

The new nasal-spray flu vaccine, made from a weakened live virus, does not contain thimerosal. Healthy persons 2 through 49 years of age can receive this vaccine.

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idep ... osalfs.pdf

Another site to check out regarding thimerosal

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idep ... osalfs.pdf[/quote]

It's best to be informed before getting the flu shot - is it right for you? Some have no choice but to get it (health community?) to ensure the well being of patients. I'm not sure if teachers have to get it but don't think so.

[Lore]

Actually any worker in the health care community has the choice to get the shot or not.
No employer can force you to get the shot.
Where I work what they have told us is that if we do not get the shot and we become sick
that we can not come to work/will be sent home with NO sick pay.
Because of the type of clients I deal with I always get the shot (I also really want the sick pay if I get sick).
Have not had a flu for about 29 years.

[Fancy]

I got the flu shot once because of the environment I was in. Haven't had the flu since I was a child.