Swine Flu Shot

[lovegrov]

I'm not advising anybody to get either vaccination, but I WAS pointing out that one post was totally mistaken. The vaccinations are NOT live viruses.

rihard

[SecondTwin]

I have gotten both shots. I always get the flu shot because I'm in nursing school and spend a lot of time in hospitals. I did a lot of research about the H1N1 vaccine, and got it yesterday not only to protect myself, but my family and my patients also.

[elye]

I remain undecided.. .. . .......celiac and type one diabetic. I am very healthy and never seem to get ill (KNOCK WOOD). Here in Ontario, the vaccine should be available within the next couple of weeks, so I'll keep reading and ruminating... . . ...

[elye]

This just in from Joseph Mercola, a doc who remains controversial......I certainly agree completely with his taking-responsibility-for-one's-own-health mantra, his insistence on treating causes, not symptoms, the frightening and dangerous power of Big Pharma and the general inappropriateness of most grains for human consumption. He has long touted the potential dangers of vaccines, and not surprisingly, has jumped all over the breathtakingly expensive and rushed availabiltiy of the H1N1 vaccine.

Open Original Shared Link

[Lisa16]

Here is a viral (ha!) video that is making the rounds on youtube. It appears to be a legitimate news broadcast. This, if true, is absolutely horrifying.

Open Original Shared Link

No wonder people are afraid of getting flu shots! They would rather risk the flu than this.

I am in the "not" category myself, and not because of this video --even though I deal with lots of people everyday. In one of my classes, 18 of 27 people have been/are out with the flu (including myself) and roughly half of my colleague have been stricken.

The real reason is that the last time I got a seasonal flu shot, I got sick from the shot and I got the flu anyway (maybe a different strain.) I didn't feel like it gave me much protection at all.

In addition to this, because I have "hit the wall" with western medicine so many times (meaning that on a number of occasions they were not able to diagnose or help me), I feel like I am going to trust my body and its hyperactive defense system. I have lost faith in the medical sytem. In fact, I have not been to a doctor in over a year.

[tarnalberry]

The thing I don't like about all the "rare side effect from X covered on the news" is that it is incredibly misleading.

It is WELL KNOWN that there is a VERY SMALL risk of serious side effects from most anything. ("Perfectly safe" has never meant "perfect"; it's a figure of speech.) The issue is the odds - the odds of a life-threatening/altering complication from the flu is greater than the odds of a life-threatening/altering complication from the vaccine - by a lot.

The odds of getting a life-threatening/altering injury in a car accident is FAR GREATER than the vaccine. And the risk of getting into a life-threatening/altering injury by walking instead is FAR LESS. But does anyone suggest you stop driving or riding in a car because it is too dangerous? No! Exactly the OPPOSITE of what people are doing about the vaccine.

Or, to put it another way, you are put in front of two doors. Behind Door A is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of being given $1,000,000. Behind Door B is a 1 in 100 chance of being given $100,000. Would you pick Door A? Would you pick Door B? There is no option to walk away without picking a door.

That scenario is *exactly the same* (including approximations on the odds) as with the flu vaccine, even making the assumption that the reactions from the flu vaccine are worse than the serious complications from the flu. (For reference, Door A is getting the vaccine. Door B is not getting the vaccine and getting the full blown flu, which averages 200,000 hospitalizations every year.) And note that, in this scenario, most people aren't going to get a darn thing, and yes - one out of every million people is going to get that million dollars. (One of the reasons it's useful to look at the scenario with 'positive' outcomes (receiving money) rather than negative (getting a serious complication) is to understand how much emotion is influencing our logic.)

So, all those news stories that show each one of the people who choose Door B and got a million, but don't show the 999,999,999 who walked away with nothing, mislead us into misinterpreting the relative reward/cost.

I do still fully support a person's decision to make their own choice. And there are all sorts of completely legitimate reasons why you might not be able to get a vaccination. But I dislike the use of fear to persuade us into making illogical choices for illegitimate reasons. At the least, if you've ever driven, taken a plane, or ridden a bike in city traffic, you have to really consider what risks you are willing to take for what reward.

[Lisa16]

Tarnalberry-- thank you very much for responding to the video. I was hoping to get some other people's reactions to it as it has bothered me since I saw it yesterday. I was not sure why, but my thoughts kept going back to it. Not the tragedy of it, although that is indelible, but rather the "why" of reporting it.

I think you put your finger on exactly what was really bothering me about this video: the use of FEAR. Assuming it is a real news story, of course (and I fear it is.) Perhaps they felt a need to show the other side of the debate? I certainly never knew what was meant by "serious side effects" and I bet many people are in that same boat (in fact, I don't think this is WELL KNOWN at all.) Perhaps this does fall into the same category as showing a deadly car crash. But perhaps that side needs to be shown too?

I think the media (which my family often refers to as "fear mongers") have too often forgotten about their responsibilities to the public in their mission to sell papers/ programming, etc. And I suspect the fear the fourth estate propagates has indirectly contributed to a number of social problems. In particular I am thinking about the recent economic downturn, or misinformation about health-care reform. Even national and international policies are influenced heavily by the media. The press is powerful.

I guess I also wish people didn't think about their health in terms of odds, as if it were a casino game. Unfortunately, that is the cultural trend and this is the language we use. I have a friend who is an insurance actuary and he does nothing but generate tables of statistical probabilities for life expectancies, etc. I wish we could look more at the human element of it. Stating it in terms of odds removes us from other important aspects of that girl's experience. Sometimes on this board you see replies that are so coldly scientific that they appear to marginalize (or maybe minimalize) any psychological and physical suffering. But I suppose that too is a coping mechanism. It dehumanizes it and allows us to distance ourselves from it.

Perhaps a person just has to do the best they can, given their experiences and their understanding of any given situation.

Lisa

[Fiddle-Faddle]

But, Tiffany, the odds of an adverse reaction to the flu shot is not as rare as many believe.

According to VAERS, there has been a 2233% increase per year of vaccine-related ER visits of infants since the flu shot was approved for infants, and a 1060% increase in hospitalizations.

Emergency room visits

There were 446 records listed on 45 pages.

There were approximately 82 reports filed between 1990 and 2003 (the period covered by the Hambidge study) or an average of 6 per year.

There were approximately 275 reports filed after October 2004 (Pages 17 to 45) or about 140 during each of the last two influenza seasons, a 2233% increase per year since the infant recommendation was implemented in the United States.

Hospitalizations

Thirty three infants were hospitalized before the fall of 2004 (2-3 /year x 13 years) compared to 58 in the last two years, a 1060% increase per year.

Admission to a hospital has become more difficult and restricted lately. If indeed all hospitalized cases were first seen in the Emergency Room, an admission rate of 21% (58 out of 275 children) is quite high and suggests that the adverse events were significant and long-lasting. In many U.S. Emergency Rooms, patients can be held for up to 23 hours, stabilized and discharged homes, without incurring admission charges.

-- Open Original Shared Link

The flu shot has only been recently added to the recommended schedule of immunizations, so there is no data yet.

Personally, I don't know anyone who has even had to be hospitalized because of the flu, let alone died from it. But I do know someone who died from a flu shot, and I've lost count of the people I know (including myself) who have had severe reactions to flu shots, requiring medical attention.

I'm not saying that it's not possible to die or need hospitalization from the flu. But the fact that I know so many people who have had terrible reactions to the flu shot, INCLUDING A DEATH, suggests that the chances for a seriously bad outcome are worse with the flu shot than with a case of flu.

Your example of "Door #1 and Door#2 " is meant well, I'm sure, but I think they are misleading. You're describing a win-win scenario. For a lot of people, the flu vs. the flu shot is anything but!

As for the odds of getting a life-threatening injury from a car accident, that's not the same as the odds of getting a life-threatening accident from being in a car.

VAERS estimates that only about 10% of adverse effects to vaccines are reported. I know that my adverse reactions to shots, and my children's adverse reactions (some of which were truly life-threatening) to shots were never reported. So the above numbers of reported ER visits and hospitalizations should probably be multiplied by 10.

We don't see that with car accidents, do we?

So your statement that "it is WELL-KNOWN that there is a VERY SMALL risk of serious side effects of most anything" doesn't hold up against the actual facts about potential serious side effects of flu shots.

And then when you weigh the benefits vs. risks for the flu shot, you don't mention that the flu shot has not shown effectiveness in the elderly and in children--the two target groups. It even says so in the package insert. And with the swine flu shot being made the same way as the flu shot, the assumption is that it will perform similarly.

[tarnalberry]

Your example of "Door #1 and Door#2 " is meant well, I'm sure, but I think they are misleading. You're describing a win-win scenario. For a lot of people, the flu vs. the flu shot is anything but!

As for the odds of getting a life-threatening injury from a car accident, that's not the same as the odds of getting a life-threatening accident from being in a car.

VAERS estimates that only about 10% of adverse effects to vaccines are reported. I know that my adverse reactions to shots, and my children's adverse reactions (some of which were truly life-threatening) to shots were never reported. So the above numbers of reported ER visits and hospitalizations should probably be multiplied by 10.

We don't see that with car accidents, do we?

So your statement that "it is WELL-KNOWN that there is a VERY SMALL risk of serious side effects of most anything" doesn't hold up against the actual facts about potential serious side effects of flu shots.

And then when you weigh the benefits vs. risks for the flu shot, you don't mention that the flu shot has not shown effectiveness in the elderly and in children--the two target groups. It even says so in the package insert. And with the swine flu shot being made the same way as the flu shot, the assumption is that it will perform similarly.

That's the whole point of using winning a prize, rather than losing. The odds are the same. Even if you put the variation in odds at 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 (which I have no data to back up the idea that there really are (or should be) 20,000 vaccine related hospitalizations every year from the flu shot, which is what that would amount to). Additionally, there are going to be 'life-threatening' complications from the flu that do not end up in the hospital. Looking at the win-win, instead of the lose-lose helps to remove the over-emotional reaction and clarify the logic. I'm not saying there is no place for emotion, merely that it alone shouldn't dictate our actions at the expense of logic.

The fact that there has been an increase in reactions does not - on it's own - tell us anything, honestly, because we don't know how many people are being vaccinated in the change (at least, the number you cite certainly doesn't say it). If there were an increase in the PERCENTAGE of people getting the vaccine who experience adverse reactions, that would be one thing. But if there is just an increase in people getting vaccinated, you EXPECT to see an increase in the number of reported adverse reactions.

And yes, we do see that with car accidents. I would expect not to the same degree, but has everyone you've known who's been in a car accident gone to the hospital? Certainly not, because not all car accidents are that extreme. And I was specifically referring to the chance of getting a life-threatening injury from being in a car - it's rather high compared to many other things. (And I'm meaning life-threatening injury due to accident rather than attempted suicide or car bombing, which is the only reason I used the word car accident.)

I do not know someone who has had a hospitalizable vaccine reaction, but do know someone who went to the hospital due to complications from the flu. I am not considering "getting a mild case of flu symptoms" from the flu to be a life-threatening vaccine reaction - there are a lot of ways the body can react to the vaccine that are less than pleasant, but not life-threatening.

The whole point is that the human brain tends to focus on the negative, the bad outcomes, and EXCLUDES the positive. We have selective memory. And that can interfere with making a properly informed decision.

And I would like to see some documentation that shows me that there is a "not very small" risk of serious side effects from the flu vaccine. I've yet to see ANYTHING, even anecdotal, suggest there is even a 1% risk of "serious side effects". (Minor? Sure, I'd believe that. But serious? Show me the evidence that contradicts what is currently published. And anecdotal experience from one person doesn't count, because the whole point of mass vaccinations is the epidemiology, not individualization.)

Finally, the efficacy is a tricky question. The flu shot *has* been shown to develop antibodies in the blood stream. Is the "expected result" from the flu shot that a child or elderly person gets *NO* flu symptoms? Or is the vaccine judged effective if they have reduced symptoms that make it a mild illness? What marker is being used for efficacy in this case? (And I intend this as an open ended question.)

[Fiddle-Faddle]

And I would like to see some documentation that shows me that there is a "not very small" risk of serious side effects from the flu vaccine.

The link I posted earlier shows documentation that the flu vaccine is not effective:

"To this day, the CDC still chooses to ignore a comprehensive review of the subject by the Cochrane Collaboration that was published in The Lancet in 2005, where Jefferson et al concluded, after literally analyzing every available reference, that:

There is no evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccine or reduction in symptomatic cases

The efficacy of the vaccine, reduction in laboratory-confirmed cases, is similar to that of placebo.

On October 28, 2006, Editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Fiona Godlee wrote: “As if to prove the point, we publish this week a broadside (based on a systematic review of the literature) about the lack of evidence for influenza vaccine. Why, asks Tom Jefferson (p 912), is there such a gap between evidence and policy? Governments go to great lengths to promote and provide the vaccine. But there is almost no valid evidence that it does any good. Jefferson puts the gap down to our desire to do something, combined with “optimism bias” — an unwarranted belief in the value of interventions. Would randomized trials be unethical? No, says Jefferson, they are the only ethical response to the possible waste of resources on ineffective or only partially effective care. The problem is that the UK has no transparent process for evaluating the effectiveness or cost effectiveness of vaccines. NICE would like to take this on. The government should let it.”

On October 27, 2006, Michael Blackley commenting in the Scotsman on Jefferson’s most recent publication wrote: “Leading health researchers claimed today that giving them to children under the age of two has the same effect as giving them a dummy drug……There is little clinical evidence that the vaccines have an impact on hospital stay, time off work, death …” Quoting Jefferson, he added that there was little comparative evidence on the safety of the vaccines and that an “urgent” review of the vaccination campaign was needed.

Conclusions

Influenza vaccination seems to be ineffective at any age. It is therefore strange that people still attempt to prove that the useless vaccine is safe.

A recent study on the safety of influenza vaccination of children 6 to 23 months of age examined irrelevant data and failed to investigate the very important two most recent flu seasons.

A limited review of VAERS reports filed following influenza vaccination of children under the age of two years provides ample reasons for alarm. The CDC’s recent decisions to recommend and promote influenza vaccination programs for healthy infants, young children and pregnant women were ill-advised and should be retracted.

The Medical Authorities of the United Kingdom should carefully and promptly review the available scientific evidence related to influenza vaccination and proceed with extreme care. Contemplating influenza vaccination programs for infants and pregnant women at this time is reckless specially when no serious adverse events reporting system is in place."

So, to answer your request for documentation for "not very small" risk of flu shots, I would say that even less than a 1% risk of severe reaction is way too much for a shot that has 2 mainstream medical journals (the Lancet and the British Medical Journal) that call it ineffective.

If a million people were to get the shot, and there were severe adverse effects in 1%, that would be 10,000 people having severe adverse effects. How is that acceptable even if the shot were effective for the remainder? Where do we draw the line? How many severe adverse effects are acceptable?

To bring this back to the original topic, the current swine flu vaccine has been tested for only a few weeks. The last swine flu vaccine (in 1975) caused hundreds of documented cases of Guillaine-Barre syndrome, after which it was pulled off the market. The current flu shot's package insert includes a warning that it may also cause Guillaine-Barre syndrome (which is what killed my friend's sister), and we are told that the swine flu shot is produced in the same way as the flu shot (including adjuvants and preservatives).

According to NPR, on August 10, 2009, "the first clinical trials are enrolling up to 2,400 people and will test H1N1 vaccine made by two drug companies using the so-called seed stock of the H1N1 virus provided by the federal government. The trials are designed to determine if the vaccine is safe in healthy people of various ages and gauge how many doses are needed to protect against the swine flu." Open Original Shared Link

The tests--for only a few weeks--tested HEALTHY people. Are recently diagnosed celiacs healthy people? Would someone with leaky gut and active autoimmune disorders react the same way to a vaccine containing aluminum and mercury (together, in violation of the black box warning for thimerosal) as a HEALTHY person?

We really don't know. But it's certainly prudent to suspect that the risks would be much higher.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

There is now a lawsuit seeking to halt the US Swine Flu vaccination campaign: Open Original Shared Link

The complaint filed Thursday argued that far from preventing a massive outbreak of swine flu, the "live attenuated influenza virus nasal mist vaccine could trigger" an H1N1 pandemic.

If you have received a live-virus nasal spray vaccine, you may be shedding live (contagious) virus cells for up to 3 weeks.

[Oscar]

The complaint filed Thursday argued that far from preventing a massive outbreak of swine flu, the "live attenuated influenza virus nasal mist vaccine could trigger" an H1N1 pandemic.

If you have received a live-virus nasal spray vaccine, you may be shedding live (contagious) virus cells for up to 3 weeks.

This topic has, so far, been discussing the Swine Flu (H1N1) "Shot" which is an injected vaccine containing no live virus.

While this is an interesting idea with respect to the inhaled mist, it has no bearing on the decision to have, or not have, the injected vaccine. The shot does not contain live virus and you can not shed live virus as a result of having it.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

I posted that link because where I live, the media is classifying the nasal mist as a vaccine, and they use the words "shot" and "vaccine" interchangeably, as do many people.

There have been many announcements here on radio and television about where to go for a swine flu "shot," and they often add a sentence or two about the "mist" being thimerosal-free, no jab necessary, etc..

[tarnalberry]

fiddle-faddle, thank you for posting the additional information. I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusions - but that's fairly common in areas where there is much conflicting information and/or data.

[luvthelake21]

I have had the immpresion that Celiac is an autoimmune diseaes so you have to deal with Celiac and also having a autoimmune disease. My family has been gluten free for 3 years and we have Celiac under control, but it is the autoimmune that gets to us, stress will trigger a reaction so our bodies are comprimeised so we get every cold, virus that goes around, so I think that would qualify for the flue shot. But personnaly we will mot be getting the swine flue shot family already had the flue so they say it would do no good to get it anyway.

[calico jo]

No way, no how am I getting the jab! This vaccine was approved by WAIVER because of the "emergency" status of this bogus pandemic. It has many harmful adjuvents including possibly squalene which was linked to the gulf war syndrome from the antrhax vax that also had squalene. It has mercury, formeldahide and aluminum. You may seem fine after getting it, but who knows the long term affets. Not only that but a lot of women in their first trimester who have gotten vaccinatied are having miscarriages. I take 2000 IUs of Vitamin D per day and olive leaf extract (known to kill just about every single virus / bacterial infection it is exposed to) There is a vitamin D deficiency "pandemic". Vit D has been PROVEN to prevent 70%+ of almost every single kind of disease.

We just spent a week with family where 2 members had the swine flu. Thanks to pumping myself with D and Olive Leaf I am well.

The best defence is to stop eating genetically modifed foods (probably what caused us to have celiac to begin with..all grains are now GM if not organic!), exercise, get enough sleep, enough Vit D, keep your hands clean...

People don't get sick because they're lacking drugs. They get sick because of nutrition deficiencies. The body is an amazing organism, capable of healing itself when properly cared for. Yes, I am a Mercola fan and Natural News subscriber.

This is all a big cha-ching for the Big Pharma companies and a way to scare people into thinking the government needs to take care of them!

[Salax]

I agree with calico jo here. And to add to that, our bodies weren't meant to digest chemcials, let alone break down the crap that's in the vaccine. I also agree with calico jo here that celiac (as many other diseases) is because of the food we eat. We (especially in America) eat horribly! There is little to no nutritional value in our food, it's full of crap that our bodies don't need and have to "fliter out" from us. My poor body has been through hell and back with celiac (on top of other crap-I really think this disease distroyed my gall blader), I refuse to put a nasty chemical shot/spray in it to defend it from something it can easily handle.

Oh ya, and btw I got the swine flu (H1N1), you know what happened? My body did what it was suppose to do, it fought it and it was gone in 4 days. It was aweful, but in the long run it's better to let the body do what it's intended to do than to force it to fliter that vaccine, which btw doesn't mean you won't get the flu anyways....viruses change, so I guess ya'll might not get last years strain.

*gets of her soap box*

**BTW, if I offended, my apologies. this is my rant and my thoughts, take or not what you will.

[travelthomas]

My 93 year old neighbor just died in the hospital last week of the Swine Flu that he picked up in the hospital.

My brother fainted in 1976 after having a Swine Flu shot that was ordered by President Gerald Ford. The paramedics were called, and he recovered when they arrived.

While in law school in South Carolina (I completed one semester), one of my classmate

[tarnalberry]

In the US, there is no adjuvant added to the H1N1 vaccine at this time.

[psawyer]

In Canada, the vaccine has an adjuvant that is added a few minutes to 24 hours prior to injection. My wife and I were both inoculated with the adjuvanted vaccine three weeks ago and have no adverse reactions. We both have health issues that put us in the high risk category, and we both work in close contact with the public with a high transmission risk.

[nasalady]

My three-year-old daughter, four-year-old son, husband, and I all got our H1N1 shots together a week ago. No bad side effects....I insisted on the thimerosal-free injections for all four of us. They wanted to give the flu mist to the four-year-old and I said "no" because my husband and I are both on prednisone right now and I'm on Imuran as well, so our immune systems are compromised. No live virus (even weakened) will be administered to ANYONE in my household!

But no way no how will I or any of my family members go without flu shots!!

I used to have bronchitis and/or pneumonia at least every other year until I started getting the flu shots on a regular basis. I haven't had bronchitis or pneumonia for several years now.

[calico jo]

In the US, there is no adjuvant added to the H1N1 vaccine at this time.

Have you read that somewhere or seen it on a news program? I'm just wondering what your source is. According to everything that I've read there is SOME kind of adjuvant added, that's what preserves it. It may not be squalene or thimerosal, but some other ingredient.

[psawyer]

The adjuvant is not a preservative; it is added to stimulate the immune response, and allows a smaller amount of antigen to be used. In the vaccine in use here, the adjuvant is mixed in just prior to injection. Once mixed the vaccine must be used within 24 hours or discarded.

[tarnalberry]

Have you read that somewhere or seen it on a news program? I'm just wondering what your source is. According to everything that I've read there is SOME kind of adjuvant added, that's what preserves it. It may not be squalene or thimerosal, but some other ingredient.

I've read it in too many newspapers, online news agencies, and medical websites (like CDC's) to give you a single source. Here are a couple from googling it: Open Original Shared Link (third section down), Open Original Shared Link (about half way down), and the numerous news articles discussing the controversy over having less H1N1 vaccine available versus using adjuvants (as many other countries have done) including this one from Open Original Shared Link. Some vaccines do have adjuvants (Hib, Hepatitis A and B, DTaP, HPV, and pneumococcal vaccines), some do not (like much of the seasonal flu vaccine, MMR, chickenpox, and the inactivated polio vaccines) Open Original Shared Link. The October 2009 issue of Scientific American has an Open Original Shared Link on adjuvants, why and where they're used, and the current research (online requires subscription). Open Original Shared Link from biopharminternational.com gives an overview of currently used adjuvants.

But it sounds like - as Peter noted - you are confusing adjuvants with preservatives. Even the single dose shots contain preservative, such as thimersol (albeit a very small amount, usually around 0.3micrograms mercury, compared to the multi-dose shot of 25micrograms mercury (thimersol is about 50% mercury)). Adjuvants are chemicals that help increase the immune response to the antigen in the vaccine - usually aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate - so that less antigen is needed.

[travelthomas]

Tests Confirm The Swine Flu Vaccine Will Probably Not Work Against The Dangerous New H1N1 Mutation Spreading In Ukraine, Norway, Brazil, China And France

Open Original Shared Link

H1N1 D225G mutation a reason of concern Part 2

Open Original Shared Link