Swine Flu Vaccination + general swine flu chat thread

BrianD

I note from radio reports and the Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0704/breaking21.htm
that there is a plan to innoculate the entire population in the Autumn.

Is this mass hysteria or do we have a serious problem here? To me it seems that the majority of deaths were in third world countries where medical care is poor or not widely available. Is this flu worse that say avian flu that we had a few years ago? Swine flu got a lot of media coverage a few weeks/months ago but as most first world victims recovered it kind of faded away. It's quite hard to guage the level of threat to the general population. Is it hysteria or a real threat?

Of course it suits the drugs manufacturers to fan the flames. What is the status of this vaccine. Personally, I would be reluctant to take it. I would need a lot of convincing to take a mass produced vaccine that was developed in double quick time. I haven't taken a flu jab before so why should I take this one?

I also find it ironic that the "travel alert" system used by many first world countries has been very quiet of late. Probably because it would require a recommendation not to travel to the USA, Australia or the UK.

Greenmachine

A load of Pish if you ask me. Won't bother getting one myself. If everone else has the vaccine, I'm not going to contract it from them.

Workers in "essential" areas needed to keep the economy running - such as the electricity sector - would probably be first to receive the vaccination.

Err maybe let them strike and hang this over them No pay increase, but if you go back to work you can have a vaccine.

tallaght01

No-one will force people to get vaccinated. The vaccine is currently being developed, but should be available soon.

The priority with the vaccine is not that it will protect all the people who get the vaccine from nasty illness. Most healthy people will have a mild form of the disease. So, they will carry on their normal day to day business. But you will be contagious for 6-7 days.

So, you'll be in contact with people, like your elderly parents or grandparents, your pregnant sister, or your newborn niece.

It's these people who are at very high risk from swine flu.

So, the reason that we're trying to stop people getting swine flu is to stop them giving it to vulnerable people.

nesf

Greenmachine wrote: »

If everone else has the vaccine, I'm not going to contract it from them.

All it takes is 1 in 10 people thinking like you for that not to work.

conchubhar1

has anyone died from swine flu that did not have a previous (serious) illness?

Greenmachine

nesf wrote: »

All it takes is 1 in 10 people thinking like you for that not to work.

Yeah but it narrows the odd down alot with minimum effort.

tallaght01

A few have died with no underlying illness. But that's not the point.

The point is we're trying to protect people who HAVE underlying illness.

BrianD

tallaght01 wrote: »

A few have died with no underlying illness. But that's not the point.

The point is we're trying to protect people who HAVE underlying illness.

That's not true from what I can find. It appears that nobody has died in the First World of Swine Flu that did not have underlying issues. It's careless of you to say that a "few have died".

But it appears that that the symptoms of what is called "swine flu" is no different than regular flu. Therefore those people who could die from swine flu are just as likely to die from regular flu. All we have is a new strain that is identifiable and can be classed as Swine flu as opposed to common or garden flu.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that symptoms of Swine Flu are more serious or deadlier than "normal" influenza. The only notable fact about Swine Flu is that it is normally transmitted amongst pigs only. When it contacts humans it results in human influenza. In otherwords, Swine Flu is not a distinct disease and no more deadlier than "ordinary flu".

Is this not a lot of hysteria about nothing? How many cases of fuman influenza are currently in Ireland or the UK. Probably multiples of swine flu and it's exactly the same thing.

I'll save the HSE a few quid and skip mine.

tallaght01

There's a lot of community immunity to normal seasonal flu, plus a lot of people are immunised against the normal flu. A lot of these people are vulnerable people.

But they will still have a high risk of developing normal flu.

Now, add in swine flu. No-one has any immunity, so it's likely to spread much more. Plus no one is immunised, which means it's extra likely to spread.

Plus we can't vaccinate our kids with cystic fibrosis etc yet.

So, there's this vulnerable population who can't be vaccinated, and none of their friends and family are immune tot he virus, which puts them all at higher risk of getting it, and passing it on to people who are more likely to become unwell.

But the reality is that the public don't understand this, because it's not been explained to them. Plus a lot of people are only interested in getting a vaccine of it helps them. A lot of healthy people know swine flu is unlikely to kill them, so they won't get the vaccine just to protect babies and sick people.

conchubhar1

how many die each year from regular flu?
aids?
cancer?

i will still follow basic hygiene, that reduces the spread of all flus


how many people have died of swine flu?

tallaght01

BrianD wrote: »

That's not true from what I can find. It appears that nobody has died in the First World of Swine Flu that did not have underlying issues. It's careless of you to say that a "few have died".

.

Just to address this bit that you added into your last post. Their was a recent case series in the NEJM, looking at a cohort of people who had been hospitalised with swine flu pneumonia and died.

About half of the people who died were previously healthy, as were half of the people who were hospitalised.

But, like I said previously, it's protection of the vulnerable groups that is the priority.

tallaght01

conchubhar1 wrote: »

how many die each year from regular flu?
aids?
cancer?

i will still follow basic hygiene, that reduces the spread of all flus


how many people have died of swine flu?

Been about 100,000 cases of swine flu, and about 450 deaths. So about 1 in 200 get it overall. The problem is that this will hammer through Europe and the states so badly during winter, and if there's even a small case fatality rate that will still be a lot of deaths.

nayorleck114

The Vaccine is not to stop people dying, its to protect those with weak immune systems (Pregnant women, old age).

conchubhar1

100,000 out of what 6 billion

250 deaths out of 100,000

even if the cases rise is the severity or the death toll going to rise in the winter?

tallaght01

conchubhar1 wrote: »

even if the cases rise is the severity or the death toll going to rise in the winter?

You bet your ass it is!

conchubhar1

450 in 100,000

is that in anyway comparable to normal flu nevermind the other major causes of deaths?

tallaght01

conchubhar1 wrote: »

250 in 100,000

is that in anyway comparable to normal flu nevermind the other major causes of deaths?

450.

It's probably more than normal flu. But the epidemiology isn't easily comparable, because of the lack of a vaccine, and the fact that it hasn't been through a northern hemisphere winter yet.

seimi

A bit of googling and I get statistics showing about 20,000 - 30,000 deaths in the US from flu alone per year.
WHO (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_07_03/en/index.html) reports worldwide deaths at 382 from swine flu so far. 170 in the US.
Maybe a vaccine against getting struck by lightning as you fall down the stairs would be more cost effective.

tallaght01

seimi wrote: »

A bit of googling and I get statistics showing about 20,000 - 30,000 deaths in the US from flu alone per year.
WHO (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_07_03/en/index.html) reports worldwide deaths at 382 from swine flu so far. 170 in the US.
Maybe a vaccine against getting struck by lightning as you fall down the stairs would be more cost effective.

It's not winter in the states yet.

conchubhar1

it has been winter in half the world already

now granted the northern hemisphere is vastly more populated.... still

taram

Put it this way, how many times have you even heard of someone getting normal flu in summer in the northern hemisphere, never mind dying from it?

Also the fact the government are spending money on this kind of raises alarms about it's seriousness, when did they last spend that much on us and not on luxury jets across the world

conchubhar1

well i think it is being overhyped - so govt seeing it as a priority and spending so much is so hyped

biden has some intereting views on this - and he has seen this before....

tallaght01

we're only halfway through our peak winter season in Oz. Even at that, it's very mild.

There's a big population difference, too.

Africa has hardly any monitoring of swine flu, as well as not traditionally suffering big flu outbreaks like the USA.

South America has some monitoring but, again, has milder winters.

It's gonna be chaos in Europe, Canada and the states.

conchubhar1

I don't think it will be in fairness

how often do these things get overhyped?

how bad are irish winters?, we are talking about ireland here.

PinkTulips

my youngest son will need to be vaccinated, he's 4 months old and had pneumonia at birth so is in the high risk group.

the differance between normal flu isn't the severity of the illness, it's the fact that no-one has any immunity at all.

so during winter we're all exposed to flu but only a few of us get it whereas everyone who comes in contact with swine flu will contract it, thus making it a huge concern for any in the risk group of the very young, old, sick or pregnant.

seimi

Even with seasonal variation, I can't see mortality from swine flu rising from 170 to 30,000. The statistics show mortality dropping over time. Famous last words. I'm not feeling too well.

samson09

BrianD wrote: »

Personally, I would be reluctant to take it. I would need a lot of convincing to take a mass produced vaccine that was developed in double quick time. I haven't taken a flu jab before so why should I take this one?

I agree. How can anyone consider this vaccine to be safe? Its being manufactured in record time at breakneck speed (13 weeks), when it becomes available for use it will have undergone pretty much no testing to see if it's safe and it also contains substances which are known to be harmful.

"The new H1N1 vaccine is being made by the pharmaceutical company Novartis. It will contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant.

MF-59 is oil-based and composed of squalene, Tween 80 and Span85. All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found to be toxic. All rats injected developed a disease similar to multiple sclerosis which left them crippled and dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages. (Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. "Survey of human-use adjuvants," Expert Review of Vaccines, 2003 p171)

Squalene causes severe arthritis (3 on a scale of 4). Squalene in humans at 10-20 parts per billion leads to severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus. (Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI's Are Only the First Victims of this Vaccine, New York: Basic Books. P54)"

http://www.naturalnews.com/026526_health_influenza_vaccines.html

Multi-dose vials of the vaccine will also probably contain thimerosal, a preservative made with mercury, a known neurotoxin. And all this just to be protected against a virus with a relatively low mortality rate?

No effin way.

conchubhar1

if people in risk get the vaccine

will that provide them with immunity?

if so - why does everyone need it?

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if people in risk get the vaccine

will that provide them with immunity?

if so - why does everyone need it?

Because not everyone who is at risk will be able to get the vaccine.
Particularly newborn babies.

samson09

samson09 wrote: »

Multi-dose vials of the vaccine will also probably contain thimerosal, a preservative made with mercury, a known neurotoxin. And all this just to be protected against a virus with a relatively low mortality rate?

None of this is true.

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

BrianD wrote: »

Personally, I would be reluctant to take it. I would need a lot of convincing to take a mass produced vaccine that was developed in double quick time. I haven't taken a flu jab before so why should I take this one?

I agree. How can anyone consider this vaccine to be safe? Its being manufactured in record time at breakneck speed (13 weeks), when it becomes available for use it will have undergone pretty much no testing to see if it's safe and it also contains substances which are known to be harmful.

"The new H1N1 vaccine is being made by the pharmaceutical company Novartis. It will contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant.

MF-59 is oil-based and composed of squalene, Tween 80 and Span85. All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found to be toxic. All rats injected developed a disease similar to multiple sclerosis which left them crippled and dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages. (Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. "Survey of human-use adjuvants," Expert Review of Vaccines, 2003 p171)

Squalene causes severe arthritis (3 on a scale of 4). Squalene in humans at 10-20 parts per billion leads to severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus. (Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI's Are Only the First Victims of this Vaccine, New York: Basic Books. P54)"

http://www.naturalnews.com/026526_health_influenza_vaccines.html

Multi-dose vials of the vaccine will also probably contain thimerosal, a preservative made with mercury, a known neurotoxin. And all this just to be protected against a virus with a relatively low mortality rate?

No effin way.

I'm involved in the testing of the swine flu vaccine that will have "pretty much no testing", so I've a conflict of interest here. So, in the interest of fairness and impartiality, I'm going to just get DrIndy or GuanYin to moderate this thread.

But Samson, and i say this as a normal user, you've been warned before about just copying and pasting from natural news. You just accept what you read, and you have never critically appraised what you've read. It brings nothing to the table. We all know you've not read the journal article that you've cited, or the book. I suggest that the conspiracy theories forum is more your natural home. This forum is under the science category.

conchubhar1

new born babies will only come into contact with parents and families mostly.
they will not touch anything outside their own house and buggy.


so their risk would be low?

do babies not get other vaccines? why is this different?

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

samson09 wrote: »

BrianD wrote: »

Personally, I would be reluctant to take it. I would need a lot of convincing to take a mass produced vaccine that was developed in double quick time. I haven't taken a flu jab before so why should I take this one?




I'm involved in the testing of the swine flu vaccine that will have "pretty much no testing", so I've a conflict of interest here. So, in the interest of fairness and impartiality, I'm going to just get DrIndy or GuanYin to moderate this thread.

But Samson, and i say this as a normal user, you've been warned before about just copying and pasting from natural news. You just accept what you read, and you have never critically appraised what you've read. It brings nothing to the table. We all know you've not read the journal article that you've cited, or the book. I suggest that the conspiracy theories forum is more your natural home. This forum is under the science category.

Well for a start, Irish people will be getting the vaccine by Autumn, so the longest period of time that the vaccine will have been studied for will be about 2-3 months at the most. We will have no idea what side effects will be experienced in the long term.

And why dont you try and attack the post instead of the poster? What's wrong with the information I posted? Do you feel it isnt correct, that its misleading or just blatant lies? If so, why dont you examine the paper and prove me wrong? Unless of course you know I'm right and dont want to shoot yourself in the foot?

If this vaccine is being made with thimerosal as a preservative, then the vaccine will already be potentially harmful.

"Should I be concerned about the amount of mercury in the flu and other recommended vaccines? Should I go out of my way to find a thimerosal-free flu shot?

A: This concern was addressed in a letter published by the journal Pediatrics on March 13, 2008. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/121/3/621#36839. As noted in the letter, parents and pregnant women may want to consider the following data and make an informed decision.

0.5 parts per billion (ppb) mercury = Kills human neuroblastoma cells (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140).
2 ppb mercury = U.S. EPA limit for drinking water. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls


20 ppb mercury = Neurite membrane structure destroyed (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).
200 ppb mercury = level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous waste. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm


25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in the Hepatitis B vaccine, administered at birth in the U.S., from 1990-2001.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose DTaP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 4 times each in the 1990's to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Current "preservative" level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines. This can be confirmed by simply analyzing the multi- dose vials"

http://www.nvic.org/faqs.aspx#38

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

new born babies will only come into contact with parents and families mostly.
they will not touch anything outside their own house and buggy.

Except their family and friends of the family might have come in contact with the flu.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so their risk would be low?

Well they still would at risk because their immune system isn't as strong as a older child or as a adult.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

do babies not get other vaccines? why is this different?

As far as I know babies don't receive vaccines for the first few months.
Not sure of the exact reason. Maybe Tallaght01 can feild that.

There was a case in Australia of a newborn who died of whooping cough because she was too young to get the vaccine.
The area where she was born had a very low rate of vaccination and there was no herd immunity.

samson09

samson09 wrote: »

25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in the Hepatitis B vaccine, administered at birth in the U.S., from 1990-2001.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose DTaP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 4 times each in the 1990's to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Current "preservative" level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines. This can be confirmed by simply analyzing the multi- dose vials"

http://www.nvic.org/faqs.aspx#38

Now is this actual mercury or ethylmercrury. Because ethylmercury is in thermisiol, not mercury.

Because there is a difference.
And claiming that ethylmercrury is the same as mercrury is plain dishonest.

conchubhar1

young babies can die of an array of diseases

i know that they have some immunity from the common cold but it is still a risk


the family and close friends of a new born would and should get vacinated if they dont want any risk of the baby dieing

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

young babies can die of an array of diseases

i know that they have some immunity from the common cold but it is still a risk


the family and close friends of a new born would and should get vacinated if they dont want any risk of the baby dieing

And some of those diseases can be prevented by vaccines.

And it's not just newborn babies. There are certain other people who are unable to get vaccines due to different circumstances.
And the people who refuse to get vaccines due to various (usually misinformed) reasons.

So why not save alot of bother for you self and potentially save a few a live and get a vaccine?

conchubhar1

ye - i have no problem helping people, gave blood recently for example.

and i dont know wether ill take this vaccine or not, not for misinformed reasons.

i just want to see what testing is or was done on it

sideeffects and the like

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye - i have no problem helping people, gave blood recently for example.

and i dont know wether ill take this vaccine or not, not for misinformed reasons.

i just want to see what testing is or was done on it

sideeffects and the like

And testing is being done.

Despite what certain unscientific snakeoil selling websites say.

conchubhar1

never said it wasnt being done

just what is being done - results and the likes

Dr Galen

samson09 wrote: »

tallaght01 wrote: »

samson09 wrote: »

Well for a start, Irish people will be getting the vaccine by Autumn, so the longest period of time that the vaccine will have been studied for will be about 2-3 months at the most. We will have no idea what side effects will be experienced in the long term.

And why dont you try and attack the post instead of the poster? What's wrong with the information I posted? Do you feel it isnt correct, that its misleading or just blatant lies? If so, why dont you examine the paper and prove me wrong? Unless of course you know I'm right and dont want to shoot yourself in the foot?

If this vaccine is being made with thimerosal as a preservative, then the vaccine will already be potentially harmful.

"Should I be concerned about the amount of mercury in the flu and other recommended vaccines? Should I go out of my way to find a thimerosal-free flu shot?

A: This concern was addressed in a letter published by the journal Pediatrics on March 13, 2008. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/121/3/621#36839. As noted in the letter, parents and pregnant women may want to consider the following data and make an informed decision.

0.5 parts per billion (ppb) mercury = Kills human neuroblastoma cells (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140).
2 ppb mercury = U.S. EPA limit for drinking water. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls


20 ppb mercury = Neurite membrane structure destroyed (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).
200 ppb mercury = level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous waste. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm


25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in the Hepatitis B vaccine, administered at birth in the U.S., from 1990-2001.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose DTaP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 4 times each in the 1990's to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Current "preservative" level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines. This can be confirmed by simply analyzing the multi- dose vials"

http://www.nvic.org/faqs.aspx#38

copying and pasting from websites is not scientific argument or debate.

In the above posts, you have taken information from various sites, with little or no scientific rigor or background. I can find little info on the qualifications of the authors to make the statements they make. The letter to the paeds journal, is simply that, a letter. Not a peer reviewed piece at all.

What has become apparent in your time posting here is that you are as taken in by the alt health lobby in the same way that you claim that many others here have been taken in by the big bad pharma groups. You appear to believe everything the alt health/anti-vaccine lobby say, and nothing that the established pharma lobby say. There is no middle ground, unlike many of us here, who sit squarely on the side of "show me the evidence, demonstrate the rigor of the study and I'll listen" and that applies to Novartis and Pfizer as much as it applies to NaturalNews and the like.

It's interesting to note that when I went searching for the Bio Info on the doctor you quite above, the website that I was directed to was little more than a site selling books and DVD's with no serious discussion or info on it. If that was the website of a drug company, yourself and your supporters would be all over it I would say. Nothing but profiteering etc is what I would expect.

Tallaght01 called it right, your natural home on boards.ie is the conspiracy theories forum, even then, it's pushing it a bit to be fair to the lads there. I'm not sure how many times this had to be said, but this is meant to be a scientific forum. If what you post can't be backed up in a coherent and independant way, then is there any point in continuing to discuss things with you

samson09

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

samson09 wrote: »

tallaght01 wrote: »

copying and pasting from websites is not scientific argument or debate.

In the above posts, you have taken information from various sites, with little or no scientific rigor or background. I can find little info on the qualifications of the authors to make the statements they make. The letter to the paeds journal, is simply that, a letter. Not a peer reviewed piece at all.

What has become apparent in your time posting here is that you are as taken in by the alt health lobby in the same way that you claim that many others here have been taken in by the big bad pharma groups. You appear to believe everything the alt health/anti-vaccine lobby say, and nothing that the established pharma lobby say. There is no middle ground, unlike many of us here, who sit squarely on the side of "show me the evidence, demonstrate the rigor of the study and I'll listen" and that applies to Novartis and Pfizer as much as it applies to NaturalNews and the like.

It's interesting to note that when I went searching for the Bio Info on the doctor you quite above, the website that I was directed to was little more than a site selling books and DVD's with no serious discussion or info on it. If that was the website of a drug company, yourself and your supporters would be all over it I would say. Nothing but profiteering etc is what I would expect.

Tallaght01 called it right, your natural home on boards.ie is the conspiracy theories forum, even then, it's pushing it a bit to be fair to the lads there. I'm not sure how many times this had to be said, but this is meant to be a scientific forum. If what you post can't be backed up in a coherent and independant way, then is there any point in continuing to discuss things with you

Do you think that a vaccine that contains a form of mercury at levels that are known to be harmful and whose long term side effects havent been studies can be considered safe?

It;s as simple as that.

conchubhar1

tallaght01

will the findings be published? when?

Dr Galen

but samson thats nothing more than a hypothetical question, one thatI don't see as linked to the discussion here on the swine flu vaccine. Posing questions like this is nothing more than scaremongering. The very thing that the anti-vaccine lobby accuse governments, the FDA et al of doing.

samson09

samson09 wrote: »

Do you think that a vaccine that contains a form of mercury at levels that are known to be harmful and whose long term side effects havent been studies can be considered safe?

It;s as simple as that.

A form of mercury. Not mercury.
At levels dangerous for mercury, not the form of mercury that is actually in the vaccines in question.

Kinda show the level of dishonest science you get form that site.

nesf

seimi wrote: »

Even with seasonal variation, I can't see mortality from swine flu rising from 170 to 30,000. The statistics show mortality dropping over time. Famous last words. I'm not feeling too well.

The Spanish flu of 1918 was preceeded by a first wave of the virus which resembled the normal flu in severity and mortality, so this wouldn't be the first time that mortality rose like that with a novel flu virus. Hopefully that won't happen and it'll evolve into something resembling the normal flu (remember all the current flu virii were pandemic novel virii when they first infected humans).

conchubhar1

hopefuly it won't - and personaly i doubt it will

tallaght01

samson, when you post about a paper....and you tell us why you think that piece of evidence gives us some compelling argument about the safety of the swine flu vaccine,then I'll discuss it with you. I'm not going to rebut a whole lot of cutting and pasting, as it will take forever.

If you post, one at a time, pieces of evidence that you've actually read, then I'll engage you.

If you just keep cutting and pasting, then you're just doing what you've been warned about before, and I'm not going to respond.

To address the question asked by conchubar...yes we're hoping the data will be published in a journal. It will at least be given to the regulatory bodies in each country where it is to be licensed.

conchubhar1

cool, will look forward to it (well i want to know the results not made into med or biol)

BrianD

taram wrote: »

Put it this way, how many times have you even heard of someone getting normal flu in summer in the northern hemisphere, never mind dying from it?

Also the fact the government are spending money on this kind of raises alarms about it's seriousness, when did they last spend that much on us and not on luxury jets across the world

The iodine tablet fiasco comes to mind.

BrianD

BrianD wrote: »

Personally, I would be reluctant to take it. I would need a lot of convincing to take a mass produced vaccine that was developed in double quick time. I haven't taken a flu jab before so why should I take this one?




I'm involved in the testing of the swine flu vaccine that will have "pretty much no testing", so I've a conflict of interest here. So, in the interest of fairness and impartiality, I'm going to just get DrIndy or GuanYin to moderate this thread.

But Samson, and i say this as a normal user, you've been warned before about just copying and pasting from natural news. You just accept what you read, and you have never critically appraised what you've read. It brings nothing to the table. We all know you've not read the journal article that you've cited, or the book. I suggest that the conspiracy theories forum is more your natural home. This forum is under the science category.

Leaving the conspiracy theories aside. There will always people that will believe that evil corporations will profit from the situation.

However, what I find unsettling is that we are in a state of hysteria about Swine Flu. I would guess that if you did a public poll you will find that the majority of people will think that Swine Flu is a new disease and that the symptoms are different to annual flu. The fact of the matter that Swine Flu gives you the flu that we all know (though not nearly as bad as the dreaded man flu:D).

The fact that governments are taling of stock piling vacinines and talking about mass innoculation only fans this hysteria. The reality is that if you queue up to get this jab you really should be queuing up every year to get a jab. Even in my own workplace, I had a colleague who has an inconsolable fear of this Swine Flu back at the time when it was a Mexico problem with a few isolated cases outside of there.

The unfortunate reality is that drugs industry does not have an unblemished industry. It has got it wrong on drugs that it has spent years developing and the lead time on this product is very short. I'm guessing that most people will take this jab out of fear. I have my doubts about a mass administered drug, developed quickly and taken out of fear. I just wonder if 5 years down the road will professionals be asking what the hell were we at?

There doesn't seem to be a very co-ordinated leadership to explain to people what Swine Flu actually is.