Swine Flu Vaccination + general swine flu chat thread

conchubhar1 · 04-07-2009 8:19pm

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 · 04-07-2009 8:25pm

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

King Mob · 04-07-2009 8:40pm

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.

King Mob · 04-07-2009 8:47pm

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 · 04-07-2009 8:59pm

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

King Mob · 04-07-2009 9:08pm

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 · 04-07-2009 9:23pm

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

King Mob · 04-07-2009 9:28pm

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 · 04-07-2009 9:31pm

never said it wasnt being done

just what is being done - results and the likes

Dr Galen · 04-07-2009 9:38pm

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 · 04-07-2009 9:48pm

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 · 04-07-2009 9:51pm

tallaght01

will the findings be published? when?

Dr Galen · 04-07-2009 9:52pm

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.

King Mob · 04-07-2009 9:54pm

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 · 04-07-2009 10:51pm

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 · 04-07-2009 11:38pm

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

tallaght01 · 05-07-2009 12:49am

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 · 05-07-2009 3:28am

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

BrianD · 05-07-2009 8:49am

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 · 05-07-2009 9:05am

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.

DrIndy · 05-07-2009 12:30pm

This is not a clear cut issue.

I have read a lot into the background of swine flu and spanish flu over the last while.

The issue with Spanish Flu is it initially presented as a mild flu and it was a new variant. After the first season, it mutated into a very virulent form which spread across the globe including pacific islands and resulted in an estimated death toll of approximately 200 million. H1N1 is a new influenza variant. It has the capacity to do the same - note capacity - not definite. If H1N1 were to mutate, then the cost to the world would be phenomenal and not calculable at present - I just pray it doesn't.

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?

This is because an influenza vaccine already exists - what makes it possible to generate it faster is the issue of generating the H1 and N1 antigens which are added to the mix. Influenza vaccine already contains numerous different H and N variants already - all you do is add another two to the vaccine. The vaccine already contains all the other compounds which are tried, tested and safe.

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

Most vaccines contain adjuvants. Adjuvants are not fully understood as the immune system is complex but like a lot of medicine are proven to work without the full reason being known - what adjuvants do is they are highly irritative to the immune system in low quantities and activate the macrophage/T-Cell/B-Cell system which causes an antibody generation without needing a massive antigen infusion to trigger a response. They replace what an overwhelming infection would normally do. They are also used in most vaccines - very few suffer ANY side effect from vaccines - the only two which did cause problems (Smallpox - which did hospitalise a percentage - but not being vaccinated meant death for many and BCG for TB which causes localised scarring).

Many adjuvants are not used - Aluminium compounds are better adjuvants but they can cause such a significant immune boost that you can get very bad scarring at the injection site. As they are highly irritative to the immune system in tiny quantities, they achieve the effect without being toxic in any way to the body as a whole. Of course if I put a couple of grams into a lab rat, it would be toxic, but so would alcohol, adrenaline, cortisol or any other naturally occuring physiological compound be in enormous quantities.

The issue here is WE DON'T KNOW what swine flu is capable of - its a new flu and every new flu has the capacity to become spanish flu which killed more people than world war one. I think the precautionary hysteria is justified as the converse of ignoring the issue is much more dangerous.

A MESSAGE TO SAMSON09

I am giving you one last opportunity to respond to this thread in a cogent, scientific manner. If this is not done, you will be banned from this forum.

Copy pasting from naturalnews is not responding scientifically.

kadman · 05-07-2009 8:24pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

samson09 wrote: »

[quote=BrianD;60993
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.

Can you post up the ingredients of the vaccine if you are involved in testing it. Thanks

kadman

kadman · 05-07-2009 9:19pm

BrianD wrote: »

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.

I think this is the most sensible post on this thread so far, and it echos my sentiments entirely. The hysteria generated on this topic is mind boggling.
From both sides of the fence, damned if we dont get it and damned if we do.

As you outline so clearly, it gives you the flu. The only reported interview from some one who has had it and got over it that I have read is here,

http://www.irishnews.com/articles/540/5860/2009/7/3/621678_386483534685Swineflu.html

A WEST Belfast teen-ager who is recovering from swine flu last night urged people not to panic about the spread of the virus.

Sarah Holmes (19), who returned from a holiday in Mexico almost two weeks ago, told The Irish News she thinks the illness has been “blown out of proportion” and has led to “scaremongering”.

I would be more inclined not to have the jab, I can live with a dose of the flu.

kadman

Vorsprung · 05-07-2009 11:14pm

^^^Ah here.That's not comparing like with like. I've seen interviews with young people who've taken Ecstacy and said it's the greatest buzz ever. I've also seen interviews with parents of young people who've died after taking one pill.

My point is that peoples' experience/immune response of diseases is different.

On a side note I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Sarah Holmes, aged 19, hasn't had much experience of epidemiology, and it's kinda sensationalist for that paper to print that quote.

To be honest, I too was a bit sceptical about Swine Flu when it first emerged and the mortality figures started coming out. I've changed my mind since, largely because I've heard of previously healthy people dying, but mainly because of the disease's potential to become more virulent (think Spanish Flu as described above). There has been talk already about resistance to Tamiflu. I don't know if there are back-up agents available, perhaps Tallaght might know, but it only goes to show the speed with which a virus can shift.

kadman · 06-07-2009 12:04am

bigjimthefirst wrote: »

^^^Ah here.That's not comparing like with like. I've seen interviews with young people who've taken Ecstacy and said it's the greatest buzz ever. I've also seen interviews with parents of young people who've died after taking one pill.

My point is that peoples' experience/immune response of diseases is different.

On a side note I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Sarah Holmes, aged 19, hasn't had much experience of epidemiology, and it's kinda sensationalist for that paper to print that quote.

To be honest, I too was a bit sceptical about Swine Flu when it first emerged and the mortality figures started coming out. I've changed my mind since, largely because I've heard of previously healthy people dying, but mainly because of the disease's potential to become more virulent (think Spanish Flu as described above). There has been talk already about resistance to Tamiflu. I don't know if there are back-up agents available, perhaps Tallaght might know, but it only goes to show the speed with which a virus can shift.

Well its great to know she fully recovered from her bout of flu:)

And its great to that first swine flu patient to show resistance to the anti-viral drug Tamiflu has made a full recovery on his own, according to Roche.

kadman

nesf · 06-07-2009 1:00am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

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

The last part of this post annoys me. On what grounds are you doubting it will? Seriously, you might as well be saying that hopefully it won't rain on Christmas Day, but you doubt it will for all the predictive power that the statement holds. It's pointless to offer an opinion if you don't know the area very well and potentially damaging in that someone could listen to you and decide, well I don't need to take the vaccine when by rights if they were advised properly they should. I just cannot understand why people offer opinions like the above, i.e. making predictions based on well, nothing.

nesf · 06-07-2009 1:03am

kadman wrote: »

And its great to that first swine flu patient to show resistance to the anti-viral drug Tamiflu has made a full recovery on his own, according to Roche.

kadman

But it's not surprising given the virus's present form which is relatively mild. For said resistant strain to spread would mean that even in it's present form the front line anti-viral won't work and for certain groups of people this could present a very serious risk to their life unless second line drugs are manufactured and spread through the world quickly (i.e. to the best of my knowledge at the moment, mainly due to H5N1 bird flu, most developed world countries have based contingency plans on stockpiles of Tamiflu, mainly because politically it's a quick and easy way to shore up public confidence).

conchubhar1 · 06-07-2009 1:28am

nesf wrote: »

The last part of this post annoys me. On what grounds are you doubting it will? Seriously, you might as well be saying that hopefully it won't rain on Christmas Day, but you doubt it will for all the predictive power that the statement holds. It's pointless to offer an opinion if you don't know the area very well and potentially damaging in that someone could listen to you and decide, well I don't need to take the vaccine when by rights if they were advised properly they should. I just cannot understand why people offer opinions like the above, i.e. making predictions based on well, nothing.

i - me - personaly

personal doubt doesnt have to be based on anything - hence it being personal and doubt
look up the three words

if someone bases their opinion on me saying I doubt it will - is just silly

kadman · 06-07-2009 1:48am

nesf wrote: »

But it's not surprising given the virus's present form which is relatively mild. For said resistant strain to spread would mean that even in it's present form the front line anti-viral won't work and for certain groups of people this could present a very serious risk to their life unless second line drugs are manufactured and spread through the world quickly (i.e. to the best of my knowledge at the moment, mainly due to H5N1 bird flu, most developed world countries have based contingency plans on stockpiles of Tamiflu, mainly because politically it's a quick and easy way to shore up public confidence).

If tamiflu is safe , why has Japan banned it for all teens. Does Ireland intend to use it for teenagers here.

kadman

Supercell · 06-07-2009 2:31am

Have a couple of questions that maybe can be answered here :-

1) Do pregnant women pass on immunity to their unborn child post innoculation?
2) Is inoculation safe at all stages of pregnancy? (is innoculation the right word to use here?), and are there mother/child specific concerns?

Is it accurate to say that everyone on earth will get this if they come into contact with it without inoculation's?
Surely some people will naturally be able to fight it off/ not be infected without even noticing?
Reason I ask is that i only ever had one case of the flu and that was about 30 years ago now afaik..yet i have been exposed to many more and never ever had flu like symptoms again which would lead me to believe i have some immunity to variants I have not encountered before?

Is immunity always inherited?

Swine Flu Vaccination + general swine flu chat thread

Comments