Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Swine Flu Vaccination + general swine flu chat thread

Options
1111214161725

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    But the problem is we don't know if it boosts innate immunity. We just knows it's part of an immune reponse. everything we know about it is in test tubes.

    If there was good evidence in humans for good immune response, then a lot of people would use it


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    But the problem is we don't know if it boosts innate immunity. We just knows it's part of an immune reponse. everything we know about it is in test tubes.

    If there was good evidence in humans for good immune response, then a lot of people would use it

    Not all in test tubes, huge huge amount of strong correlational data too :)

    I think if we had any RCT and people knew about it then yes, it would be used.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Not all in test tubes, huge huge amount of strong correlational data too .

    That's the word I would leave out.

    But I look forward to the RCTs. They'll be interesting if they happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34



    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDN/is_1_13/ai_n25332537/

    Please appraise the above and tell me whether normalisation of vitamin D is worthy of consideration in clinical practice to address overall immunity, including immunity to colds and flu.

    I think it is wise to supplement to normalise 25(OH)D levels as a matter of course, do you think it would be more prudent to leave a patient in a deficient state?

    when you are advocating something thats not mainstream, on this forum we ask that you appraise the evidence, not just link to papers and expect others to do it .


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    sam34 wrote: »
    when you are advocating something thats not mainstream, on this forum we ask that you appraise the evidence, not just link to papers and expect others to do it .

    I have done. I was just offering that link as background. If you don't want to read it then don't. I think there is enough correlational data to give this hypothesis merit. The hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer is based on correlational data alone. Having said that it would be quite easy to carry out an RCT on this. I am wondering why this hasn't happened yet. It would be very easy to disprove the hypothesis if it is false. In the meantime, using vitamin D to boost innate immunity sounds like a common sense strategy to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    I have done. I was just offering that link as background. If you don't want to read it then don't. I think there is enough correlational data to give this hypothesis merit. The hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer is based on correlational data alone. Having said that it would be quite easy to carry out an RCT on this. I am wondering why this hasn't happened yet. It would be very easy to disprove the hypothesis if it is false. In the meantime, using vitamin D to boost innate immunity sounds like a common sense strategy to me.

    You don't understand correlation. You're confusing it with association. The doctors smoking study showed correlation. Vitamin D has never shown correlation with swine flu. It MAY have shown an association.

    Sam34 is making a valid point. We ask that people discuss the science. Why si this a good paper? What are the stats like? What was the study design?

    But, look, let;s continue it on the science thread, as this is the general chat thread, and it's going to get very boring for most people reading it.

    It's here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055621491


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You don't understand correlation. You're confusing it with association. The doctors smoking study showed correlation. Vitamin D has never shown correlation with swine flu. It MAY have shown an association.

    Sam34 is making a valid point. We ask that people discuss the science. Why si this a good paper? What are the stats like? What was the study design?

    But, look, let;s continue it on the science thread, as this is the general chat thread, and it's going to get very boring for most people reading it.

    It's here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055621491

    I do understand correlation actually. If I had meant to say association I would have said association. Will head over to the other thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I thought this article was interesting..
    Source : ScientificAmerican
    Although the swine flu outbreak of 2009 is still in full swing, this global influenza epidemic, the fourth in 100 years, is already teaching scientists valuable lessons about pandemics past, those that might have been and those that still might be. Evidence accumulated this summer indicates that the novel H1N1 swine flu virus was not entirely new to all human immune systems. Some researchers have even come to see the current outbreak as a flare-up in an ongoing pandemic era that started when the first H1N1 emerged in 1918.

    As soon as the newest H1N1 virus burst onto the scene in the spring, it conspicuously assaulted the young and left the old mostly unscathed. To date, 79 percent of confirmed U.S. cases have been in people younger than 30 years and only 2 percent in people older than 65. In light of that lopsided attack pattern, investigators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quickly started testing hundreds of human serum samples stored between 1880 and 2000, looking for evidence of past human experience with the novel H1N1 virus.

    Data published in May showed a power ful antibody response to the new virus in a third of the samples from subjects older than 60 and in a smaller number (6 to 9 percent) of samples from younger adults. The authors theorized that exposure to post-1918 H1N1 human flu viruses had primed the oldest subjects’ immune system to recognize the novel H1N1.

    The CDC group procured serum samples collected from 83 adults and a handful of children who had received the vaccine against swine H1N1 that was given in 1976 to 43 million Americans. More than half of the samples from adults who received a single shot of that vaccine displayed a powerful immune response to the 2009 H1N1 virus, whereas little recognition of the new virus was seen in the serum of inoculated children, all younger than four at the time.

    The discrepancy was an important clue, according to senior author Jackie Katz of the CDC’s influenza division, who published those particular findings in September. The adults, who were between 25 and 60 years old in 1976, would have been exposed to H1N1 flu before 1957, the year it stopped circulating for the next two decades. “We assume that by the age of five a person would have had at least one exposure to influenza,” Katz explains. That prior encounter with H1N1 seemed to be the key to a robust recognition of the 1976 vaccine virus, just as having had the 1976 vaccine seems to produce a strong response to the 2009 H1N1 virus. The very young children, in contrast, represent the responses of immune systems that have no past history with H1N1.

    Katz cautions that high antibody levels in serum do not guarantee immunity from infection, but they serve as good indicators of protection when testing vaccines and are a fairly sure sign of earlier exposure to the pathogen. For people with some measure of previous immunity, a subsequent vaccine could act as a “booster shot.” Indeed, trial results published in September surprised health officials by showing that a single shot of vaccine against the new H1N1 produced a strong response, even among some children older than six, hinting at broad recognition of the vaccine virus by the trial subjects’ immune system.

    Analyses of infection rates in modern seasonal flu epidemics suggest that with age comes a subtle buildup of immunity to flu viruses in general. Although the external viral proteins hemagglutinin and neur a minidase (the H and N that designate a flu strain) are the main targets of vaccines, the human immune system may also recognize other viral parts. The resulting responses may not prevent infection, but they may reduce symptoms to a degree that people do not even realize they are infected.

    Indeed, the seasonal flu peaks in kids and “then sort of declines with age,” says Jeffery Taubenberger, a virus expert at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “The elderly have the highest mortality because they often have underlying conditions,” he adds, “but you find that people in their 40s and 50s get a lot less clinical flu than kids, so one possibility is that there’s a slow accrual of a wide variety of flu immunity.”

    Taubenberger, who isolated the full 1918 pandemic virus in 1997, notes that even 20th-century seasonal strains such as the H2N2 virus that appeared in 1957 and the H3N2 pandemic strain that began circulating in 1968 are built on the chassis of the original H1N1, as is the 2009 H1N1 virus. In effect, every human flu strain in the past 90 years has been a member of a dynasty founded by the 1918 virus, he concludes.

    Those family ties are likely contributing to the relative mildness of the current pandemic. Avian flu viruses bearing H5, H7 or H9 hemagglutinins, widespread in domesticated poultry, have not yet managed to gain traction in the human population. If they did, they might produce a flu as ferocious as the one induced by the H1N1 virus in 1918, when it was truly new to people and killed at least 40 million worldwide.

    Long-standing fears of that worst-case scenario engendered pandemic-planning efforts that are paying off today. They also prompted the 1976 vaccination campaign, which has been called a fiasco for the adverse events that accompanied the mass inoculations against a pandemic that never materialized. But even that brush with a version of H1N1, it seems, is paying an unexpected dividend now.

    Right I've boldfaced what I thought were the important points for the lazy to read among ye:p

    Have to say that I'm annoyed at my naivety at thinking that the flu infected the elderly the most :o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    the flu does generally affect the elderly most.But this one doesn't.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Its a good article- but there really isn't anything in there thats new. Most of the 'findings' have been in the public domain since the first outbreaks in South America.

    Of possible interest is testing the degree of immunity afforded by the older serum samples for H1N1- perhaps its a course of action they should have explored rather than reinventing the wheel?

    Also- if all the strains out there at the moment can be genetically traced back to the 1918 strain- wouldn't it make sense to try for a super vaccine- that could innoculate you against all influenza (or confer a relative degree of immunity) than to try pin pointing the individual strains?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    We were just in Holles Street today.
    They have said that the current advice is for all pregnant women to get the Swine Flu (but not the regular Flu) vaccine. They are not giving it out in there at present- though they expect to possibly be doing so in the future. The question at the moment is whether the Irish half-dose vaccine is sufficient, or whether they should advise pregnant women to come back 5 weeks later for a top-up booster. The latest UK trials of the half-dose measure have been very good- and are suggestive that a booster is not required.

    Small initial supplies of H1N1 vaccines are apparently being delivered as of this afternoon to selected GP surgeries, with all surgeries who have signed up to the vaccinations expected to have had some initial supplies within 10-12 days.

    As we were told in Holles Street today- the vaccine (both H1N1 and also the general flu vaccine) is routinely given to pregnant women in the states, without any apparent reprecussions.

    At the end of the day- its a personal choice- but you should consider that as a student doctor you are a front line medical practitioner, and far more likely to encounter Swine Flu- than your average pregnant woman. You are also at a higher risk of infection- than an average member of the population.

    S.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8 sicguy


    I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the scientific discussion thread so please feel free to move it if you think it should be there.

    I was wondering does anyone know if the guidelines for the vaccine have been released such as whether it'll be single or double dose spread over three weeks?

    I read a few weeks ago that it'd be two with three weeks between them but then they talked about it being one for some people, I'm in the first round as I have underlying conditions and am on immunosuppressors so there would be less chance of the shot causing enough of a reaction to provide immunity.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    sicguy wrote: »
    I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the scientific discussion thread so please feel free to move it if you think it should be there.

    I was wondering does anyone know if the guidelines for the vaccine have been released such as whether it'll be single or double dose spread over three weeks?

    I read a few weeks ago that it'd be two with three weeks between them but then they talked about it being one for some people, I'm in the first round as I have underlying conditions and am on immunosuppressors so there would be less chance of the shot causing enough of a reaction to provide immunity.

    It appears the results of the UK trials are continuing to be examined by the HSE. We're using the pregnancy vaccine, as the standard vaccine here (i.e. half the regular levels of antigen)- but its showing very good rates in the UK- so its entirely possible that the original intention to have a booster at 3-4 weeks, may in fact be rescinded.

    Ps- where are you getting your first round dose? We're having difficulty finding a GP who has signed up, and hence supplies of the vaccine (particularly given the advice thats still up on the IMO website no doubt!!!). Even with valid prescriptions- our pharmacist is unable to order it in. Its annoying as hell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8 sicguy


    smccarrick wrote: »
    It appears the results of the UK trials are continuing to be examined by the HSE. We're using the pregnancy vaccine, as the standard vaccine here (i.e. half the regular levels of antigen)- but its showing very good rates in the UK- so its entirely possible that the original intention to have a booster at 3-4 weeks, may in fact be rescinded.

    I assume that'd be for people who aren't on ongoing immunosuppression though?

    I see that household contacts of immune compromised people are supposed to be included in the first supplies, I wish myself luck with that, both for getting them to actually get it and getting a GP that'll give it to them.
    Ps- where are you getting your first round dose? We're having difficulty finding a GP who has signed up, and hence supplies of the vaccine (particularly given the advice thats still up on the IMO website no doubt!!!). Even with valid prescriptions- our pharmacist is unable to order it in. Its annoying as hell.

    Sorry what I meant by that is that I'm supposed to be included in the first round, because of the extreme severity and rareness of my condition if my GP can't supply it fairly quickly I'll have to try and get it somewhere else as apart from being very high risk of both getting it and of having complications, some of my close contacts drive me nuts with their lack of understanding of potential major problems with me or others in similar situations.

    That's part of the reason I'm quite concerned about trying to make sure I have the highest chance of getting immunity from the jab because as extremely careful as I or others are it only takes one selfish/unhygienic/careless person to put myself or others in a extremely dangerous situation.

    I better stop now or I'll be here all evening giving out:)

    I hope you find a clinic to supply you with the jab, the HSE are saying "If a patient's GP is not participating, alternative arrangements will be put in place" :rolleyes: yea helpful, if you can't find a spot I'd be inclined to contact the HSE and try to get names of GP/clinics who have already taken delivery of stocks, but of-course that's easier said than done.

    Thanks for the reply sorry I can't be of more help.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    sicguy wrote: »
    I assume that'd be for people who aren't on ongoing immunosuppression though?

    I'm on 250Mg of Imuran- and the wife is a pregnant type 1 diabetic- so that wouldn't be the case.......
    sicguy wrote: »
    I see that household contacts of immune compromised people are supposed to be included in the first supplies, I wish myself luck with that, both for getting them to actually get it and getting a GP that'll give it to them.

    Thats nice. Apparently GPs haven't been informed of this- at the moment the only advice to GPs is coming from the IMO- and its to exercise caution in case you get sued by your patients. Fewer than 1/4 of all GPs have subscribed to the HSE scheme......
    sicguy wrote: »
    Sorry what I meant by that is that I'm supposed to be included in the first round, because of the extreme severity and rareness of my condition if my GP can't supply it fairly quickly I'll have to try and get it somewhere else as apart from being very high risk of both getting it and of having complications, some of my close contacts drive me nuts with their lack of understanding of potential major problems with me or others in similar situations.

    Ditto. We haven't been out in public places like the cinema in weeks- and any shopping is at weird hours of the night when we're least likely to encounter other people. I've boxes of face masks here too- and am actively avoiding our main office where I have been informed there have been cases of H1N1 in staff.

    The current info from the HSE is supplies are currently only going to GPs who subscribed to their scheme- and only very small volumes. Deliveries are staggered- 1 in 10 of those who subscribed will receive small quantities of initial supplies starting tomorrow (so all participating GPs should have received something within 2 weeks- but it'll only be very small initial supplies- and only 1/4 of GPs.......)
    sicguy wrote: »
    That's part of the reason I'm quite concerned about trying to make sure I have the highest chance of getting immunity from the jab because as extremely careful as I or others are it only takes one selfish/unhygienic/careless person to put myself or others in a extremely dangerous situation.

    I better stop now or I'll be here all evening giving out:)

    I've already been sneezed upon several times, including by a checkout operator in her teens. I've also been in one of our offices where 2 people have been diagnosed with Swine Flu. I've gotten the generic flu vaccination- and am hopeful that the due caution I'm exercising is sufficient to keep me out of harms way- but I am worries, and want the vaccine.......
    sicguy wrote: »
    I hope you find a clinic to supply you with the jab, the HSE are saying "If a patient's GP is not participating, alternative arrangements will be put in place" :rolleyes: yea helpful, if you can't find a spot I'd be inclined to contact the HSE and try to get names of GP/clinics who have already taken delivery of stocks, but of-course that's easier said than done.

    Thanks for the reply sorry I can't be of more help.

    I can't find supplies at all-as yet, but according to the HSE, they only started deliveries over the weekend, and aren't in a position to state which GPs are participating in the vaccination scheme. I'm going to do another trawl tomorrow. I've actively been informed by more than 1 GP not to visit their surgery under any circumstances, as not only can they not guarantee there won't be people suffering from swine flu in the waiting room- its probable in a lot of cases.

    The HSE are being deeply unfair particularly to immunocompromised people and those suffering from Long Term Illnesses. Its not rocket science to identify us- we're most probably using the LTI and Monthly med schemes- a little lateral thinking on the part of someone in there is sorely lacking........


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8 sicguy


    smccarrick wrote: »
    I'm on 250Mg of Imuran- and the wife is a pregnant type 1 diabetic- so that wouldn't be the case.......

    Sorry what I mean to say is that as people on imuran and similar meds have less chance of having a strong enough immune response to give them immunity that they may be still given the two doses to give a better chance of having immunity, and that the trials may mostly be based on the general population.
    I remember reading that in some countries people with suppressed immune systems are even given two doses of the annual flu shot.
    Hopefully one will be enough as I'd imagine it'd make the immunisation program run a lot smoother.

    Apologies my head tends to be a little muddled or cloudy at times so I tend to write a little bit rambled.
    The HSE are being deeply unfair particularly to immunocompromised people and those suffering from Long Term Illnesses. Its not rocket science to identify us- we're most probably using the LTI and Monthly med schemes- a little lateral thinking on the part of someone in there is sorely lacking........

    Very much so, not only in relation to this flu but I find its right from the bottom up straight to the top, your met with carelessness, poor understanding or just sheer neglect for want of a better word.
    And while I'm in noway saying they're all like that, I am saying there are plenty who are though.

    Even bringing it right back to the frontline hospitals,nurses,doctors a lot seem to have so little understanding of people with long term illness and those on suppression and the rarer the condition the worse it is but this is my experiance maybe others fare better.

    Just last week I had a doctor and nurse who have no understanding of my condition (and obviously flu) say to me "ah you'll be fine, a lot of its just hype"

    Anyway I better quit now I'm ranting again:D

    Thanks again for the reply.


  • Registered Users Posts: 433 ✭✭raveni


    <snip>

    we cant give personal medical advice here.
    discuss your current condition and symptoms with your GP.

    sorry.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭Elessar


    Why is there so much concern over the adjuvants used in the GSK vaccine? There's concern in Germany and I've read that US authorities will not be using any adjuvant-based vaccine for its population. Naturally, I'm concerned. And I won't get the vaccine until I am absolutely certain that there are no long-term risks.

    Are there any peer-reviewd journals I can read that have studied the effects of adjuvants like Squalene long-term? Or studies I can read about the use of mamilian cells in the Baxter vaccine? Anywhere online, apart from discussion forums or non-reviewed websites?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Use google scholar or pubmed.com

    If you avoid the scaremongers, you'll see that the adjuvants are safe. And I doubt there's mamallian cells in any vaccine!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭Elessar


    Sorry to clarify, I mean the mammalian cell cultures used to grow the vaccine, the method Baxter is using to produce Celvapan. I can't find any studies on this.

    It seems a lot of the concern over the adjuvants used in the GSK vaccine are based publications like this and this from the University of Florida. If I am reading it correctly, it reports that 20-25% of mice injected with squalene (used in the GSK adjuvant iirc) produced antibodies specific to systemic lupus in mice.

    I have found quite a few other publications too (the same oil based adjuvants producing autoimmune disorders in rats etc.). Nothing conclusive on humans. In fact, there seem to be no long-term studies on this at all on humans. I am still undecided on the vaccine.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭GarRo247


    Theres 788 students of my school and in the past 3 weeks there have been 147 confirmed cases of swine ful, myself being one of them, but the department refuses to let the school close for a week, do you think we should be allowed close?


  • Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭samson09


    Elessar wrote: »
    Why is there so much concern over the adjuvants used in the GSK vaccine? There's concern in Germany and I've read that US authorities will not be using any adjuvant-based vaccine for its population. Naturally, I'm concerned. And I won't get the vaccine until I am absolutely certain that there are no long-term risks.

    Are there any peer-reviewd journals I can read that have studied the effects of adjuvants like Squalene long-term? Or studies I can read about the use of mamilian cells in the Baxter vaccine? Anywhere online, apart from discussion forums or non-reviewed websites?

    Germany will not be using vaccines with adjuvants on preganant women or children due to a lack of safety data.

    I too would be interested to see some long term studies proving these adjuvants they are using are safe, have searched high and low for some but no joy yet. Would be grateful if anyone with access to the research would have a look.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Elessar wrote: »
    Sorry to clarify, I mean the mammalian cell cultures used to grow the vaccine, the method Baxter is using to produce Celvapan. I can't find any studies on this.

    It seems a lot of the concern over the adjuvants used in the GSK vaccine are based publications like this and this from the University of Florida. If I am reading it correctly, it reports that 20-25% of mice injected with squalene (used in the GSK adjuvant iirc) produced antibodies specific to systemic lupus in mice.

    I have found quite a few other publications too (the same oil based adjuvants producing autoimmune disorders in rats etc.). Nothing conclusive on humans. In fact, there seem to be no long-term studies on this at all on humans. I am still undecided on the vaccine.

    You just have to do what you feel comfortable with.

    Those laboratory studies involve giving massive antigen loads to lab mice. Some of them formed potentially autoimmune antibodies, but as far as I know, none went onto develop autoimmune disease. Exposure to high levels of many antigens, whether through vaccination or natural exposure, can result in production of these antibodies. Lab studies often mean nothing in the real world. People are not getting autoimmune disease after vaccines with adjuvants. People get autoimmune reactions from the flu, though.

    There are papers out there. But, unless you have a medical background, or a stats background, they can be very hard to interpret, in terms of whether they're good or not.

    ONe of the great misconceptions by the public is that whatever is written in the conclusion of a paper they google on the web is true.

    If you look at the papers being posted over on a vaccine thread on the conspiracy theories forum, or if you do a search for links to studies etc that samson09 has posted, you'll see this.

    As things stand we know:

    Adjuvants have never been shown to have a deleterious effect on health.

    There is good evidence the swine flu vaccine is safe in adults.

    The data for the kids trial is about to be released.

    There is a trial going on in the US on pregnant women.

    We know the swine flu vaccine is not much different than the normal annual flu vaccine, and doesn't contain anything (except the H1N1 obviously) that's not been used in humans before. And vaccination, as well as being one of the biggest contributors to better health in the last century worldwide, is also one of the safest health interventions ever.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Elessar wrote: »
    Why is there so much concern over the adjuvants used in the GSK vaccine? There's concern in Germany and I've read that US authorities will not be using any adjuvant-based vaccine for its population. Naturally, I'm concerned. And I won't get the vaccine until I am absolutely certain that there are no long-term risks.

    Are there any peer-reviewd journals I can read that have studied the effects of adjuvants like Squalene long-term? Or studies I can read about the use of mamilian cells in the Baxter vaccine? Anywhere online, apart from discussion forums or non-reviewed websites?

    Squalene has been used in flu jabs for something like a decade now.
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851

    As of 2009, over 40 million people have been given squalene containing influenza vaccines in Europe. The incidence of serious adverse events so far reported, 1.4/100,000 doses administered, is at the baseline of the general population with no exposure to the vaccine.

    As far as long-term follow-up, squalene has been studied as part of influenza vaccines in over 30 phase 1-4 trials, 13 of which had 4-6 month follow-up, and included over 14,000 people, and the current influenza vaccines in development are subject to clinical trials with a 6-12 month follow up schedule.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Adjuvants have never been shown to have a deleterious effect on health.

    Pendantic but important clarification: Adjuvants at dose levels consistent with vaccinations etc. I'm pretty sure you could produce some nasty responses by exposing a person to an extremely high dose of one of them, like many substances.

    I'd use the analogy of paracetamol. In proper doses it's a relatively benign medication. Few will have any serious side effects and at most you can see slight elevations in liver function tests with prolonged use. Give it at a high dose however and it can and will kill people and screw up the livers of those who survive. The latter wouldn't stop me or most people from taking one for a headache though. When dealing with medications and substances, dosage rate is everything. You can't take a study showing X at one dosage level and argue automatically that the substance produces such a response at all dosage levels, biology just doesn't work that way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Well they're only adjuvants if the amount in the vaccine is coupled to the amount of antigen.

    And I hope no-one has ever done a study of high dose squalene or aluminium on humans! Though I could be wrong.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    And I hope no-one has ever done a study of high dose squalene or aluminium on humans! Though I could be wrong.

    There are the Swedish studies on Aluminium- and remember Friedrich Wöhler, the first person to isolate pure aluminium- died of heavy metal poisoning.... (I'm sure you're aware of the staff members (2) in UCD from years back too!)


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,212 ✭✭✭✭DARK-KNIGHT


    hey i have been told i will be up for the vaccine due to health problems!

    can anyone tell me that the vaccine is safe? im just a bit nervous about getting it now!!!

    thanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    smccarrick wrote: »
    There are the Swedish studies on Aluminium- and remember Friedrich Wöhler, the first person to isolate pure aluminium- died of heavy metal poisoning.... (I'm sure you're aware of the staff members (2) in UCD from years back too!)

    Well, it's aluminium hydroxide rather than pure aluminium. It's safe enough to put into common anti-heartburn meds.

    I don't know what the swedish studies are, or what happened in UCD, but I hope no one was giving large doses of heavy metals to the public!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,212 ✭✭✭✭DARK-KNIGHT


    hey my wife is pregnant 36 and a half weeks and was in the coombe today and so many people scare mongering about this vaccine - she now refuses to get it! SNIP

    sick of the irish ways of going on always negative and cant see that this vaccine is so important:mad:


Advertisement