Swine Flu - pros and cons

metrovelvet

Look, most influenza vaccines use mercury as a preservative. The toxin, disease,whatever you want to call it needs a preservative because if it rots in your system then it wont work and maybe do other active damage. I dont know, ask the doctors on teh med forum.

As far as I can tell, from the FDA site, a lot vaccines dont use mercury, but the influenza ones do but maybe I am reading the table wrong.

Now I dont have a problem with vaccines at all. What I do have a problem with is that when I go shopping I check the ingredients on a box of Cheerios, I check the ingredients on drinks, but there doesnt seem to be the same transparency when it comes to vaccines. Why cant I get to check the ingredients?

CathyMoran

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, most influenza vaccines use mercury as a preservative. The toxin, disease,whatever you want to call it needs a preservative because if it rots in your system then it wont work and maybe do other active damage. I dont know, ask the doctors on teh med forum.

As far as I can tell, from the FDA site, a lot vaccines dont use mercury, but the influenza ones do but maybe I am reading the table wrong.

Now I dont have a problem with vaccines at all. What I do have a problem with is that when I go shopping I check the ingredients on a box of Cheerios, I check the ingredients on drinks, but there doesnt seem to be the same transparency when it comes to vaccines. Why cant I get to check the ingredients?

To keep to the analogy though a lot of labels are quite confusing though unless you actively look up the ingredients aferwards...ditto the swine flu vaccine - there is information about a lot of it if you look it up and they can tell you if the vaccine in question has mercury or not. You just need to research it before you get it.

nesf

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, most influenza vaccines use mercury as a preservative. The toxin, disease,whatever you want to call it needs a preservative because if it rots in your system then it wont work and maybe do other active damage. I dont know, ask the doctors on teh med forum.

The form of mercury used isn't dangerous to the body in the doses present in a vaccination. It's use as a preservative allows for the vaccine to be deployed by GPs, otherwise large doses of the vaccine would have very short shelf lives after being opened and we'd see a lot of vaccine wasted.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Now I dont have a problem with vaccines at all. What I do have a problem with is that when I go shopping I check the ingredients on a box of Cheerios, I check the ingredients on drinks, but there doesnt seem to be the same transparency when it comes to vaccines. Why cant I get to check the ingredients?

Well, the main reason would be that you're not the one making the decision, your GP is. The average person wouldn't be able to make sense of the ingredients or what they do, we rely on specialists to interpret this for us. Versus when we walk into a supermarket and buy cereal where there we have to make the final decision without any advice from a qualified professional on the topic.

The ingredients of the vaccines are available, it's just the information is aimed at doctors not patients and as such isn't as easy to find if you don't know where to look for it.

nesf

anle your post linking to multiple sites has been removed. Link to academic sources or not at all. "they may be crack pots but it raises questions" is not a valid reason to link to such.

If you really want to discuss the potential dangers this is not the forum to do so. You can have such a debate on the Health Sciences forum here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=392

The reason for this is that the average reader of this forum is not well equipped to tell the crap from the genuine when it comes to academic studies and such articles make it very possible for people to make ill-informed decisions on this issue.

anle

nesf wrote: »

anle your post linking to multiple sites has been removed. Link to academic sources or not at all. "they may be crack pots but it raises questions" is not a valid reason to link to such.

If you really want to discuss the potential dangers this is not the forum to do so. You can have such a debate on the Health Sciences forum here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=392

The reason for this is that the average reader of this forum is not well equipped to tell the crap from the genuine when it comes to academic studies and such articles make it very possible for people to make ill-informed decisions on this issue.

Ok i got it, thanks

I thought it was a pros and cons discussion. It is a pros discussion and cons against the cons... whatever.

Did you look at the links and credentials? Only one of them:

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is a politician and a specialist in lungs, hygiene and environmental medicine. He is the chairman of the health committee in the German parliament and European Council.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/07/swine-flu-health-expert-warning/does-virus-vaccine-increase-risk-of-cancer.html

wolfpawnat

Carb wrote: »

Apart from that pregnant woman yesterday, has there been many deaths internationally amongst people outside the high risk groups?

Well the thing is, pregnant women are a high risk group, as their body is trying to cope with a parasite for 40 weeks (I hate thinking of babies as that but for those 40 weeks that is what they are) the immune system is compromised (that's why it felt like I was getting a new cold/flu every week!) and some women even get gestational problems such as Diabetes!

My son has gotten an appointment for Wednesday morning for his vaccine, he has a heart murmur (which I didn't think was severe enough to warrant a vaccine really) I really am between two minds on the matter, his dad and I are discussing it very seriously. We are terrified about whether there are going to be repercussions of the vaccine during his later development, but then again, there will not be a later development if he contracts the disease and heaven forbid does not survive it.

As a mother I am completely baffled by it. I would never take the vaccine myself even though I know it is mostly people in my age bracket that are likely to die from it, but I haven't got an underlying illness, but with him I want to give him maximum protection against it.

Damn maternal instinct conflict:)

nesf

anle wrote: »

Ok i got it, thanks

I thought it was a pros and cons discussion. It is a pros discussion and cons against the cons... whatever.

Did you look at the links and credentials? Only one of them:

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is a politician and a specialist in lungs, hygiene and environmental medicine. He is the chairman of the health committee in the German parliament and European Council.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/07/swine-flu-health-expert-warning/does-virus-vaccine-increase-risk-of-cancer.html

Yes, however it's in a newspaper and newspapers are not trustworthy sources for the analysis of scientific issues. The only place people should be trusting for information on this is their GP.

For instance in that article all that is said is that some people have fears about the contents of the vaccine. No research actually showing any ill-effects is quoted. Seriously, it's just not good reporting. Anyone can have "fears" about something, it doesn't mean crap unless there's empirical evidence to back those fears up.

anle

nesf wrote: »

Yes, however it's in a newspaper and newspapers are not trustworthy sources for the analysis of scientific issues. The only place people should be trusting for information on this is their GP.

For instance in that article all that is said is that some people have fears about the contents of the vaccine. No research actually showing any ill-effects is quoted. Seriously, it's just not good reporting. Anyone can have "fears" about something, it doesn't mean crap unless there's empirical evidence to back those fears up.

I am in a difficult position right now because I usually agree with your point of view. The only problem with this situation is that nobody has the possibility to do an independent analysis and a long term test of the vaccine. Think about it. Who will give me the vaccine to study it and how do I get the funds and time and volunteers to test it? So we have to trust whatever the producers declare. But because they took steps to ensure nobody sues them if something goes wrong and because there are certain events casting a shadow over this whole thing (like the German politicians taking a different vaccine than the rest of the population) I get this uneasy feeling like that they try to hide something or try to push this without a real reason other than profit. I am again looking at the "normal" flu causalities year after year and the swine flu doesn't seem to be that dangerous. And by the way, putting diagnostics over the phone in uk is not really the best example of the scientific method.

Onthebus

sharmini wrote: »

I am sickened and now saddened to learn of the death of 5yr old Ruby Ayoub. She was mistakenly diagnosed with swine flu, only to develop meningitis. My thoughts are with her family and her medical team. What a tragedy.

Her medical team?

They would appear to be at best negligent at this moment in time.
The muppets

Their "expert" opinion had lead to the death of a child.

They should not sent her back home and instead should have kept her under observation and, when they finally figured out what she had, given her the correct treatment

CathyMoran

anle wrote: »

I am in a difficult position right now because I usually agree with your point of view. The only problem with this situation is that nobody has the possibility to do an independent analysis and a long term test of the vaccine. Think about it. Who will give me the vaccine to study it and how do I get the funds and time and volunteers to test it? So we have to trust whatever the producers declare. But because they took steps to ensure nobody sues them if something goes wrong and because there are certain events casting a shadow over this whole thing (like the German politicians taking a different vaccine than the rest of the population) I get this uneasy feeling like that they try to hide something or try to push this without a real reason other than profit. I am again looking at the "normal" flu causalities year after year and the swine flu doesn't seem to be that dangerous. And by the way, putting diagnostics over the phone in uk is not really the best example of the scientific method.

The age profile for people affected is totally dfferent for one...

metrovelvet

nesf wrote: »

The form of mercury used isn't dangerous to the body in the doses present in a vaccination. It's use as a preservative allows for the vaccine to be deployed by GPs, otherwise large doses of the vaccine would have very short shelf lives after being opened and we'd see a lot of vaccine wasted.



Well, the main reason would be that you're not the one making the decision, your GP is. The average person wouldn't be able to make sense of the ingredients or what they do, we rely on specialists to interpret this for us. Versus when we walk into a supermarket and buy cereal where there we have to make the final decision without any advice from a qualified professional on the topic.

The ingredients of the vaccines are available, it's just the information is aimed at doctors not patients and as such isn't as easy to find if you don't know where to look for it.

I half agree with you. Ultimately the health decisions are ours.

For example, I asked on the med forum if Irish vaccines had the same ingredienst as the US ones, where thimerosol seems to only be used now in the influenza vaccines but not in childhood vaccinations. No one answered me. I cant get a straight answer, from anyone!

nesf

metrovelvet wrote: »

I half agree with you. Ultimately the health decisions are ours.

For example, I asked on the med forum if Irish vaccines had the same ingredienst as the US ones, where thimerosol seems to only be used now in the influenza vaccines but not in childhood vaccinations. No one answered me. I cant get a straight answer, from anyone!

Well, for one thing why would Irish doctors know a lot about the US vaccine? Unless someone practiced in both countries one wouldn't expect them to be very familiar with practices in both no?

nesf

anle wrote: »

I am in a difficult position right now because I usually agree with your point of view. The only problem with this situation is that nobody has the possibility to do an independent analysis and a long term test of the vaccine. Think about it. Who will give me the vaccine to study it and how do I get the funds and time and volunteers to test it? So we have to trust whatever the producers declare. But because they took steps to ensure nobody sues them if something goes wrong and because there are certain events casting a shadow over this whole thing (like the German politicians taking a different vaccine than the rest of the population) I get this uneasy feeling like that they try to hide something or try to push this without a real reason other than profit. I am again looking at the "normal" flu causalities year after year and the swine flu doesn't seem to be that dangerous. And by the way, putting diagnostics over the phone in uk is not really the best example of the scientific method.

It's a flu vaccine not a novel type of vaccine so it is well understood. Also this form of H1N1 does not behave the same as normal H1N1 that we see in seasonal flu epidemics each year. It behaves differently biologically to normal H1N1 strains of Influenza A. It kills different people and it spreads differently due to a lack of immunity amongst younger people.

metrovelvet

nesf wrote: »

Well, for one thing why would Irish doctors know a lot about the US vaccine? Unless someone practiced in both countries one wouldn't expect them to be very familiar with practices in both no?

I posted the FDA site which lists vaccines and which ones use thimerosol and which ones dont and was wondering if Irish vaccines are the same.

meditraitor

My little one is 1 year old this week and I am all for getting the vaccine as soon as it is available for her but the misses has been swayed by the "office whispers" about the side effects.

The whole mercury and big pharma conspiricy crap

I'm not really in a position(dont feel qualified) to debate the points PRO and CON with her but she has agreed to talk to our GP (the little one has her MMR this week which was also causing concern due to ignorant office lie spreading monkeys) about it before we make a decision.

After we speak to the docter we will make a decision, not easy folks.

Khannie

anle wrote: »

Honestly, by merging the threads you killed any chance for me to get other people's opinion.

Garbage. Most people whose opinions you seek have been reading since the thread started and only read new posts. It's also no reason to start a new thread just because you have a link to a video to be honest.

anle wrote: »

At the end the lady gives you some numbers for how many people die every ear in Europe from the normal flu: 40,000 in good years, 220,000 in bad years.

Those numbers are utterly meaningless. I was the first person to point out that lots and lots of people die from the flu every year when discussing this with others. The problem with the swine flu is that it kills people (and this is the important part) who would not otherwise die.

anle wrote: »

You realize that you already made a decision to get the show for your wife and you and now you feel the need to defend this decision so you are already biased in this discussion.

More garbage and I could just as easily turn it around and point it in the other direction at you. You have no idea whether I'm biased or not. We examined the facts and came to a logical conclusion (that does not make us biased). Here's what we based our decision on.

1) There was a risk one way or the other. You're at risk if you don't get the vaccine and there is a risk associated with getting the vaccine.
2) We are yet to hear of any deaths from the vaccine.
3) Swine flu is not the most dangerous disease on the planet, but it does pose a risk of death in otherwise healthy people. It seemed to us that the chances of death were higher from not getting the vaccine (i.e. remaining exposed) than from getting the vaccine.
4) My wife is in the "at risk" group because she's pregnant, thus her chances of death (and that of our unborn child) after contracting swine flu are even higher than the populous as a whole.

anle wrote: »

Maybe i am a bit cynical but I don't believe much from what politicians and officials tell me on the news. I believe that this kind of people have the mindset to make a profit at the risk of my health as long as they can't be accused. And huge profits seem to be involved in this vaccine.

Your argument holds no water with me as you could say that about any vaccine. Why would you believe them about other vaccines and not this one?

Let me ask you this: At what point would the death rate convince you that it was worth taking the risk of getting the vaccine? 2% fatality? 5%? 10%?

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

I half agree with you. Ultimately the health decisions are ours.

For example, I asked on the med forum if Irish vaccines had the same ingredienst as the US ones, where thimerosol seems to only be used now in the influenza vaccines but not in childhood vaccinations. No one answered me. I cant get a straight answer, from anyone!

To be perfectly honest, and I mean no disrespect, you often try to use the bio+med forum to try and inform decisions about the health of your child, which is why people tend not to answer your questions. i'm not having a go at you, I'm just telling you why it happens.

But as it's come up here, thimerosal is the component of vaccines that was supposedly the cause of autism. It's often reported as "mercury" when it's not.

They did a big study in Denmark of hundreds of thousands of kids who got thimerosal containing vaccines, and compared them to kids who got vaccines without thimerosal.

The autism rates were actually slightly HIGHER in the kids who didn't have thimerosal in their vaccines.

It's used as a preservative in vaccines, and is very good at that. The reason for it is that the nurse might open a vial of the vaccine in the flu clinic on the friday. It might be the same vial used to vaccinate people the following monday. So, to stop of going off over the weekend, they put a preservative in it.

In the normal modern childhood vaccines you don't need it, as they come in single vials.

However, I'm 99% certain they're not using thimerosal in Ireland in their vaccines. I don't work in Ireland so I could be wrong.

They use squalene as an adjunct in Ireland, which has it's own conspiracy theorists. But the WHO reported in a recent report of 22 million normal flu vaccines given, with squalene in them, and there were no unusual effects.

They also claimed it caused gulf war syndrome via the anthrax vaccine. But there was no squalene in the anthrax vaccine.

But the insane myths just keep going round. I got mine a few weeks ago, complete with thimerosal :P

wolfpawnat

tallaght01 wrote: »

They use squalene as an adjunct in Ireland, which has it's own conspiracy theorists. But the WHO reported in a recent report of 22 million normal flu vaccines given, with squalene in them, and there were no unusual effects.

My son is due to get his vaccine tomorrow and his father is very concerned regarding the adjuvant (he studied medicine for a while) what exactly is it?

tallaght01

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My son is due to get his vaccine tomorrow and his father is very concerned regarding the adjuvant (he studied medicine for a while) what exactly is it?

An adjuvant is an ingredient in vaccines to strengthen the immune response. It means two things:

1) You can give a smaller dose of vaccine and get a good immune response

2) The improved immune response means that, if the virus mutates, the person who has been vaccinated will still be immune to the mutant strain, although this is never guaranteed.

Adjuvants have never been shown to be unsafe.

But it's extremely important not to base any decision on what some randomer on the net tells you. Do your own research, and talk to people who work in healthcare, like your GP.

If you're googling, the conspiracy theories pages all show up on the first few pages. But the WHO have lots of info on adjuvants:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/index.html

wolfpawnat

tallaght01 wrote: »

An adjuvant is an ingredient in vaccines to strengthen the immune response. It means two things:

1) You can give a smaller dose of vaccine and get a good immune response

2) The improved immune response means that, if the virus mutates, the person who has been vaccinated will still be immune to the mutant strain, although this is never guaranteed.

Adjuvants have never been shown to be unsafe.

But it's extremely important not to base any decision on what some randomer on the net tells you. Do your own research, and talk to people who work in healthcare, like your GP.

If you're googling, the conspiracy theories pages all show up on the first few pages. But the WHO have lots of info on adjuvants:

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/index.html

Thank you, there are so many terrible sites full of stupid lies! I am basing my decision on as much information I can find. I just did not know what adjuvant meant.

questor282

2) The improved immune response means that, if the virus mutates, the person who has been vaccinated will still be immune to the mutant strain, although this is never guaranteed.

I think this is overstating matters a bit really, although I accept you did qualify this a bit at the end of the quote. An adjuvant will give a potentially stronger immune response to that in which it has been vaccinated. Any mutation in which the major protective region (to which antibodies have been raised) has altered is highly unlikely to be recognised even in the presence of adjuvant.

Q

tallaght01

questor282 wrote: »

I think this is overstating matters a bit really, although I accept you did qualify this a bit at the end of the quote. An adjuvant will give a potentially stronger immune response to that in which it has been vaccinated. Any mutation in which the major protective region (to which antibodies have been raised) has altered is highly unlikely to be recognised even in the presence of adjuvant.

Q

Lots of immune responses are cross reactive. There's nothing new about this idea. You never guarantee it, but it's one of the advantges of an adjuvant.

For example, the lack of swine flu infections in the elderly seem to be a result of a previous infection that might not be a swine flu.

questor282

An adjuvant can only potentiate an immune response that is already pre-exisitng. An adjuvant will NOT take an immune reponse and make it cross reactive if it didn't have the potential to do it in the first place. Admittedly it may make such a pre-exisiting cross reaction appear like it has come about as a result of the adjuvant, but it will always have been there.

Mods: not meaning take this thread OT, but think this is interesting for those wondering why adjuvants are put into vaccines

nesf

questor282 wrote: »

An adjuvant can only potentiate an immune response that is already pre-exisitng. An adjuvant will NOT take an immune reponse and make it cross reactive if it didn't have the potential to do it in the first place. Admittedly it may make such a pre-exisiting cross reaction appear like it has come about as a result of the adjuvant, but it will always have been there.

Mods: not meaning take this thread OT, but think this is interesting for those wondering why adjuvants are put into vaccines

It's a circular argument though, a better immune response gives a greater chance of resisting a mutation and adjuvants do create a stronger immune response. Remove the adjuvant and you decrease the likelihood of resisting a mutation given an otherwise unchanged vaccine.

There would be a much better argument for not using them if it wasn't very expensive and very time consuming to make flu vaccine batches but it is due to the nature of the manufacturing process. If we didn't use adjuvants we would have to make far fewer vaccine doses for the same amount of manufacturing capacity. That there is no evidence of adjuvants being harmful despite decades of use, it really should be a non-issue if they are present in a vaccine.

ferdyfish

cant find anything when i google to find the side effects recorded so far after the swine flu vaccine. anyone have any info on this? and the side effects that occured in babys of under 1 year.
my 6month old son is getting it tomorrow. i wouldnt have a 6month old get the vaccine but his mum booked him in.