as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

[guru]

Period.

Not quite.

Short term - I agree. You are much less likely to get the disease you are being innoculated against. Long term is not so black and white.

[Marlow]

Period.

Not quite.
Short term - I agree. You are less likely to get the disease you are being innoculated against. Long term is not so black and white.

There is no substantive evidence that your immune system is or is not compromised by the FLU shot, so I repeat, the odds are WITH you if you get the shot.

[Pego]

Except no one is equating smallpox with the flu. A lot of people are concerned about the health effects of Thimersol. So much so that the CDC and AAP requested removal from infant vaccines in 1999(which makers did).

This deserves an answer. First, "people are concerned about the health effects of Thimersol". You quoted one article in this regard on the other thread. While I have neither the tools, nor the time to evaluate their statistics, I read carefully the clinical part. It is erroneous at best, outright nonsense at worst. If this is representative of "people that are concerned about the health effects of Thimersol", you need to do better.

Secondly, the change in vaccines. While I am not familiar with the process, I would dare to bet that the reason for change would be the elimination of fear the crackpots caused to the parents as well as legal issues, rather than the merits of your argument.

[odelltrclan]

It all comes down to cold logic and the odds. You are more likely to stay healthy if you get the shot. Period.

Are you sure, my bet is that the odds are that I have been exposed to something similar enough in my lifetime to not have to worry about it, as most people over 40. Odds are probably better that I would have a greater risk for something going wrong in getting a vaccination than to let mother nature take its course.

In other words, I think for me the odds of having any serious problems from this were very low and I would rather take that chance than to have any chance of something going wrong with a vaccination.

I know people who get flu shots every year and always seem to get sick, or at least far sicker than I do.

[Marlow]

It all comes down to cold logic and the odds. You are more likely to stay healthy if you get the shot. Period.

Are you sure

Yes.

[steve]

I wonder, if SQUACKEE and mcgato were just as cocky in a smallpox epidemics. Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know, what they would do, sensible people as they are.

Smallpox is not the flu, and you know it.

The largest epidemic in history is the flu epidemic of 1918. In 2 years more than 50 million people were estimated to have died worldwide.

I would guess that the reason that the H1N1 was not so deadly this time was due to the many news reports, precautions, antivirals, and the vaccines. Those of you who didn't get the vaccine and didn't get the flu can thank herd immunity and everybody else's precautions.

As for the idea that in 40 plus years your immune system has been exposed to enough antigens that there is likely crossover immunity.......just not true. Pick up an immunology text and an infectious disease text and you'll learn how acquired immunity works.

[BisonHurdler]

I know people who get flu shots every year and always seem to get sick, or at least far sicker than I do.

I know an old man down the street that walks with a limp and uses a cane. Now I'm not saying the cane causes his leg to malfunction, but I never use a cane and my leg works just fine . . . seems a little suspicious.

[guru]

Except I'll bet the old man got his cane after he got that limp.

[BisonHurdler]

Except I'll bet the old man got his cane after he got that limp.

Exactly. And it's quite possible that the reason these people are getting flu shots is because of an underlying predisposition to illness/weaker immune system in the first place.

It's like suggesting that multiple drugs for hypertension cause higher blood pressure, because all the people I see who have the highest blood pressures are on the most medications for it.

[SQUACKEE]

I would guess that the reason that the H1N1 was not so deadly this time was due to the many news reports, precautions, antivirals, and the vaccines. Those of you who didn't get the vaccine and didn't get the flu can thank herd immunity and everybody else's precautions.
.

I knew someone would bring up this point. I have no proof if its valid or not, only a feeling it isnt.

[Pego]

I would guess that the reason that the H1N1 was not so deadly this time was due to the many news reports, precautions, antivirals, and the vaccines. Those of you who didn't get the vaccine and didn't get the flu can thank herd immunity and everybody else's precautions.
.

I knew someone would bring up this point. I have no proof if its valid or not, only a feeling it isnt.

You can well be right, actually, you are probably right. There is a lot of indications that H1N1's virulence was overestimated by world health agencies. That does not change principles of this debate. If you look at the history of vaccinations, you'll find that the critics are always the same as the flat earthers, young age creationists, home schoolers, in other words the regressive anti-science, anti-intellectual crowd that loves benefits of scientific discoveries, but fights all new developments tooth and nail. That was the case with Jenner's first attempt to vaccinate over 200 years ago, it continues to this day. Let's face it, nothing in medicine is 100% safe. People died from ingesting an aspirin, people died from penicillin. Fringe medical practitioners (they are nowadays known as "alternative medicine") have fought immunization as well as sound pharmacology ever since its beginning, just pick up some chiropractic or homeopathic pamphlets. People keep forgetting that modern medicine (particularly pharmacology) is less than 150 years old. Let's compare life expectancy, neonatal and puerperal mortality 200 years ago to today. Remember, immunization has been a big part of it.

[dukehjsteve]

Pego, your comments above are absolutely dead center correct on several different levels. Well said.

[SQUACKEE]

Pego, your comments above are absolutely dead center correct on several different levels. Well said.

You cant disagree with facts and i totally agree also.

[kuha]

Yes, absolutely. Well said, as usual...

[gh]

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

It's so much easier to seek relief when one is ill than it is to think about getting ahead of the curve with solid preventitive measures.

[SQUACKEE]

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

It's so much easier to seek relief when one is ill than it is to think about getting ahead of the curve with solid preventitive measures.

Not always a bad thing.

[guru]

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

I know you said most, and not all, but I have taken painkillers once in my adult life - ibuprofen when I had a kidney stone back in '06. A full bottle of vicodin sits unopened in the medicine cabinet(why I let the doc talk me into getting it filled I have no idea).

[mcgato]

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.

[odelltrclan]

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.

Very well said ALSO

If I thought that getting the vaccine would have made a significant difference in my life, I would not hesitate. There had been plenty of statistics published about this flu long before the vaccines were available and it made me think twice about getting a flu vaccine, but that is it. This was not the 1918 flu. And it was more than the media that was the difference.

By the way, I do take antibiotics. . . . if I am sick enough to need to go to the doctor and they prescribe it. Fortunately that has not happened more than a couple of times in the last 30 years.

[steve]

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.

Very well said ALSO

If I thought that getting the vaccine would have made a significant difference in my life, I would not hesitate. There had been plenty of statistics published about this flu long before the vaccines were available and it made me think twice about getting a flu vaccine, but that is it. This was not the 1918 flu. And it was more than the media that was the difference.

By the way, I do take antibiotics. . . . if I am sick enough to need to go to the doctor and they prescribe it. Fortunately that has not happened more than a couple of times in the last 30 years.

I think you guys are underestimating the potential of the flu to cause another major epidemic. It's airborne, mutates rapidly to avoid immune surveillance, and, depending on the strain, can have a severe effect on otherwise yung healthy people.

I'm not certain but I think the recent H1N1 was a very similar flu virus to that which caused the 1918 epidemic. If a vaccine and antivirals/other precautions are only even 50% effective, it may be enough to stop the spread and limit deaths.

Then again, there did seem to be a lot of sensationalistic media coverage.

[steve]

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.

Very well said ALSO

If I thought that getting the vaccine would have made a significant difference in my life, I would not hesitate. There had been plenty of statistics published about this flu long before the vaccines were available and it made me think twice about getting a flu vaccine, but that is it. This was not the 1918 flu. And it was more than the media that was the difference.

By the way, I do take antibiotics. . . . if I am sick enough to need to go to the doctor and they prescribe it. Fortunately that has not happened more than a couple of times in the last 30 years.

I think you guys are underestimating the potential of the flu to cause another major epidemic. It's airborne, mutates rapidly to avoid immune surveillance, and, depending on the strain, can have a severe effect on otherwise yung healthy people.

I'm not certain but I think the recent H1N1 was a very similar flu virus to that which caused the 1918 epidemic. If a vaccine and antivirals/other precautions are only even 50% effective, it may be enough to stop the spread and limit deaths.

Then again, there did seem to be a lot of sensationalistic media coverage.

[gh]

Whooping cough on record pace in California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

let's hope there's a decent response rate among those needing vaccinations.

[Pego]

Whooping cough on record pace in California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

let's hope there's a decent response rate among those needing vaccinations.

I am pretty sure, I am the only poster here that actually saw cases of whooping cough. Those blue faces of children unable to stop hacking you don't forget. Parents that refuse the immunization should be made to watch these films for a while.

[catson52]

Whooping cough on record pace in California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

let's hope there's a decent response rate among those needing vaccinations.

I am pretty sure, I am the only poster here that actually saw cases of whooping cough. Those blue faces of children unable to stop hacking you don't forget. Parents that refuse the immunization should be made to watch these films for a while.

Fully agree - having seen some cases of kids with whooping cough.

[guru]

43% of US H1N1 vaccine supply to be destroyed after expiring unused, to the tune of over $300 million.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38033294/ns/health/

[guru]

The more high-risk people who get shot up, the fewer potential Typhoid Marys there are out there to spread it to the rest of the populace.

(again, this is speaking vaccination in general, not focusing on Swine Flu)

Nobody is saying "high risk" people shouldn't get the vaccine, including me in this very thread.

But in general, you have to think twice about getting something put into your body that has risk such that federal legislation specifically protects the manufacturers/providers from legal liability.

That protection may soon be coming to an end.

http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/2009/b ... tz-v-wyeth

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... =D9IQCQ000

[cornstarchwilson]

90% of the improvement in health over the last 100 years resulted from improvement in hygiene not from any advancement in medical science.

The availability of clean, safe drinking water is a key. The safe disposal of waste is another.

The improvement in the health of doctor's patients went up significantly when the doctors began to wash their hands before each examination.

A significant percentage of patients in hospitals die not from the ailment they were admitted for, but from ailments they contracted while staying in the hospital.

Is there any truth to the rumor that the company that produces most of the swine flu vaccines is owned by one of the Bush crew?

[Marlow]

90% of the improvement in health over the last 100 years resulted from improvement in hygiene not from any advancement in medical science.

While 'cleanliness' has made a HUGE difference in public health, it accounts for much less of the improvement than the introduction of sophisticated medicines and improved treatments/surgeries. The radical improvements made in the treatment of heart diseases and cancers is an example.

[Pego]

90% of the improvement in health over the last 100 years resulted from improvement in hygiene not from any advancement in medical science.

Not remotely close to 90%

A significant percentage of patients in hospitals die not from the ailment they were admitted for, but from ailments they contracted while staying in the hospital.

What do you consider "significant percentage?"

It never fails to amaze me how virtually every debate dealing with issues such as immunization or variable "alternative healing options" end up with somebody eager to blast traditional medicine or its providers.

[DrJay]

And with wild claims made without data to back them up (see above quote, "A significant percentage of patients in hospitals die not from the ailment they were admitted for, but from ailments they contracted while staying in the hospital.")

[Daisy]

A significant percentage of patients in hospitals die not from the ailment they were admitted for, but from ailments they contracted while staying in the hospital.

That's scary, especially coming from someone in the know! So DrJay, are you a member of the death panel at your local hospital?

[El Toro]

It is important to understand the distinction between health effects at an individual and population level. While advanced technology may benefit an individual to a significant degree, there is no guarantee that this will have a net positive effect at a population level. In fact, the resources devoted to that individual may detract from population health in a number of ways.

A nice general audience article outlining the complex interactions and occasional counterintuitive impacts of modern medicine (with references) can be found here http://www.novamagazine.com.au/article_ ... dicine.htm

Don't discount the article because of the publication it is in because the references used are to legitimate research. One of the main references,The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies, is published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and can be found here http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1260.full

The IJE was rated by the Australian Research Council world-wide peer assessment groups as an A* journal, the same as Nature, so it's not produced by an anti-science ideologue and published by hippies.

ARC definition: Typically an A* journal would be one of the best in its field or subfield in which to publish and would typically cover the entire field/subfield. Virtually all papers they publish will be of a very high quality. These are journals where most of the work is important (it will really shape the field) and where researchers boast about getting accepted. Acceptance rates would typically be low and the editorial board would be dominated by field leaders, including many from top institutions.

[gh]

I scanned the article quickly and it sounded like a bit of a commercial for holistic medicine to me.

[Conor Dary]

I scanned the article quickly and it sounded like a bit of a commercial for holistic medicine to me.

How do you take something like that seriously. The whole thing is just one big advertisement.

For example:

A major Australian study found an association between increasing mortality and an increase in the doctor supply , which is attributed to increasing adversities or complications caused by, or resulting from, medical treatment within society.

What does that mean? It could mean healthy people tend to not go to the doctor. And people who are mortally ill do.

As for cleanliness beats all, this is from the current issue of the New York Review.

"The mutation of polio into a serious disease can be blamed on improved standards of hygiene. The polio virus is passed on via human feces (the virus breeds in the small intestine). A regime of hand-washing, regular baths, and clean underwear cuts down transmission. The catch is that clean habits rob communities of resistance to the virus; and when nonresistant older children and adults contract the disease, it tends to take an extreme form. Thus the very measures that subdued diseases like cholera, typhus, tuberculosis, and diphtheria made poliomyelitis a threat to life.

The paradox that while strict hygiene lessens the risk to individuals, it weakens resistance and turns the disease lethal, was not widely grasped in the heyday of polio. In afflicted communities, eruptions of polio would trigger parallel and no less morbid eruptions of anxiety, despair, and misdirected rage. "

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... ral-brink/

And yes it is a review of a novel and not a scientific article, but still worth noting the importance of the polio vaccine.

[El Toro]

How do you take something like that seriously. The whole thing is just one big advertisement.

The article advertises no product at all, only a better understanding of elements contributing to population health.

For example:

A major Australian study found an association between increasing mortality and an increase in the doctor supply , which is attributed to increasing adversities or complications caused by, or resulting from, medical treatment within society.

What does that mean? It could mean healthy people tend to not go to the doctor. And people who are mortally ill do.

If you had done any follow up or thinking you would have not have embarrassed yourself with such a ridiculaous statement. Here is the author of that paper you refer to http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres ... rdson.html - clearly an friggin anti science hippy and here is the paper http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres ... /wp137.pdf if you care to stick to "facts not fiction" rather than mere handwaving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving