Author Topic: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread (Read 550900 times)

Barryg · « **Reply #180 on:** January 16, 2013, 08:47:25 PM »

Reply to YankeeDoodle @ 441

-1- From USA today! (close to bottom of article)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2013/01/14/can-flu-vaccine-cause-the-flu/1833793/
"If you have the misfortune of being exposed to a different flu strain, the vaccine can't protect you, says Michael Jhung, a medical officer at the CDC."

-2- They already recommend that everyone get the flu-vax, and were talking about educated MD's here. (Besides for Walgreens, apparently) I'd assume most doctors carry the unusually high variety of ALL Of THE, umm 2 types, now out of the two between the patient and the doctor, they should know enough to decide between the two without further instruction.
When I went to buy a Pesach hot water urn, there was a salesman who was newer on the job and he quickly explained the differences between seven types of kettles easily. It shouldn't be too hard here; shot/spray, live/dead, better for young/may be better for older...

-3- I ROFL since, again since one-size-fits-all to the two repetition kinda got to me. You win on this one, I guess...

YankyDoodle · « **Reply #181 on:** January 17, 2013, 10:06:59 AM »

Quote from: Barryg on January 16, 2013, 08:47:25 PM

Reply to YankeeDoodle @ 441

-1- From USA today! (close to bottom of article)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2013/01/14/can-flu-vaccine-cause-the-flu/1833793/
"If you have the misfortune of being exposed to a different flu strain, the vaccine can't protect you, says Michael Jhung, a medical officer at the CDC."

The quote was regarding a study that showed that mist is better than shot at protecting slightly different strains of flu... not an imossible concept. The CDC may or may not have run the same experiment with different results... It doesn't make the original article irresponsible bec. they quote a study that is not unanimous.

-2- They already recommend that everyone get the flu-vax, and were talking about educated MD's here. (Besides for Walgreens, apparently) I'd assume most doctors carry the unusually high variety of ALL Of THE, umm 2 types, now out of the two between the patient and the doctor, they should know enough to decide between the two without further instruction.
When I went to buy a Pesach hot water urn, there was a salesman who was newer on the job and he quickly explained the differences between seven types of kettles easily. It shouldn't be too hard here; shot/spray, live/dead, better for young/may be better for older...

Not sure what your problem is here... Yes, I think it's pathetic if a doctor's office can't stock 2 options. That is not the discusion. The CDC recommends what it believes to be the best option for different age groups. This informs the doctors and allows them to advise their patients to the best of their abilities. These are the same people who recommend that infants under 6 months should not receive the flu shot... Should they not recommend that either bec. it's a simple choice, yes or no?

-3- I ROFL since, again since one-size-fits-all to the two repetition kinda got to me. You win on this one, I guess...

Having only one option (now 2 with the flumist) is part of the reason that the vaccine is not infallible. It doesn't take individuals unique quirks into account. This is not regarding only these 2 options for this year, but flu vaccines every year. It targets the strain of flu, instead of targeting how the strain of flu affects ppl with certain DNA markers.

Barryg · « **Reply #182 on:** January 17, 2013, 08:38:50 PM »

Quote from: Sammy on January 16, 2013, 04:46:15 PM

Didn't get the shot but just recovered from the flu.... IT was a disaster

Vitamin D? (curious)

churnbabychurn · « **Reply #183 on:** January 17, 2013, 10:22:42 PM »

Did anyone get the flu and use Tamiflu?
Did it help, how long till recovery?

whacked1 · « **Reply #184 on:** January 18, 2013, 04:11:08 AM »

Quote from: churnbabychurn on January 17, 2013, 10:22:42 PM

Did anyone get the flu and use Tamiflu?
Did it help, how long till recovery?

yup, i had the flu two weeks ago i used tamiflu was feeling better almost instantly (within 24 hrs). they say you have to catch it right away for it to work though

churnbabychurn · « **Reply #185 on:** January 20, 2013, 11:49:12 AM »

You got tested to confirm it was the flu?

whacked1 · « **Reply #186 on:** January 20, 2013, 03:56:20 PM »

Quote from: churnbabychurn on January 20, 2013, 11:49:12 AM

You got tested to confirm it was the flu?

yup, that test is painful!!

churnbabychurn · « **Reply #187 on:** January 20, 2013, 04:13:13 PM »

Quote from: whacked1 on January 20, 2013, 03:56:20 PM

yup, that test is painful!!

right, Been there done that. ouch

U-no-me! · « **Reply #188 on:** January 22, 2013, 07:56:06 PM »

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/insight-evidence-grows-for-narcolepsy-link-to-gsk-swine-flu-shot

Dan · « **Reply #189 on:** January 22, 2013, 07:58:24 PM »

Quote from: U-no-me! on January 22, 2013, 07:56:06 PM

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/insight-evidence-grows-for-narcolepsy-link-to-gsk-swine-flu-shot

Why just Europe? Why wouldn't it effect others elsewhere

LeeW · « **Reply #190 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Dan on January 22, 2013, 07:58:24 PM

Why just Europe? Why wouldn't it effect others elsewhere

Answer is in the article "Because it contains an adjuvant, or booster, it was not used in the United States because drug regulators there are wary of adjuvanted vaccines."

Barryg · « **Reply #191 on:** January 23, 2013, 01:07:01 AM »

Quote from: LeeW on January 22, 2013, 10:27:04 PM

Answer is in the article "Because it contains an adjuvant, or booster, it was not used in the United States because drug regulators there are wary of adjuvanted vaccines."

From 2009 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/swine-flu-vaccine-fearmongering/
1 point for Mercola?

Claim: Joseph Mercola writes about “Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret.” He has claimed that the vaccine adjuvant squalene is dangerous, that the Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the squalene in anthrax vaccines, that squalene is “good” or “bad depending on how it gets into your body: “Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.” And the only reason they put adjuvants in vaccines is to save money.

Fact: Squalene is found naturally in the human body. It is a precursor of cholesterol and other compounds necessary to human health. Squalene antibodies were found in Gulf War veterans; but the rate turned out to be no higher in those who had Gulf War Syndrome than in those who didn’t. Squalene antibodies were found at similar rates in people who had never been exposed to squalene in vaccines. The anthrax vaccine has been ruled out as a possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Anyway, it turns out there was no squalene in the anthrax vaccine!

American flu vaccines do not contain adjuvants, but maybe they should. Adjuvants enhance the body’s innate immune response to the antigens in vaccines, making vaccines more effective. And they allow for broader cross-reactivity against viral strains not included in the vaccine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931151?ordinalpos=33&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Mercola says adjuvants are added just to increase profits, but the pharmaceutical and health industries could make far more money treating patients in an epidemic than they could ever make trying to prevent one.

There is a large body of data demonstrating the safety of squalene. Flu vaccines containing MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant, have been used in Europe for 10 years, with 22,000,000 doses given; and no serious adverse events have occurred, only mild local reactions. The vaccine does not raise the incidence or titers of anti-squalene antibodies. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers it safe. http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/index.html

YankyDoodle · « **Reply #192 on:** January 23, 2013, 09:14:43 AM »

Quote from: Barryg on January 23, 2013, 01:07:01 AM

From 2009 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/swine-flu-vaccine-fearmongering/
1 point for Mercola?

Claim: Joseph Mercola writes about “Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret.” He has claimed that the vaccine adjuvant squalene is dangerous, that the Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the squalene in anthrax vaccines, that squalene is “good” or “bad depending on how it gets into your body: “Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.” And the only reason they put adjuvants in vaccines is to save money.

Fact: Squalene is found naturally in the human body. It is a precursor of cholesterol and other compounds necessary to human health. Squalene antibodies were found in Gulf War veterans; but the rate turned out to be no higher in those who had Gulf War Syndrome than in those who didn’t. Squalene antibodies were found at similar rates in people who had never been exposed to squalene in vaccines. The anthrax vaccine has been ruled out as a possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Anyway, it turns out there was no squalene in the anthrax vaccine!

American flu vaccines do not contain adjuvants, but maybe they should. Adjuvants enhance the body’s innate immune response to the antigens in vaccines, making vaccines more effective. And they allow for broader cross-reactivity against viral strains not included in the vaccine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931151?ordinalpos=33&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Mercola says adjuvants are added just to increase profits, but the pharmaceutical and health industries could make far more money treating patients in an epidemic than they could ever make trying to prevent one.

There is a large body of data demonstrating the safety of squalene. Flu vaccines containing MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant, have been used in Europe for 10 years, with 22,000,000 doses given; and no serious adverse events have occurred, only mild local reactions. The vaccine does not raise the incidence or titers of anti-squalene antibodies. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers it safe. http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/index.html

You do realize that what you quoted is saying that Mercola is wrong, correct?

az · « **Reply #193 on:** January 23, 2013, 10:54:36 AM »

what about Vaccinations for kids and infants, do you guys want to discuss this or should it be a new thread?

Achas Veachas · « **Reply #194 on:** January 23, 2013, 11:06:02 AM »

Maybe we should just start a thread "Traditional vs. Alternative medicine"?

az · « **Reply #195 on:** January 23, 2013, 11:12:44 AM »

Quote from: Achas Veachas on January 23, 2013, 11:06:02 AM

Maybe we should just start a thread "Traditional vs. Alternative medicine"?

why? is it called Traditional medicine if someone dos'nt take a shot becouse of the risks of taking it?

HelpMe · « **Reply #196 on:** January 23, 2013, 11:13:05 AM »

Quote from: Achas Veachas on January 23, 2013, 11:06:02 AM

Maybe we should just start a thread "Traditional vs. Witch Doctor ~~Alternative medicine~~"?

FTFY

az · « **Reply #197 on:** January 23, 2013, 11:17:46 AM »

sorry

i ment: is it called alternative medicine if someone dos'nt take a shot becouse of the risks of taking it?

HelpMe · « **Reply #198 on:** January 23, 2013, 11:21:02 AM »

Quote from: az on January 23, 2013, 11:17:46 AM

sorry i ment: is it called alternative medicine if someone dos'nt take a shot becouse of the risks of taking it?

NO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine

Achas Veachas · « **Reply #199 on:** January 23, 2013, 11:22:00 AM »

Quote from: az on January 23, 2013, 11:17:46 AM

sorry i ment: is it called alternative medicine if someone dos'nt take a shot becouse of the risks of taking it?

Traditional medicine has its ways of assessing risk vs. benefits. Disregarding these studies wold qualify as alternative.

Quote from: HelpMe on January 23, 2013, 11:13:05 AM

FTFY

I was thinking of writing "vs. quack medicine" didn't want to offend anyone. thanks for doing the dirty work for me

Topic Wiki

Poll

Did You Get The Flu Vaccine This Winter?

Author Topic: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread (Read 550900 times)