Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't usually use the cdc as a reliable source but this is probably what most would want to see
"In seasonal flu, certain people are at “high risk” of serious complications. This includes people 65 years and older, children younger than five years old, pregnant women, and people of any age with certain chronic medical conditions. About 70 percent of people who have been hospitalized with this novel H1N1 virus have had one or more medical conditions previously recognized as placing people at “high risk” of serious seasonal flu-related complications. This includes pregnancy, diabetes, heart disease, asthma and kidney disease."
"The information analyzed by CDC supports the conclusion that novel H1N1 flu has caused greater disease burden in people younger than 25 years of age than older people. At this time, there are few cases and few deaths reported in people older than 64 years old, which is unusual when compared with seasonal flu. "
No where on the CDC site does it say healthy children and adults have NOT died from H1N1. By the very link you quote, one has to assume that if 70% of the hospitalized patients, very ill, had an underlying medical condition that means the other 30%, or nearly 1:3, did not....
You cannot defend the statement that no healthy people have died from H1N1 They certainly have....
Examining how swine flu killed a 'very healthy' teen : Home: The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/711734.html - broken link)
Here is one example, there are plenty more out there....
We are semi retired in the suburbs.
My husband got a job requiring that he spend one day a week in New York.
It seemed as though every few weeks after that we both caught what appeared to be the flu.
One lasted about a month.
Another lasted a month, left us for a week, came back - I think we kept re-infecting each other. It got pretty bad for a while, but we got over it. No, we did not go to the doctor.
So, now, whatever is generally floating around New York, I suppose we have some resistance to as we have been in great health.
I don't think there is much that doctors can do for the flu. I do not like taking antibiotics, preferring heavy antioxidents and olive leaf extract(which our doctor takes in flu season). Tamiflu, I have read, is not effective unless you take it very early and we are not the sort who run to the doctor at every sniffle.
Who said 'what does not kill me makes me stronger'? Many things in life are a gamble. I read that if you do not take a flu shot and catch the flu you usually get a resistance to a broader spectrum of viruses.
I think that there are many issues that must be addressed/explained concerning this flue. Knowing what sort of wild speculation occurs when the public knows it is being hoodwinked in some way, I can only conclude that the truth may be worse than the speculation for some people.
There are now safety concerns and queries about the effectiveness of Tamiflu in children.
cnracer, I have been researching the Spanish Flu for the past week, in my spare time, and have discovered the hypercytokinemia to which you are referring. In that respect, a healthy, strong immune system would be liability, so I do not disagree with you that "healthy" people will be the 'targets' of this disease.
From what I've read, in order for a person to suffer severely and possibly die from hypercytokinemia (or, a 'cytokine storm'), the person would necessarily need to have a healthy immune system. You see, an impaired, weakened or surpressed immune system would be incapable of attacking the body with enough force to kill it. The person would either be sick for weeks or be very ill initially and have a relapse of sickness every now and then until it was eradticted from the system. A healthy person, however, would have a strong enough immune system that could attack the body with such efficiency that the person could die within a few days....which is what happened during the Spanish Flu epidemic.
One of the things that prompted me to begin researching the Spanish Flu was the medical paper I read a few weeks ago online that mentioned, in passing, that the US Military deployment during WWI was the first to be mass-inoculated. I found that interesting. One of the things I came across when I first started reading up on the SF, stated how some of the first cases of the "Spanish Flu" were reported stateside, in the midwest, and not overseas. It eventually spread overseas, but it originated here. I am still looking into that.
There is a lot of information out there to be had, and most people will not agree with what they find. As for me, I will continue to research....
Well, I think you may find some intersting theories about the spanish flu if you look at some "alternative" websites. As you say-it seems to hav eoriginated in the US
Oh there are tons of studies that show otherwise. And actually, if you look at the cdc website you can clearly see the data that shows that since the early 2000's elderly have just as many flu related hospital visits as any other time.
Flu shots do not prevent death or hospital visits. If they did wouldnt' that silly commercial say "last year 35000 people died from the flu and this year because more people are getting the vaccine only 20000 died?" But that commercial is misleading anyhow.
Elderly and children who die from the flu usually are sick to begin with. They have other conditions and many of them were already in the hospital or in a nursing home with tons of bacteria bottled up within its walls.
Also, those that died from the flu usually had secondary infections like STAPH infections proving that the flu does not kill rather the bacteria found in hospitals in which we have no cure for since the idiot doctors keep prescribing darn antibiotics for viral or NON infections.
I work in one the largest nursing homes in illinois. 90% of our residents no longer get flu shots or pneumonia. 75% haven't gotten the shingles vaccine either.
In the last two years we have seen 15 cases of the flu, one hospitalization and NO shingles.
Our patients are kept healthy with supplements, healthy FRESH diets, fresh air, vitamin D, fish oils and friendly healthy staff
There is no proof the flu vaccine prevents death or even significantly lowers the rate of hospitaliziation.
Of course someone who works for the pharm company is going to tell you otherwise. Only they read it in a manual or their bossy wossy told them so
Didn't the article about the boy in Buffalo say he was infected with MRSA. Now don't know if that means he was colonised (ie swabs showed he had it up his nose or wherever on admission to hospital) or if it was detected in his blood.
I have read about the HIN1 vaccine research and also the one from China that has been licensed over there and mass innoculation has started.
However they have not published their data anywhere so far as I can see, even though the clinical trial was registered with US clinicaltrials.gov.
All of the clinical trials for the H1N1 vaccines in development exclude pregnant women (usual practice as too high risk), those with history of Guillain Barre syndrome, any disease that compromises the immune system,steroid treatment (including inhalers for asthma for some studies)
Upper age limit for clinical trial participants was 65 years.
So there will nver be any data available for those groups of people excluded from the studies.
Hold it- aren't those the the "high risk groups"
Didn't the article about the boy in Buffalo say he was infected with MRSA. Now don't know if that means he was colonised (ie swabs showed he had it up his nose or wherever on admission to hospital) or if it was detected in his blood.
I have read about the HIN1 vaccine research and also the one from China that has been licensed over there and mass innoculation has started.
However they have not published their data anywhere so far as I can see, even though the clinical trial was registered with US clinicaltrials.gov.
All of the clinical trials for the H1N1 vaccines in development exclude pregnant women (usual practice as too high risk), those with history of Guillain Barre syndrome, any disease that compromises the immune system,steroid treatment (including inhalers for asthma for some studies)
Upper age limit for clinical trial participants was 65 years.
So there will nver be any data available for those groups of people excluded from the studies.
Hold it- aren't those the the "high risk groups"
Pregnant women WILL be included in the trials scheduled to begin in mid-September.
"The information analyzed by CDC supports the conclusion that novel H1N1 flu has caused greater disease burden in people younger than 25 years of age than older people. At this time, there are few cases and few deaths reported in people older than 64 years old, which is unusual when compared with seasonal flu. "
No where on the CDC site does it say healthy children and adults have NOT died from H1N1. By the very link you quote, one has to assume that if 70% of the hospitalized patients, very ill, had an underlying medical condition that means the other 30%, or nearly 1:3, did not....
You cannot defend the statement that no healthy people have died from H1N1 They certainly have....
Examining how swine flu killed a 'very healthy' teen : Home: The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/711734.html - broken link)
Here is one example, there are plenty more out there....
The reason for that may be because:
"The CDC says people who were exposed to the flu in 1957 may have some immunity to the current H1N1 flu virus. It may explain why this year's strain has mainly affected younger people."
This doesn't make it any more dangerous, rather a select group may have more protection. That doesn't add to its danger......
And by the way, with many flu viruses there are going to be groups that are not immune, large groups. That is common with seasonal too.
Fine, maybe some healthy people have died BUT that doesn't mean they didn't have an unknown illness AND yes the MAJORITY were NOT healthy.
Pregnant women WILL be included in the trials scheduled to begin in mid-September.
OK this is a phase 2 safety study with different doses.It will begin before they have completed the study of the vaccine in non-pregnant women and (if they ever start recruiting) is scheduled to end in Sept 2010. So will they vaccinate pregnant women if they introduce mandated vaccination this fall?
Last edited by susan42; 08-22-2009 at 06:52 AM..
Reason: sp
What is your source?
Pregnant women are almost always excluded from clinical trials- hence the reason that we avoid giving them any medication unless it is absolutely essential.
This time they are changing the "rules", they are targetting the groups that are most affected by this virus.
He also announced plans to conduct three trials involving pregnant women, testing one or two doses of 15 or 30 mcg, with about 120 women in each trial. The tests are scheduled to start in early September.
There are now safety concerns and queries about the effectiveness of Tamiflu in children.
Yes, and for what? Tamiflu - at best - only reduces flu symptoms by ONE day. So why put children at terrible risk of those awful Tamiflu side-effects? It is not worth it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
