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.
Since neither the clinical trials for children or pregnant women have been completed, or even close to being completed, doesn't that make everyone that gets the vaccine a test subject? I was just reading this article Q & A: Pediatric Trials of 2009 H1N1 Vaccine at NIAID VTEUs (http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/qaH1N1pedvax.htm - broken link) and the preliminary results stood out since it states that in children between 3 & 9, only 36% showed a stronge immune response. And it was 25% for children under 3.
Not really...the vaccine technology that was implemented in making the H1N1 is exactly the same as every year. If H1N1 had been identified just a month or two earlier, this stain would have been included in the seasonal vaccine which typically contains more than one strain. So, no. No medical specialist expects to see anything out of the usual regarding side effects or additional risks. It's like buying a shirt at the Gap last year in red, and buying a second one this year but in blue. The fabric, size, and everything else is the same...just a different color.
You are correct regarding children's immune response. Children inherently do not produce disease specific antibodies as well as adults. This is precisely why the CDC is recommending a "booster" of the vaccine a few weeks later. (It takes 10 days to a few weeks depending on the individual to mount an adequate response).
If you or a family member is at high risk and you wish to locate a vaccine, try contacting you county's Dept. of Health and Human Services. States, then subsequent counties seem to have priority in the distribution of vaccines. My wife is at high risk for complications and neither Duke nor UNC (where her doctors are located) had it or knew when they would receive it. They told us to check with HHS. Bingo!
as a general point, i find it quite amazing that people will often dismiss good, evidence based science in favour of non-evidence based quackery (in which i include the advice to take any number of vitamins, minerals in people who arent deficient in either, or homeopathic remedies or alternative remedies lacking in any evidence of efficacy or safety, and peddled by non-qualified individuals) due to a general distrust of the medical profession and/or the pharmaceutical industry. spock said it best: it's highly illogical!
medical professionals spend their whole lives honing their ability to critically review new data, and one of the best sources for such data are high quality peer-reviewed journals such as the new england journal of medicine, the lancet, and for some, the british medical journal.
it beggars belief that an individual who has found some subjective non-evidence based information on the net would trust that information over the advice of professional(s) who have spent a substantial proportion of their lives learning how to interpret and understand clinical data. and they say physicians are arrogant!
dont stand with a foot in each camp. reject evidence-based medicine entirely and live by quackery, or go and learn how to properly interpret clinical trial data...or, even better, just leave it to the professionals who have dedicated their lives to doing just that for the benefit of their patients.
yes, there are bad doctors out there, but they are relatively few and far between. and personally, id trust the ability of even a bad doctor to accurately and appropriately interpret clinical trial data far more than any unqualified individual.
as a general point, i find it quite amazing that people will often dismiss good, evidence based science in favour of non-evidence based quackery (in which i include the advice to take any number of vitamins, minerals in people who arent deficient in either, or homeopathic remedies or alternative remedies lacking in any evidence of efficacy or safety, and peddled by non-qualified individuals) due to a general distrust of the medical profession and/or the pharmaceutical industry. spock said it best: it's highly illogical!
medical professionals spend their whole lives honing their ability to critically review new data, and one of the best sources for such data are high quality peer-reviewed journals such as the new england journal of medicine, the lancet, and for some, the british medical journal.
it beggars belief that an individual who has found some subjective non-evidence based information on the net would trust that information over the advice of professional(s) who have spent a substantial proportion of their lives learning how to interpret and understand clinical data. and they say physicians are arrogant!
dont stand with a foot in each camp. reject evidence-based medicine entirely and live by quackery, or go and learn how to properly interpret clinical trial data...or, even better, just leave it to the professionals who have dedicated their lives to doing just that for the benefit of their patients.
yes, there are bad doctors out there, but they are relatively few and far between. and personally, id trust the ability of even a bad doctor to accurately and appropriately interpret clinical trial data far more than any unqualified individual.
rant over.
I find your post highly offensive and arrogant. How dare you judge others who wish to use there own brain. So what if John Doe wants to eat grass to cure his ailments, what is it to you? Since you are so sure of the system; by all means have at it.
i have no problem with people wishing to use "there" [sic] own brain. i have a problem with people unable to appropriately interpret data going on to create misinformation by casting dispersion on data they don't fully understand.
i equally have a problem with people peddling therapies with no evidence base.
if you wish to eat grass to cure your disease, i have no problem with that, so long as you don't start speaking as some authority on the subject and recommending it to others who may know no better than to dismiss your recommendation as complete tripe.
Mod cut: not necessary, thanks.
Last edited by Viralmd; 10-22-2009 at 05:25 AM..
Reason: Please don't comment on edits. Or re-edit.
i have no problem with people wishing to use "there" [sic] own brain. i have a problem with people unable to appropriately interpret data going on to create misinformation by casting dispersion on data they don't fully understand.
So how did you come to the conclusion that peoples brains are sic? How do you know people can't interpret data on there own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronenborg
i equally have a problem with people peddling therapies with no evidence base.
Exactly what therapies are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronenborg
don't start speaking as some authority on the subject and recommending it to others who may know no better than to dismiss your recommendation as complete tripe.
Well, as I have said before, truth stands on it's own and if something works people will use it! Trust me, you won't haft to mandate anything that works.
As far as vaccines; regardless of the "data", many people are unsure, others are completely against vaccines because the "data" is not matching up with the number of adverse reaction cases that are popping up. Cases such as; getting very sick soon after inoculation, to other cases of severe medical conditions with Desiree Jennings being the latest. The burden of proof is on the recipient, right?
In regards to the "scientific" medical establishment, we are still playing a huge GAME of musical chairs because the medical establishment says one out of a million will have adverse reactions so that still means around 325 people will be without chairs, or in other words, they could be disabled! Now come on, nobody WANTS to be disabled; and in the case of health care workers, no person should be FORCED to chose between becoming possibly disabled or putting food on the table.
Anyhow, so what if somebody wishes to tell others about herbs or vitamins that could help cure an aliment? They are cheap and effective! Nevertheless, life is a mystery, and humans (Doctors) don't know everything; sometimes people are healed due to a placebo effect which is something science can't measure, and because something cannot be measured, does not render it any less valid.
[quote=kronenborg;11289370]i have no problem with people wishing to use "there" [sic] own brain. i have a problem with people unable to appropriately interpret data going on to create misinformation by casting dispersion on data they don't fully understand.
i equally have a problem with people peddling therapies with no evidence base.
if you wish to eat grass to cure your disease, i have no problem with that, so long as you don't start speaking as some authority on the subject and recommending it to others who may know no better than to dismiss your recommendation as complete tripe.
Mod cut: not necessary, thanks.
Funny, I believe that in my post, I said that 'I' was going to try something recommended by a Naturopath, and I also said that, 'Everyone has to make their own decision, I just wanted to make sure that the decision I made was one I could feel good about.' I don't believe that I was recommending this to others, I specifically said that we all have to make our own decision. This is a forum, and it is for sharing information. That is all I was doing and if it is even found to help one person, then great! Second of all, it is your own loss if you think that alternative therapies are not evidence based and are peddled by non-qualified individuals. I receive my care from an MD who specializes in Naturopathic Medicine, he seems pretty qualified to me. I have been able to find evidence based studies that support every alternative treatment that he has recommended. It seems to me that you are doling out what you are accusing others of when you call this quackery. Have you done research on Vitamin D deficiencies and lowered immune response? Is this quackery? I did not want to make any recommendations, which is why I only stated what I was doing, not what I think you should be doing. Next time you plan to post something like that, you should really read what is being written and make sure you understand it for what it is- an opinion. Mod cut: not necessary
Last edited by Viralmd; 10-22-2009 at 05:27 AM..
Reason: No personal attacks. Attacking ideas is OK and is not personal. You were personal. Please review the TOS.
Unfortunately according to the CDC it is looking like enough of the H1N1 vaccine for everyone will not be available until mid Nov. They were supposed to start vaccinating in our schools here but are now saying it will only be 1 clinic and vaccines are limited to pg women and those with other high risks, no longer healthy kids.
Sometimes I think our "reality" news cast just create panic for fun. We have been bombarded with "get the vaccine" hype for a month and then set up with how many children are dying, all to tell us in the end that now we can't get the shot until Nov, or maybe there isn't enough for everyone? Meanwhile telling us it's spreading like "wildfire" right now! I believe the higher ups are sitting somewhere in a room watching us panic and laughing! Why do we watch this stuff! lol
Since neither the clinical trials for children or pregnant women have been completed, or even close to being completed, doesn't that make everyone that gets the vaccine a test subject? I was just reading this article Q & A: Pediatric Trials of 2009 H1N1 Vaccine at NIAID VTEUs (http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/qaH1N1pedvax.htm - broken link) and the preliminary results stood out since it states that in children between 3 & 9, only 36% showed a stronge immune response. And it was 25% for children under 3.
This is one of the biggest problems I see actually>>
People standing in those lines for the vaccine, spreading the flu, and if you don't catch it in line the vaccine is only, give and take, about 50% effective. I saw this with that last "horrible flu season" we had a few years back. But, people fail to be careful about the flu after they have been vaccinated.
The news tells everyone the flu vaccine is in short supply, people line up together for days exposing themselves to the flu to get a vaccine that won't protect them from the flu for a month, nor is it 100% effective.
I remember finding out after all those people received those precious flu shots last time found out they didn't even cover the "bad flu" they were talking about. lol Standing in line actually helped spread that flu instead of protecting anybody. We have a lot of work to do in this department for sure!!
Another point I have is if the FDA has approved the Tamaflu waterdown, and using old expired Tamaflu, because of short supply.............what are they allowing in the case of the short supply of the vaccine???? What exactly will they be aloud to shoot into our arms now? I am thinking about the vaccine for me and my family when it finally comes available to our state but I was indeed shocked to hear about the Tamaflu expiring in 05 being used and watered down to cover everyone.
Thats a little strange, and I'm sure they know what their doing, right????
Since it was asked in the thread title; a friend of a friend has a suspected case of H1N1. They won't get the test back for another 4 days or so. He just got transported from our local hospital to the nearest University hospital. He's critical and on a respirator at this point. As far as I've been told, he's got no underlying medical conditions. Sadly, looks like he may be one of the small subset that this virus really hits hard.
My son has 2 friends who have had H1N1 flu. The one I know personally had the symptoms of regular flu but was also throwing up, his Mom said it was like a mild case of flu with a side of a stomach virus. While it was not fun to experience he is fine. The other child is back in school after about a week.
I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of this virus for some people but for most it will simply be like the seasonal flu and they will recover. The CDC is saying it will be mid Nov before they even reach the number of vaccines they had projected to have ready by now, I would suspect a large percentage of the population will already have been exposed to H1N1 by then.
In my home state they are only giving vaccines to pregnant women, caregivers to children under 6 months, children 5 mos to 59 mos and those with compromised immune systems. In the state we are in while on temporary assignment they were scheduled to administer the H1N1 vaccines starting next week in the schools to any child that wants them, kinda sad to see them taking vaccines away from the high priority patients in order to vaccinate in schools. The doctors offices here have received no vaccines and have no idea when they will.
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.
Interesting Attack
Why do we watch this stuff! lol
We have a lot of work to do in this department for sure!!
