Wistar advances toward universal flu vaccine

[Marnica]

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/44514612.html

Ok this part really gets me:

It will take years before the Wistar technology becomes a widely available vaccine, and it may not happen at all. Wistar seeks a partner to help it develop a vaccine, which would then have to go through human clinical trials to prove whether it is safe and effective.

(bolding mine)

So it will take YEARS for this vaccine to be made because it has to go through clinical trials to be deemed safe and effective, yet they are talking about having a swine flu vaccine ready in a matter of months WTF??
:

[just_lily]

That's the beauty of declaring it a Pandemic. They get to rush vaccines to market without any testing... and then "educate" you about how badly you need to get it.

Sign me up!

[vegasgrl]

Good Lord there's a company called VaxInnate! That's just wrong in and of itself!

[newmum35]

I think that's really disturbing. If/when this is available (and assuming it really IS effective - humor yourself for a moment), no doubt they will market it to everyone (like they do the flu!) not just those most as risk (elderly). If we are meant to get the flu when we are young and healthy so we acquire immunity for years (indeed decades*) afterwards (when we are most susceptible), what will happen to those children when they reach adulthood and their flu shot wears off? They will catch it as an adult when its more serious! (assuming they forgo their adult immunization schedule, of course!) I feel its disturbing to mess with mother nature in this way. Same thought with chicken pox. It just doesn't seem worth it to me - sooner or later, someone is going to pay the price. Wonder what happens to the generation of chicken pox vacinees (sorry, made my own word here- you know, those who get the shot and never get the pox as a kid) in 50 years? ... Another thought is what will replace the flu bug? Maybe something more sinister, that's what we will get for our efforts. Who knows, its all a big experiment, for the first time in the history of the planet. That's what disturbs me. Its never been done before, but nobody is worried about it. We have the ability to do this, therefore, we should. We'll find out what happens, and then, we'll try to fix it with something else when it happens.

* one thing I was surprised to learn recently was just how long natural immunity to the flu may last. When reading one of the bazillion stories about the swine flu recently, one article mentioned why elderly people were not succumbing to the illness as expected - it was because this strain was very similar to the 1957 flu and those who had gotten it that year had immunity or partial immunity to the swine flu - yep, 50 years later!

[Hopesmommy]

Originally Posted by newmum35

I think that's really disturbing. If/when this is available (and assuming it really IS effective - humor yourself for a moment), no doubt they will market it to everyone (like they do the flu!) not just those most as risk (elderly). If we are meant to get the flu when we are young and healthy so we acquire immunity for years (indeed decades*) afterwards (when we are most susceptible), what will happen to those children when they reach adulthood and their flu shot wears off? They will catch it as an adult when its more serious! (assuming they forgo their adult immunization schedule, of course!) I feel its disturbing to mess with mother nature in this way. Same thought with chicken pox. It just doesn't seem worth it to me - sooner or later, someone is going to pay the price. Wonder what happens to the generation of chicken pox vacinees (sorry, made my own word here- you know, those who get the shot and never get the pox as a kid) in 50 years? ... Another thought is what will replace the flu bug? Maybe something more sinister, that's what we will get for our efforts. Who knows, its all a big experiment, for the first time in the history of the planet. That's what disturbs me. Its never been done before, but nobody is worried about it. We have the ability to do this, therefore, we should. We'll find out what happens, and then, we'll try to fix it with something else when it happens.

* one thing I was surprised to learn recently was just how long natural immunity to the flu may last. When reading one of the bazillion stories about the swine flu recently, one article mentioned why elderly people were not succumbing to the illness as expected - it was because this strain was very similar to the 1957 flu and those who had gotten it that year had immunity or partial immunity to the swine flu - yep, 50 years later!

While I completely understand where you're coming from here, what about people with chronic healthcare issues? Should they just risk dying of the flu ala "survival of the fittest", or are they an exception?

[runes]

Originally Posted by Hopesmommy

While I completely understand where you're coming from here, what about people with chronic healthcare issues? Should they just risk dying of the flu ala "survival of the fittest", or are they an exception?

It is up to them personally to do the individual risk-benefit analysis regarding vaccinating for any particular disease. Just like every other person should be able to, except that unfortunately, those with chronic, degenerative, autoimmune etc. issues usually don't have the full information to do this analysis, because vaccines are not tested for safety and efficacy in those that have health challenges. It is up to them to extrapolate the data, take a long hard look at their health, and work with their health practotioner(s) to figure out whether injecting something that alters their immune response is something that would help them, especially in the case of a vaccine that is a live virus (which is likely with a flu vax).

Vaccines are not the be-all end-all of protection, so there are other things that people can do, health challenged or not, to optimize their immune system and minimize exposure as best they can. Asking other people to get a live virus vaccine to protect them may actually not be in the best interest of a person with compromised health, due to possible shedding.

[Hopesmommy]

Originally Posted by runes

It is up to them personally to do the individual risk-benefit analysis regarding vaccinating for any particular disease. Just like every other person should be able to, except that unfortunately, those with chronic, degenerative, autoimmune etc. issues usually don't have the full information to do this analysis, because vaccines are not tested for safety and efficacy in those that have health challenges. It is up to them to extrapolate the data, take a long hard look at their health, and work with their health practotioner(s) to figure out whether injecting something that alters their immune response is something that would help them, especially in the case of a vaccine that is a live virus (which is likely with a flu vax).

Vaccines are not the be-all end-all of protection, so there are other things that people can do, health challenged or not, to optimize their immune system and minimize exposure as best they can. Asking other people to get a live virus vaccine to protect them may actually not be in the best interest of a person with compromised health, due to possible shedding.

The flu is not a live vax. Most of them do contain thimerosol, though.

[runes]

Originally Posted by Hopesmommy

The flu is not a live vax. Most of them do contain thimerosol, though.

I haven't had my morning tea yet.

Although Flumist is live.

I checked on both the VaxInnate and Wistar websites and there is no mention of how this vaccine is going to be administered. The VaxInnate universal flu vax is going to use a bacterial protein. I couldn't find as much information on the Wistar site about their proposed vax.

[MissRubyandKen]

Originally Posted by Hopesmommy

The flu is not a live vax. Most of them do contain thimerosol, though.

There are both live and inactivated vaccines for flu.

[newmum35]

Originally Posted by Hopesmommy

While I completely understand where you're coming from here, what about people with chronic healthcare issues? Should they just risk dying of the flu ala "survival of the fittest", or are they an exception?

I would have much less of a problem with new (or current) vaccines if they were ONLY marketed towards those who need them most - those with "chronic healthcare issues" as you mentioned. Unfortunately, once there is a buck to be made, they simply want to sell it to everyone. They say its in the best interests of everyone, but I don't believe it. I think its more about money than anything else. (example: Its ridiculous they are giving Hepatitis A, and B, vaccines to babies who are not at all at risk for these diseases. The risks grossly outweigh any benefits to these babies, but they don't care!)

If one with chronic healthcare issues wants to vaccinate themselves for the flu, I have little problem with that. It would likewise be smart if studies were "only" designed to include just such people - who with compromised immune systems (NOT healthy people, who don't need flu shots anyway!) - It's just so screwed up the way they do things, it's ridiculous that billions of people are expected to line up and "get their flu shots" to protect those who might be susceptible. Even if it worked ideally- and I hate to say this- but even if flu doesn't kill them, something else will! They're not going to be able to wipe every microbe and germ from the face of the earth and its ridiculous to even try. Numbers of deaths have not gone down since intro of flu vaccines. What a waste of time, effort, resources, etc.. I wish they would spend money and effort developing studies and figuring out how to actually help these peoples immune systems to work better, not to screw with the entire planet in the hopes to reduce the number of "killer bugs" going around. Maybe there's not much money to be made in strengthening someones immune system. It would be the ethical thing to do however, not screwing around with everyone elses. But since when do companies do the ethical thing (as compared to the profitable thing) - one can always dream.

I recently read an eye opening statistic which stated the total number of infectious disease deaths 100 years ago (around 1905 I think) and today. The rate has actually gone UP! (I can't remember the exact number, but it was per 100,000 people) If we are saving all these thousands of people from dying of measles, mumps, flu, etc, etc, then how do they explain that? We are just trading one thing for another not really saving the world after all. It never mentioned the rate of chronic diseases in todays world (versus back then) either, which would be another interesting statistic to ponder.

[Hopesmommy]

Originally Posted by runes

I haven't had my morning tea yet.

Although Flumist is live.

I checked on both the VaxInnate and Wistar websites and there is no mention of how this vaccine is going to be administered. The VaxInnate universal flu vax is going to use a bacterial protein. I couldn't find as much information on the Wistar site about their proposed vax.

You're right. I stand corrected. I forgot about Flumist, because no one around here receives that one. In fact, I've never met anyone inoculated with flumist, because no one likes it due to the shedding risk.

[runes]

Originally Posted by Hopesmommy

You're right. I stand corrected. I forgot about Flumist, because no one around here receives that one. In fact, I've never met anyone inoculated with flumist, because no one likes it due to the shedding risk.

You're lucky. They've been administering Flumist at some of our local pharmacies and supermarkets during flu season. The old "shop-n-shed".

YUCK!!