or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › February Swine Flu/H1N1 Vaccine thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

February Swine Flu/H1N1 Vaccine thread

post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 
Please remember that this thread is for vaccine issues. Disease specific discussion such as treatment, spread or prevention other than vaccines should be placed in our Health & Healing forum.

Please also remember that any news/current event discussions must remain focused on the general vaccine related issue in this forum & should not focus on any specific individual.

As Georgia explained in our forum announcement:
Quote:
Due to the volume of H1N1/Swine flu threads, we ask that you please read and post to the existing threads and not start a new thread at this time. Please post to the existing threads so that we can help everyone access the information in a limited number of threads for organization's sake. It is becoming increasingly difficult for members and moderators to keep track due to volume when a new thread on the same topic is started each day. If you have searched through the existing threads and not found the answer to your specific question/information, please note this in your post to an existing thread so that participants know that you have searched and are still coming up short. From the Vaccination forum stickied thread:

Quote:
New members are advised to research the topic of their question first by perusing the archives and doing specific searches. Your questions are welcome and we certainly know a busy parent has little time for focused research and that the archives and search results can be overwhelming to sift through. But sometimes the info you seek is already posted and just what you're looking for. If you have searched the forum and did not find an answer, please say that in your post so that the members appreciate that you have already done so.
Mothering Magazine information can be accessed here:

Barbara Loe Fisher on the Swine Flu Vaccine

and Coming to a School Near You

Existing MDC threads can be found:
Monthly H1N1/Swine Flu
H1N1 trials/testing news and info
Pregnancy
Military

Thank you so much for your cooperation with helping keep the volume contained and the forum organized! New threads started will be closed at the moderators' discretion or merged with an existing thread. We understand the importance of this topic and want everyone to have an opportunity to find the information they need. Please PM a moderator with any further questions.
post #2 of 68
post #3 of 68
Isn't it gone now? Not too much to discuss anymore I guess, other than the parts about the WHO scandal.
post #4 of 68
As in WHO lying about changing the definition of Pandemic?

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...nition-change/

So far as I can see, no one in the media cares about this.
post #5 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
As in WHO lying about changing the definition of Pandemic?

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...nition-change/

So far as I can see, no one in the media cares about this.


Contained in that link:

"And here is Fukuda, at WHO, claiming that they didn’t change it!

Now let me move on to the second issue. Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no, WHO did not change its definition."


And here is a response to this in the comments below:

"If you were properly educated in the value of oseltamivir, you’d be well versed enough in modern vocabulary and communication methods to see through the junkscience and know that “enormous numbers of deaths” is simply a relative term.
Seasonal flu always kills “enormous” numbers of healthy children and adults, and deserves as much of our healthcare resources as possible, be it 10%, 50%, or whatever.
Cancer and stroke and myocardial infarction etc are completely unworthy of research and investment (especially since they’re always the fault of the patient) compared to flu, rotavirus, and varicella.
Not that I expect the lowbrows of society to understand this."



Thoughts on this?
post #6 of 68
I was reading through old threads from years ago and I wanted to bump up this one from 2006:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=573482
post #7 of 68
I think that particular comment was meant as sarcasm.

The CDC has been talking about 36,000 deaths a year from flu every year for at least 5 years, perhaps longer. In that same five years, the number of people vaccinated has risen by quite a lot. And yet the number of deaths remains the same.

Some possibilities:
1) The 36,000 number was an estimate, not based on actual deaths.

2) It is a real number, in which case the increase in the vaccination rate for influenza is evidence that the vaccine does not save lives.



Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post
Contained in that link:

"And here is Fukuda, at WHO, claiming that they didn’t change it!

Now let me move on to the second issue. Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no, WHO did not change its definition."


And here is a response to this in the comments below:

"If you were properly educated in the value of oseltamivir, you’d be well versed enough in modern vocabulary and communication methods to see through the junkscience and know that “enormous numbers of deaths” is simply a relative term.
Seasonal flu always kills “enormous” numbers of healthy children and adults, and deserves as much of our healthcare resources as possible, be it 10%, 50%, or whatever.
Cancer and stroke and myocardial infarction etc are completely unworthy of research and investment (especially since they’re always the fault of the patient) compared to flu, rotavirus, and varicella.
Not that I expect the lowbrows of society to understand this."



Thoughts on this?
post #8 of 68
That is a wonderful thread, especially in light of the H1N1 vaccine push.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sileree View Post
I was reading through old threads from years ago and I wanted to bump up this one from 2006:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=573482
post #9 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sileree View Post
I was reading through old threads from years ago and I wanted to bump up this one from 2006:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=573482
I remember that.

You know, the people calling 2009 H1N1 a "fake pandemic" are wrong. It was/is a real pandemic. But I do wonder if industry helped promote the H5N1 hysteria by giving a proverbial "megaphone and a platform" (in the form of $ for research, etc) to the few virologists who were convinced H5N1 was going to be "it". I mean, maybe the whole "the only way to save mankind from the coming birdflu apolalypse is to get a seasonal flu shot into every man, woman, and child on earth every year." idea had nothing to do with anybody's potential profits, but man. It just really sounds like something the drug industry would have thought of and worked to convince people of. A lot. I really have to work to suspend disbelief to think that industry had nothing to do with it.

Sort of on topic...
Here's a really interesting 2008 (pre-swineflu) study I highly recommend.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi.../full/98/5/939

I wish I could quote a lot, but here's an interesting finding:


Quote:
With the notable exception of the 1918 pandemic, each influenza pandemic season was less lethal than the prior one, reflecting the overall seasonal trend in influenza deaths. Compared with nonpandemic seasons, the 1957–1958 and 1968–1969 pandemics do not stand out as exceptional outliers, nor were these pandemics visually discernable from nonpandemics in seasonal (Figure 1) or monthly (Figure 2) influenza mortality graphs. In fact, although nonpandemic influenza seasonal death rates never exceeded prior pandemic seasonal death rates, many nonpandemic seasons were more deadly than subsequent pandemics.
post #10 of 68
Another quote from that AJPH artice deserving attention:

Quote:
It is also important to recognize that commercial interests may be inflating the perceived impact of influenza and other infectious "pandemics."28 There is a clear need for more evidence-based accounts of influenza in the context of historical epidemiology and current social and medical advances.
So, I'm not the only one feeling the need to suspend disbelief.
post #11 of 68
The whole "fake pandemic" thing kinda reminds me of situations where people will say "3 cases and they consider it an OUTBREAK?!" There seems to be *the definition* of outbreak (which indeed can be three cases....or two or one for that matter) and then *the public perception of what that word means.* The same thing seems to be happening here with the word pandemic.
post #12 of 68
Yeah, I think WHO could declare a pandemic if they wanted to. I think they could also change the definition of a pandemic if they wanted to. I think saying that they didn't change the definition or didn't change it recently or actually changed it years ago...is an attempt to cover up some sort of dirty dealing.

Especially since the declaration of a pandemic forced many countries to buy vaccine without further ado.

The situation is beginning to remind me of the launch of WW I. In 1914 many countries had signed treaties saying that if a particular country was attacked, they would come into the war on the side of that nation. The belief was that no one would start a war if EVERYONE was going to join in. This turned out to be just as dependable as the belief that the new weapons (machine gun in particular) were so awful that no one would start a war if millions of soldiers would inevitably die.

Signing agreements to buy and use a vaccine based on WHO deciding what is or is not a pandemic seems to have launched a lot of injections...

and lots of debate
post #13 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
The whole "fake pandemic" thing kinda reminds me of situations where people will say "3 cases and they consider it an OUTBREAK?!" There seems to be *the definition* of outbreak (which indeed can be three cases....or two or one for that matter) and then *the public perception of what that word means.* The same thing seems to be happening here with the word pandemic.
Well, while I agree it wasn't a fake pandemic, none of the pre-swineflu definitions excluded increased severity.
Here's a good chart that shows the changes that were made:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...3_2/b3471/TBL1

Full text here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/sep03_2/b3471


And in May of 2009:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/0...mic/index.html

Quote:
Until Monday morning, the WHO had a definition on its Web site saying that a pandemic flu causes "enormous numbers of deaths and illness." After a CNN reporter pointed this out, WHO spokeswoman Natalie Boudou called back to say the definition was in error and had been pulled from the WHO Web site.

"It was a mistake, and we apologize for the confusion," she said. "(That definition) was put up a while ago and paints a rather bleak picture and could be very scary."
So, the definition did change. It wasn't just a disconnect between the actual definition and public perception.
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Yeah, I think WHO could declare a pandemic if they wanted to. I think they could also change the definition of a pandemic if they wanted to. I think saying that they didn't change the definition or didn't change it recently or actually changed it years ago...is an attempt to cover up some sort of dirty dealing.
I think they're just being defensive because they see themselves as the ultimate "good guys" and they're falsely being accused of being pharma shills, when all they were trying to do was prevent an influenza armageddon.

I agree with this guy:
http://www.psandman.com/col/schnirring3.htm

Quote:
Self-deception keeps WHO officials from realizing that the critics are right about the two issues discussed above. Self-righteousness keeps WHO officials from acknowledging it even at those moments when they realize it.
Good guys can often get away with self-deception and self-righteousness; sometimes they get away with it for quite a long time. Corporate officials know they’ll be crucified by the media if they get caught distorting even a small piece of the truth. Public health (and climate change) officials, on the other hand, know they’ll get a free pass on such distortions … until suddenly their free pass expires, and then they reap what they have sown.
That's what’s happening to WHO in Europe this week. It is very sad to watch.
post #15 of 68
Do you feel that any given definition that you noted would exclude 2009 novel H1N1 for pandemic status?

(imo, the word enormous is a toughie for them in the old definition, what does it mean? 100% increase? 200%? what if, for a certain age group, you have 400% increase in deaths, when do we hit 'enormous"? DO we rely on the 2million estimate? is that "enormous"?-- would that not mean all pandemics would be only called so after the fact?)
post #16 of 68
I also realize the percentage thing I said there isn't too reliable either, depending on what number you start with Just trying to think out loud about the word 'enormous'.

Is it bad they changed? it's seems prudent to me, given the problem with that word. I also wonder what considers will be given to the way this flu affected children and young adults, and how this idea of subpopulation risk will affect any new changes to the definition, as there doesn't seem to be much mention of it at the moment.
post #17 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
I also realize the percentage thing I said there isn't too reliable either, depending on what number you start with Just trying to think out loud about the word 'enormous'.

Is it bad they changed? it's seems prudent to me, given the problem with that word. I also wonder what considers will be given to the way this flu affected children and young adults, and how this idea of subpopulation risk will affect any new changes to the definition, as there doesn't seem to be much mention of it at the moment.
I think you're right that the old definition was not very specific... however, what is "bad" about their changing it is that to your average American, seeing the word "PANDEMIC!!" all over the media is strongly fear inducing, while this pandemic was not necessarily something to get all worried about, and indeed was far less deadly than your average flu season. It throws things out of proportion in people's minds and creates confusion and fear, imo.
post #18 of 68
Do you feel it was far less deadly for all groups, even children? It seems like we had quite a few more deaths in children in the USA due to confirmed h1n1 than we usually see from influenza + complications of influenza. I believe we had 8-10 more this week, the number is somewhere around 350 I think? or 400? I would have to check the MMWR.
post #19 of 68
You know, I'd be interested to know. Because from what I understand it was mostly about the same for other groups and just far LESS deadly for the elderly (because they'd already been exposed to something similar 60 years ago?) and that accounted for the number difference. I haven't seen anything more specific recently, though.

ETA... I'd also be interested in information on the death numbers and comparisons with other years in those sub-groups in OTHER countries, since the US is currently claiming the bulk of the swine flu deaths...
post #20 of 68
the CDC is saying 257 pediatric deaths from h1n1 and the MMWR has the number at 360, but that goes back to last year, so I would need some clarification on the overlap.

But if we average about 100 pediatric deaths from influenza in a season and we had 250 so far this season, with 10 more in week ending 1/30, then that puts us pretty high over the average.

ETA: the average is actually much lower than 100, but I am throwing the round number out there since we have had some 100 or near.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › February Swine Flu/H1N1 Vaccine thread