10 million doses of flu vax to be thrown away - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-21-2007, 06:45 PM
 
Moya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dymanic View Post
are you claiming to have a better handle on the science than do the scientists?
This question makes an excellent point -- appealing to authority completely negates Plummeting's observations. The nerve of that girl to discuss the strength of the methodology instead of blindly accepting the conclusions. She clearly implied that she's able to read and understand information all by herself. How preposterous!
Moya is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-21-2007, 08:19 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dymanic View Post
You have identified what you see as glaring flaws in the above study, flaws which one would expect to be obvious to anyone trained in the science. If you are NOT explaining this as resulting from your less biased perspective, are you claiming to have a better handle on the science than do the scientists?
Oh, this is a really adult discussion now.

First, when I point out a glaringly obvious flaw in the study, you change the subject. Then when I point out how your "answer" to my point is to change the subject, you resort to suggesting that only the scientists who conduct the studies are capable of understanding how they should work. Dymanic, you aren't an immunologist or an epidemiologist. That is abundantly clear. (To clarify, that's not meant as an insult or criticism. It is more than abundantly clear that I myself am not a scientist and I'm perfectly happy to admit as much.) Therefore, if you're going to start throwing around the idea that only scientists can understand how research is supposed to be conducted or only scientists are capable of deciding when research may be flawed, you have disqualified yourself from any further intelligent discussion of the science. You don't meet your own criteria for forming an opinion.
Plummeting is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 08:57 PM
 
annalily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by suschi View Post
Does this their decision to "officially extend the flu season" didn't work?

LOL

They'll keep trying, I'm sure.
annalily is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 11:18 PM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would suggest to use it next year. Start the season early and extend it a bit. That oughta take care of it.

Why waste all that good stuff? They've kept small pox vaccines for decades. No one even knows what's in it any more and no one seems to care. It's still usable.
Gitti is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 01:59 PM
 
dymanic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wallowing in minutiae
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
What do you mean by "scientists"?
In this case, we're talking about the folks at the Naval Health Research Center. Reviewing your comment here: "For example, Medimmune's Flumist is mandatory for servicemen. So there's a guaranteed market", I have a hard time avoiding the implication that this "guaranteed market" is among the "incentives" being offered pharmaceutical companies -- which, in turn, implies that those responsible for making decisions regarding military health care policy are so heavily influenced that they are willing to place a higher priority on pharmaceutical company profits than on the actual health of soldiers, and that they are willing to go so far as to rig studies in order to get results that would make big pharma look good. Can it not simply be that they conducted the study in order to test for themselves the validity of the assumptions on which the military vaccination program is based?

Quote:
I like what they used as their placebo controls, too.
Placebo, schlameebo. The study relied on instances of laboratory confirmed influenza.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting
if you're going to start throwing around the idea that only scientists can understand how research is supposed to be conducted or only scientists are capable of deciding when research may be flawed, you have disqualified yourself from any further intelligent discussion of the science.
The difference is that I'm not attempting to refute what's being said by those who have been trained in the science, and you are. The "argument from authority" is NOT a logical fallacy if the authority really is an authority speaking within his field of expertise, and if the argument is not expected to stand on its own as "proof" of a given assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Quote:
Then when I point out how your "answer" to my point is to change the subject, you resort to suggesting that only the scientists who conduct the studies are capable of understanding how they should work.
I could almost accept that as an answer to my question; i.e.: "yes, I'm claiming to have a better handle on the science than do the scientists." (and I'll be happy to discuss just how good a job I think you've done). But considering the haughty way you chastised me for daring to suggest that the anti-vax position relies heavily on claims that big pharma exerts a strong influence on the scientific community and the way the results of studies are interpreted (and hence public health policy), I think it is appropriate for me to ask you again to clarify your position:

You consider yourself better able to interpret this study than are the scientists at the Naval Health Research Center. What I'm asking you to clarify is the basis for this claim. It seems to me that it can only rest on one of two possible bases: "I'm less biased", or "I'm better at the science" -- or perhaps a combination of the two: "I'm better at the science because I'm less biased".

Now, a quick look at your interpretation of the results of the study. Your chief complaint seems to be: "Seroconversion after influenza vaccination develops an average of 7 to 14 days later, not exclusively 14 days later."

Maybe you overlooked this:

"These estimates of effectiveness were supported by results of additional analyses that would be expected to bias the outcome toward the null hypothesis. For example, a 7-day lag period before immune response was considered in an alternative analysis, and it yielded similar results: the calculated vaccine effectiveness changed only slightly, from 92% to 90%."
dymanic is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 05:25 PM
 
Moya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for the wikipedia link, Dymanic. Let's check it out:
Quote:
Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.
Quote:
Examples of appeals to authority

Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus.
And your quote again. One more time. Just to compare. Here it is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dymanic
are you claiming to have a better handle on the science than do the scientists?
Here's another wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
Quote:
Hoisted by his own petard

The word remains in modern usage in the phrase to be hoisted by one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall in one's own trap".
Moya is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 05:36 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sigh. Dymanic, you clearly are not interested in anything else anyone has to say. Your main goal is to pontificate about the effectiveness of all vaccines, even when you're clearly wrong. You don't care to consider alternatives. You insult anyone who disagrees with you.

But anyway, first off, don't even pretend that you, also a non-scientist, have never said that a study was methodologically flawed or that the study results couldn't possibly be correct for one reason or another. I find it highly interesting that when someone who disagrees with you says that a study hasn't been done properly, you resort to ridiculous arguments about how that individual isn't qualified to analyze a study. However, you find it perfectly acceptable for you to make determinations about research that you disagree with. Why the hypocrisy? Ah yes, because the "rules" only apply when it suits you.

I don't need to delve into the psychology of why I feel capable of looking at research and determining its validity. I'm an intelligent woman. That's good enough.

Your condescending nonsense about "haughty" attitude is sexist. I wasn't haughty and you wouldn't have said that to a man. Furthermore, whatever my tone when speaking to your ridiculous assertions, I don't owe you explanations for my position on an entirely different subject. It's interesting that you think the two things (whether or not I rely on the influence of pharma as a basis for my argument and whether or not I'm qualified to examine research with a critical eye) are somehow related. Drawing a correlation between the two is absurd. Either you realize they aren't truly connected and are simply using one as an excuse to demand explanations from me about the other (which is insulting and rude) OR you don't realize they aren't related, which is a showcase of your skill in drawing logical correlations.

I didn't notice that last part you mentioned. Thanks for pointing it out. I did find it interesting that they also said effectiveness of the nasal flu vaccine and of the injected vaccine were the same, which has not been shown to be true in other studies, so that is definitely something to be concerned about. Furthermore, there is no control group. People in their first two weeks of basic training are going to be more susceptible to influenza for lots of reasons. First of all, most of them are out partying and drinking their asses off the week or month before they go in, so that impacts their immune function. (Unless you actually believe that heavy alcohol consumption has no impact on health.) Second, they're exposed to more people period, because they're actually out in public, not locked up on base. That means they're more likely to catch all kinds of things, including the flu. Third, the first couple of weeks are almost certainly more stressful than the rest, because they don't know what to expect, they don't know what's going to happen, they aren't used to the schedule, etc. Stress has a major impact on the immune system.

You say there is no need for a placebo because the cases were laboratory confirmed? Are you kidding me? Talk about unscientific, especially in light of all the DIFFERENCES between new recruits who just entered basic training and those who've been there for a few weeks. I'm glad you're not in charge of determining what is or is not acceptable in evidence based medicine.
Plummeting is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 06:21 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dymanic
"For example, Medimmune's Flumist is mandatory for servicemen. So there's a guaranteed market", I have a hard time avoiding the implication that this "guaranteed market" is among the "incentives" being offered pharmaceutical companies -- which, in turn, implies that those responsible for making decisions regarding military health care policy are so heavily influenced that they are willing to place a higher priority on pharmaceutical company profits than on the actual health of soldiers, and that they are willing to go so far as to rig studies in order to get results that would make big pharma look good. Can it not simply be that they conducted the study in order to test for themselves the validity of the assumptions on which the military vaccination program is based?
You don't have to "rig" poorly/uncontrolled studies. And the whole point of keeping flu vaccine manufacturers in the market is now considered a matter of national security because of birdflu. I'm not saying it's just some scam to help out big pharma.

Dymanic, when presented with high quality evidence like a systematic review, and responding with low quality evidence like the army study...is sort of wooish, don't you think? Sort of "true believer syndrome" ish?

I can provide lots of low quality evidence that homeopathy works very well for all kinds of things. I don't think the homeopaths are "rigging" their studies.
Do you?
So tell me...why does the effect go away when it's tried against a placebo?

Quote:
Placebo, schlameebo. The study relied on instances of laboratory confirmed influenza.
So the flushot was 90 whatever % effective compared to....????

And why are the results of the studies with poor methodology so strikingly different from the ones where there's a placebo?
Everyone in my family eats a banana every day. Over 4 years, this has been 100% effective against laboratory confirmed influenza.

Hmmm...
mamakay is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 09:39 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,564
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
So the flushot was 90 whatever % effective compared to....????

And why are the results of the studies with poor methodology so strikingly different from the ones where there's a placebo?
Everyone in my family eats a banana every day. Over 4 years, this has been 100% effective against laboratory confirmed influenza.
This one has worked for my family, too, except we do apples instead of bananas. Anyone for oranges?
Deborah is online now  
Old 03-22-2007, 11:59 PM
 
dymanic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wallowing in minutiae
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Plum, you seem more interested in me than in the subject matter. I've asked you to clarify your position; you clearly are not inclined to do so. I don't have any more time for this.

Mamakay, my link to the army study wasn't offered as a response to a post citing high quality evidence like a systematic review; it was in response to a post saying:

"Oh...is that a little crocodile tear running down my cheek? Poor Poor Big pharma...My tiny black little heart is just breaking for them."

As to what the vax's effectiveness was being compared to, I thought that was pretty clear. Everybody got the vax. They looked at the ones who had time for immunity to develop, and those that didn't, and found 90% fewer instances of laboratory confirmed influenza among those who had had time to develop immunity. Exactly how feel that the quality of the study could have been improved by placebo?

As to the PDF: read on. It gets better. Maybe not exciting reading compared to, say, the Simpsonwood transcript, but interesting enough in its own way.
dymanic is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:24 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Mamakay, my link to the army study wasn't offered as a response to a post citing high quality evidence like a systematic review; it was in response to a post saying:

"Oh...is that a little crocodile tear running down my cheek? Poor Poor Big pharma...My tiny black little heart is just breaking for them."
You know there's higher quality evidence out there. You don't link to it because you don't like it, though.

Quote:
As to what the vax's effectiveness was being compared to, I thought that was pretty clear. Everybody got the vax. They looked at the ones who had time for immunity to develop, and those that didn't, and found 90% fewer instances of laboratory confirmed influenza among those who had had time to develop immunity. Exactly how feel that the quality of the study could have been improved by placebo?
So people who just came in from the outside world are more likely to bring in the flu, and this is proof that the placebo controlled trials are worthless.

Ok, dude. Have fun with your low quality evidence. If you really and truly can't wrap your mind around how this study is lacking, I'm at a loss. I never have and never will be able to have honest discussions with people who don't (or won't) understand the beauty of the evidence based medicine pyramid.

Quote:
As to the PDF: read on. It gets better. Maybe not exciting reading compared to, say, the Simpsonwood transcript, but interesting enough in its own way.
Can you point me to a few page numbers you find particularly useful or interesting?
mamakay is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 03:06 AM
 
QueenOfThePride's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: the frigid north
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
good riddance

Tis the season, for hot apple cider!
QueenOfThePride is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 04:23 AM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dymanic View Post
Plum, you seem more interested in me than in the subject matter. I've asked you to clarify your position; you clearly are not inclined to do so. I don't have any more time for this.

Not at all inclined to do so, you're right. I don't have to explain my position to you - especially when you've framed the debate in some bizarre sort of either/or answer. You said:

Quote:
Confronted with evidence like this.....the response is that the evidence has been doctored under the influence of big pharma...
(Emphasis mine)

Doctoring refers to fraud. Here are a couple definitions for you:

Quote:
To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself
Quote:
To alter or modify for a specific end
Okay, so choice A is for me to believe that all evidence in favor of vaccination has been purposefully manipulated, which would mean it was all fraudulently acquired.

Then your choice B was:

Quote:
Is it your position then that big pharma does NOT exert an influence on public health agencies?
So choice B is for me to believe that big pharma does not exert any influence on public health agencies. Um, what?

Let me repeat the options you gave me there:

Choice A: All research favoring vaccination is fraudulently manipulated by pharmaceutical companies or their minions

Choice B: Pharmaceutical companies do not in any way influence public health agencies

So, no, I don't feel compelled to further clarify my opinion to a person who intends to frame it as an either/or choice. You started out requesting a clarification of my beliefs regarding the influence of big pharma on public health agencies:

Quote:
If you feel that you need to clarify your position, that would be fine with me. If it is not the case that you feel that scientists and public health officials interpret the results of studies such as the one above in a biased way, and that this bias results largely from the influence of big pharma, then straighten me out on that...
Then graduated to practically insisting I provide clarification on something entirely different:

Quote:
I think it is appropriate for me to ask you again to clarify your position:

You consider yourself better able to interpret this study than are the scientists at the Naval Health Research Center. What I'm asking you to clarify is the basis for this claim.
And you talked as though you were asking for clarification on the same thing all along.

Then when I refuse to indulge you and explain why, then point out even more flaws in the study, you get all in a huff and accuse me of concentrating on you, then dramatically announce your inability to continue the conversation. Hey, if it upsets you that much that I don't like your study and can show you multiple flaws, that's okay. It's very upsetting sometimes when people poke holes in the science you provide. It's happened to us all. But don't blame your refusal to continue the discussion on me "concentrating" on you, when I merely point out why it's so difficult to discuss anything with you.
Plummeting is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 04:52 AM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
10 million doses of flu vax to be thrown away

That's ten million Americans who didn't make their annual trek over to Suckerville this year.

LongIsland is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 10:36 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland View Post
10 million doses of flu vax to be thrown away

That's ten million Americans who didn't make their annual trek over to Suckerville this year.

No wonder the flushot pushers think "health literacy is a growing problem".

mamakay is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 10:48 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,564
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
No wonder the flushot pushers think "health literacy is a growing problem".

It doesn't help that librarians think that health literacy includes information about alternative health modalities. That old "we gotta have all sorts of stuff at the library, not just the majority view" concept. Shame on us for not sticking with the proper authorities on something as important as healthcare!
Deborah is online now  
Old 03-23-2007, 12:07 PM
 
suprgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Farmvegas!
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think I heard them say on the news the other day when they mentioned this that they were working on a one time flu vax so that there is not so much wasted vax.
Has anyone else heard that?
suprgrl is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:27 PM
 
aira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: missing the Grandmother Lodge
Posts: 2,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by suprgrl View Post
I think I heard them say on the news the other day when they mentioned this that they were working on a one time flu vax so that there is not so much wasted vax.
Has anyone else heard that?
Ooo! Is this the new magical adjuvant mamakay told us about??


You know, squalene?
aira is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 03:06 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
You have identified what you see as glaring flaws in the above study, flaws which one would expect to be obvious to anyone trained in the science. If you are NOT explaining this as resulting from your less biased perspective, are you claiming to have a better handle on the science than do the scientists?
Durp dee durp.

I guess we should all start giving our kids homeopathy for rotavirus, then.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10784270

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=8165068

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12634583

Wouldn't want to claim to be smarter than the folks at the School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.

That would be *illogical*.
mamakay is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 03:11 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,564
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
Durp dee durp.

I guess we should all start giving our kids homeopathy for rotavirus, then.

That would be *illogical*.
You mean the rotavirus that is going round as a result of the new vaccine???

These three studies you cited at least were blinded, and I think they used a placebo. Kind of bizarre when the alternative meds people are using a higher standard of evidence based medicine than the U.S. military:
Deborah is online now  
Old 03-23-2007, 04:03 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
You mean the rotavirus that is going round as a result of the new vaccine???

These three studies you cited at least were blinded, and I think they used a placebo. Kind of bizarre when the alternative meds people are using a higher standard of evidence based medicine than the U.S. military:
Or the CDC!
Our own ACIP does not actually practice evidence based medicine!

:

The homeopaths are doing better than the ACIP!

: : : :
mamakay is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 04:06 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,564
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Mamakay, you can always reconsider your stance on homeopathy. You might need it for rotavirus <evil grin>
Deborah is online now  
Old 03-23-2007, 04:16 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
LOL!
I'm just too arrogant, Deborah. I'm absolutely confidant that I understand the science better than the scientists at the University of Washington.
I've found where their methods were flawed and know how that influenced the results.

"Good skeptic, mamakay!..."

And I think that military study has issues, too.

"Bad, bad skeptic, mamakay!..."

mamakay is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 09:16 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
LOL!
I'm just too arrogant, Deborah. I'm absolutely confidant that I understand the science better than the scientists at the University of Washington.
I've found where their methods were flawed and know how that influenced the results.

"Good skeptic, mamakay!..."

And I think that military study has issues, too.

"Bad, bad skeptic, mamakay!..."

Didn't you get the memo? You're only a skeptic if you buy mainstream dogma hook, line and sinker. Skeptics are only skeptical of things that are not mainstream. If it's mainstream, it's automatically outside the realm of skepticism.
Plummeting is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 10:52 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post
Didn't you get the memo? You're only a skeptic if you buy mainstream dogma hook, line and sinker. Skeptics are only skeptical of things that are not mainstream. If it's mainstream, it's automatically outside the realm of skepticism.
You know, it's really just the subject of vaccination, from what I can tell. It's not that all things mainstream are "good" according to the "skeptics", or that everything "not mainstrean" is "bad". Lots of "skeptics" will defend Omega-3 eggs and organic horticulture.

A few bloggers became fixated on the vaccine thing way back, and no one since has questioned it. It gives you a nasty stigma in those circles, now.

Whatever, I guess.
I didn't accept skepticism to be popular in the first place. And it's not my fault that the ACIP sucks.
mamakay is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 10:57 PM
 
dymanic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wallowing in minutiae
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post
People in their first two weeks of basic training are going to be more susceptible to influenza for lots of reasons. First of all, most of them are out partying and drinking their asses off the week or month before they go in, so that impacts their immune function. (Unless you actually believe that heavy alcohol consumption has no impact on health.) Second, they're exposed to more people period, because they're actually out in public, not locked up on base. That means they're more likely to catch all kinds of things, including the flu. Third, the first couple of weeks are almost certainly more stressful than the rest, because they don't know what to expect, they don't know what's going to happen, they aren't used to the schedule, etc. Stress has a major impact on the immune system.
I was in a hurry last night, as I am now (probably won't be back for at least a few days) -- but I've thought about what you said here, and I have to concede that you raise some valid points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay
Can you point me to a few page numbers you find particularly useful or interesting?
Not going to be able to take the time to dig up page numbers right now, but I think the discussion on affinity maturation is the most critical to us talking about partial immunity.
dymanic is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 11:01 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
I was in a hurry last night, as I am now (probably won't be back for at least a few days) -- but I've thought about what you said here, and I have to concede that you raise some valid points.
Thank you, dymanic. Plum noticed the same things I did.
So, thank you for being reasonable.
mamakay is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 11:38 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow! Thanks, dymanic.
Plummeting is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off