Reading the fine print on the three CDC approved swine flu vaccines.

[mhatrw]

Three injectable formulations of swine flu (Influenza A H1N1 2009 Monovalent) vaccine have been approved by the CDC. They are based on AFLURIA (CSL), FLUVIRIN (Novartis) and Fluzone (Sanofi Pasteur). Here are the links to the package inserts for each of these formulations:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182401.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182242.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182404.pdf

To summarize the fine print:

*None of these three new vaccines has ever undergone a single clinical trial.

*All of the multidose vial versions of these vaccines (as well as all of the multidose vial versions of all the regular seasonal flu vaccines these vaccines are based on) contain the mercury-based preservative thimerosal.

*None of the three injectable swine flu vaccine formulations nor any of the three seasonal flu vaccine formulations that the new swine flu vaccines were based on has ever been "evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility."

*The ostensible efficacy of the three new swine flu vaccines is, at this point, speculative.

*The ostensible safety of these vaccines is based not on the vaccines themselves, but on previous clinical trials done for AFLURIA (CSL), FLUVIRIN (Novartis) and Fluzone (Sanofi Pasteur).

*For AFLURIA, these clinical trials included 1357 total subjects (1,089 vaccinated vs. 268 placebo) between 18-65 and 275 total subjects (206 vaccinated vs. 69 European-licensed trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine as an active control) above 65. How these tiny trials were supposed to test efficacy against the flu itself (rather than simply increased antibody response to whatever inactivated virus the vaccine contained) is beyond me. How the 65+ trial was supposed to test safety vs. an "active control" is also beyond me. No AFLURIA trials or tests were ever done on pregnant women or any children under 18.

*For FLUVIRIN, between 1982 and 1991, twelve clinical studies were conducted in healthy adult and geriatric subjects and one in children between 4 and 12 years of age who were considered to be ‘at risk’. Since 1991 an annual clinical study has been conducted in the UK in healthy adults aged 18 years or older. FLUVIRIN was also used as a control in a US clinical trial in adults (18-49 years of age). Three clinical studies were carried out between 1995 and 2004 in a total of 520 pediatric subjects (age range 6-48 months). Of these, 285 healthy subjects plus 41 ‘at risk’ pediatric subjects, received FLUVIRIN. The "efficacy" results of the pediatric tests were such that FLUVIRIN is not approved for use for children under 4. No FLUVIRIN trials or tests were ever done on pregnant women. Also note that the single dose versions of FLUVIRIN are manufactured with the mercury-based preservative thimerosal which is then "removed by subsequent purification steps to a trace amount."

*For Fluzone, pediatric safety and efficacy testing consisted of the 2003-2004 formulation of Fluzone vaccine being studied in 19 children 6 to 23 months of age and in 12 children 24 to 36 months of age. This is the only injectable swine flu vaccine recommended for children under 4. No Fluzone trials or tests were ever done on pregnant women.

*Every insert contains the same advice concerning pregnant women:

Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with (the new swine flu vaccine) or (the seasonal flu vaccine it is based on). It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. (The new swine flu vaccine) should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.


********************


The above information is presented only to help inform you about your vaccination choice. I in no way mean to imply that vaccination in general is worthless or counterproductive. As with any medical decision, potential risks must simply be weighed against potential rewards.

If you do wish or need to get vaccinated for the swine flu, I would recommend trying to get vaccinated with one of the single dose versions of the vaccine. There is no sense in injecting a mercury-based preservative into your blood if you can find a mercury-free version of the same exact product at a comparable cost.

[stray cat]

1. If you would never under any circumstance get a seasonal flu vaccine

because you are afraid of it then it would be consistent not to get the one for H1N1. If you get the seasonal vaccine it is inconsistent not to get the H1N1 vaccine as they are made the same way.

[mhatrw]

3. Did you know that multidose vials of all seasonal flu vaccines contain thimerosal?

I did not know this until I just read the inserts, so I was supplying some information I thought might be helpful to others in making their vaccination decision.

This is not a binary decision between people who are unreasonably afraid of vaccines and reasonable people.

One could conceivably choose to vaccinate, yet still wish to avoid injecting unnecessary mercury into one's blood. Wouldn't you agree?

[Warpy]

50. Two things about thimerosal

First, it's not bio available. You're breathing more mercury--which is bio available--if you live within 50 miles of a coal fired electric plant.

Second, the quantity is minute. Our bodies are wonderful things, they are built to handle small amounts of things that kill in massive amounts, which is why we're not all dead from pesticides. Toxins are simply sequestered in the liver where they do no damage at all. The quantity of thimerosal in an injectable vaccine is minute.

Also, the vaccine is not injected into the blood. It's injected into muscle tissue. People are often sore at the injection site for a day or two because that's where the initial immune response is taking place.

I realize I'm not going to convince the truly insane about the safety of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, even though it's been proven many times by people who are smarter than they are and do that sort of testing for a living. The nasal vaccine is available for those and I do hope they're taking this flu seriously enough to get it.

[mhatrw]

61. "Thimerosal?" "You're soaking in it." "Mild, then?" "No, more than just mild."

Why are you promoting the disinformation that the new untested nasal vaccine is the only vaccine available without thimerosal? According the product inserts, all three of the H1N1 injectable vaccines are available in single dose, thimerosal-free versions.

According to http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html">VAERS, the new nasal vaccine is fraught with serious immediate health issues that dwarf the long term concerns of receiving a shot of mercury -- including 4 deaths, 16 permanent disabilities, 22 life threatening incidents, 10 prolonged hospitalizations, 153 other hospitalizations and 480 emergency room visits.

What's so amazing about this whole "debate" is that I am arguing with a bunch of people singing the praises of the wonderful qualities of an indisputable neurotoxin whose incredible potency as a neurotoxin is also indisputable. Not a single one of these people will even so much as admit that he or she would rather get the exact same shot without thimerosal than with it.

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf

The Eli Lilly Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) states: exposure in-utero can cause mild to severe mental retardation and motor coordination impairment.” The National Toxicology Program (NTP) states that thimerosal is a poison by ingestion, subcutaneous, intravenous and possibly other routes,” classifies it as an experimental carcinogen and teratogen, and concludes that childhood exposures result in “mental retardation in children, loss of coordination in speech, writing, gait, stupor, and irritability and bad temper progressing to mania.”

The Eli Lilly MSDS further states that thimerosal “is known to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm.” The NTP broadly classifies thimerosal as a teratogen capable of other adverse reproductive effects.

The California EPA has proclaimed that thimerosal is a human reproductive toxin. When denying a request from Bayer, Inc., to reclassify thimerosal as harmless, its report concluded: "The scientific evidence that… thimerosal causes reproductive toxicity is clear and voluminous. Thimerosal dissociates in the body to ethyl mercury. The evidence for its reproductive toxicity includes severe mental retardation or malformations in human offspring who were poisoned when their mothers were exposed to ethyl mercury or thimerosal while pregnant, studies in animals demonstrating developmental toxicity after exposure to either ethyl mercury or thimerosal, and data showing interconversion to other forms of mercury that also clearly cause reproductive toxicity.

But I'm the one who is "truly insane" simply because I would rather get a single dose, mercury-free injectable vaccination?

[mhatrw]

68. Sorry, the VAERS data I listed was for seasonal FLUMIST, not H1N1 FLUMIST.

Still, if you ask any practioner, you will be told that that injectable versions of flu vaccine result in fewer immediate health complications, with or without thimerosal.

For the H1N1 FLUMIST, the VAERS reports are much lower:

http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

2 deaths
3 life threatening incidents
6 other hospitalizations
69 emergency room visits
242 not serious

322 adverse event reports, so far

The injectable VAERS numbers so far are:

1 death
4 life threatening events
6 other hospitalizations
135 emergency room visits
345 Not Serious

571 total adverse events reported so far

Since I don't know how many vaccines have been injected vs. inhaled, I was wrong to claim that the VAERS data clearly show the FLUMIST to be the more dangerous vaccine.

[conscious evolution]

2. Thanks for the PSA

Everyone should ALWAYS read the fine print for ALL prescriptions.
If you do not understand it you should ask that your Pharmacist explain it to you.

[FSogol]

4. There is more mercury in a can of tuna than in those vaccines. But if you

feel safer using the inhaled version, go for it.

[mhatrw]

5. Do you inject cans of tuna fish into your muscles?

The argument "if it is safe to eat, it is safe to inject" is laughable.

Try injecting one milliliter of milk into your bicep if you don't believe me.

[damntexdem]

7. I tried ...

but I couldn't get the can to fit into the syringe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. Show me the studies conclusively showing the thimerosal in vaccines causes any health problems.

[mhatrw]

147. Why do I have to prove that an indisputably potent neurotoxin causes health problems?

Shouldn't the onus be on vaccine manufacturers to prove thimerosal's safety?

Where are the toxicology studies? Produce them please.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. Why did you suggest that people inject themselves with an indisputably potent neurotoxin?

[mhatrw]

150. So I take it that this means that you don't know of any toxicology studies that

have ever been done on thimerosal?

Weird, isn't it? I don't know of any, either. You'd think some would have had to be done for it to get in so many damn vaccines over the years.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

151. Just answer the question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. Don't be scared just answer the question.

[mhatrw]

154. So what now? Are you actually trying to devolve this "discussion" into bizarre non sequiturs?

Do you really feel your audience is that stupid?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. This after you ask a multiple times about drinking mercury. Is that hypocrisy?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. I believe my audience in this case is that stupid. Just answer the question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. Your refusal to answer a simple question is an obvious concession of defeat.

[gkhouston]

167. I was wondering how something becomes "indisputably potent" without empirical evidence.

Viagra? :shrug:

[damntexdem]

6. I can't wait to get mine -- but I'll have to wait till those most vulnerable have their chance.

Meanwhile, I can get the seasonal flu vaccine -- and I urge all of you to do so.

I can't even tell those who don't agree with vaccinations that it's fine if they don't because that will mean more for the rest of us. That is because unvaccinated idiots are likely to pass the flu on to other unvaccinated idiots, resulting in a pandemic.

[mhatrw]

8. Maybe. Maybe not

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

In Jefferson’s view, this raises a troubling conundrum: Is (the flu) vaccine necessary for those in whom it is effective, namely the young and healthy? Conversely, is it effective in those for whom it seems to be necessary, namely the old, the very young, and the infirm? These questions have led to the most controversial aspect of Jefferson’s work: his call for placebo-controlled trials, studies that would randomly give half the test subjects vaccine and the other half a dummy shot, or placebo. Only such large, well-constructed, randomized trials can show with any precision how effective vaccine really is, and for whom.

In the flu-vaccine world, Jefferson’s call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it. Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established and that public-health officials should try to protect seniors by immunizing children, health-care workers, and other people around them, and thus reduce the spread of the flu. Lone Simonsen explains the prevailing view: “It is considered unethical to do trials in populations that are recommended to have vaccine,” a stance that is shared by everybody from the CDC’s Nancy Cox to Anthony Fauci at the NIH. They feel strongly that vaccine has been shown to be effective and that a sham vaccine would put test subjects at unnecessary risk of getting a serious case of the flu. In a phone interview, Fauci at first voiced the opinion that a placebo trial in the elderly might be acceptable, but he called back later to retract his comment, saying that such a trial “would be unethical.” Jefferson finds this view almost exactly backward: “What do you do when you have uncertainty? You test,” he says. “We have built huge, population-based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence. The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual.”

Name another science in which controlled experimentation is considered radical and unethical.

[SPedigrees]

23. We got our seasonal flu shots and are waiting for the H1N1 version.

Once you and yours get the H1N1 innoculations I wouldn't sorry so much about the anti-vaccine crowd. You and your family will have immunity.

[dysfunctional press]

9. i got my h1n1 shot last week.

i'm 48, and i'm in the priority group due to an autoimmune disorder, and the resulting lung dysfunction.

i've been getting the seasonal flu shots ever since my condition manifested itself when i was 32-33, and my dr. insisted upon it- because my treatment included taking immuno-suppressants.
prior to getting the annual shot, i would get the flu just about every other year. since i started being innoculated, i've NEVER had the flu.

[SPedigrees]

13. My husband has much the same flu and vaccine history as you.

Although he does not have an immune system dysfunction, he used to get extremely ill nearly every year, until he began getting the annual shot.

Stay well!

[mhatrw]

18. The last time I got the flu was when my roommate got the original swine flu shot

and infected everyone in our house.

If I had your health history, I would get certainly continue to get vaccinated every year just as you do.

[SPedigrees]

10. If you don't want your swine flu innoculation, I'll happily stand in for you.

Hubby and I are in the "older American" group and won't get ours until the younger folks get theirs. Too bad you can't reassign your dose over to one of us.

[dysfunctional press]

16. if you're old enough, you may already have some immunity...

those people who were around prior to 1957 may be less susceptible to it.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20090520/swine-flu-less-severe-over-50s

...Why is 1957 a key year? Every flu season after it first appeared, the deadly 1918 pandemic H1N1 flu bug circled the globe. Each year, the virus acquired changes that made it different from the original virus. But in 1957 there was a new pandemic, this time with an H2N2 virus. The new virus took the place of the old H1N1 bug.

"And so when we talk about the pre-1957 exposures, we are referring to those exposed to the past H1N1 virus that went away in 1957," Jernigan said. "The farther back you go in time, the more likely you are to have been exposed to an H1N1 virus before 1957 -- and exposure to that virus many years ago may allow you to have some reaction to the new H1N1."

The new H1N1 swine flu bug is much different from the 1918 H1N1 virus. It's also much different from the H1N1 seasonal flu virus that still circulates. But something about that pre-1957 bug seems to have left older people with antibodies that neutralize the new flu -- and might offer some protection against it.

my wife was born in 1958, and she's not in a priority group- but she will get the shot when it becomes available for her.

take care of yourselves.

[SPedigrees]

22. Thanks Dys. That's probably in part why we're in the low priority group.

Although it is also in part because we're not considered an essential part of society anymore, or a demographic likely to spread the virus.

We do have tamiflu and amantadine on hand.

[mhatrw]

19. Are you getting yours with or without the extra mercury?

You seem to have missed the point of the OP.

[SPedigrees]

24. I didn't miss the overblown "warning" about mercury.

As someone pointed out, there is more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in a dose of vaccine.

[mhatrw]

26. Once again, there are two versions of each vaccine, the multidose vial and the single dose needle.

The multidose vial contains thimerosal while the single dose needle do not.

Why inject mercury into your bloodstream if you can get the exact same product without any mercury? Just wondering ...

[SPedigrees]

37. Because the vaccine is in short supply, and I'll take the first dose that becomes available. nt

[mhatrw]

40. Yep. You simply can't get enough flu vaccinations, mercury or no mercury.

Why even ask which kind it is or what kind of flu it supposed to be protecting against? Just take two of whatever they are handing out. Quickly.

What is important here is to get an unknown factor of short term protection against a sickness that you probably won't get anyway and that you almost certainly will recover from completely if you do get. Who cares about accepting a small immediate and unknown long term health risk in exchange for this promise of protection?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Why do you keep using mercury and thimerosal interchangeably?

[mhatrw]

47. Let's see. Because it is about 50% mercury by weight?

And it rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection?

Let's see all those toxicity studies proving it is safe to inject into humans. Links?

Here's mine: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/ImmunizationSafety/Lucier.ashx

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. A link to a powerpoint. That's funny.

[mhatrw]

51. No link showing thimerosal is safe to inject in humans. Typical

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. No serious side effects in 10 million doses given so far. Link included.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/29/60minutes/main5451803_page4.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[mhatrw]

57. That's not what VAERS shows.

Most estimates state that adverse events associated with vaccinations are underreported to VAERS by at least a factor of 10.

http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

Adverse H1N1 Vaccine Effects Self-Reported So Far (included both injection and inhalation H1N1 vaccine versions)

7 Deaths
29 Life Threatening Events
16 Permanent Disabilities
10 Prolonged Hospitalizations
165 Hospitalized
684 Emergency Room visits
2100 Not Serious

3,011 total adverse events reported so far vs. no documented benefit

But don't let the facts stop your propaganda campaign.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. 7 people self reported their deaths, that's amazing.

[mhatrw]

91. "Again you insist on dismissing the deaths. You are a real piece of !"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Except in this case we don't even know if there were any actual deaths.

[gkhouston]

169. ??? So, those 7 people are only "Star Trek" dead?

I thought it meant they were dead, but not necessarily from the flu, since stuff goes to VAERS before any correlation is proven.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. Are you worried I might offend them?

[gkhouston]

168. Those damned vampires are just a bunch of drama queens. Every week, they come

up with a new "how I died" story. ;-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. The numbers aren't the same, please export the data from your search and post it.

[mhatrw]

65. You are right. I made the mistake of selecting the seasonal FLUMIST as well.

The actual numbers for just H1N1 are as follows:

Adverse H1N1 Vaccine Effects Self-Reported So Far

3 Deaths
7 Life Threatening Events
12 Hospitalizations
204 Emergency Room visits
667 Not Serious

893 total adverse events reported so far vs. no documented benefit

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. So even if we are to believe the self reporting we have 22 serious events out of 10 million doses.

Since a serious event is considered one which requires hospitalization.

[mhatrw]

70. And how many hospitializations for swine flu have been prevented?

Here's the problem.

The trade off here is to receive an unknown factor of short term protection against a sickness that you probably won't get anyway and that you almost certainly will recover from completely if you do get (while gaining a measure of natural immunity) by accepting an admittedly small immediate but also unknown long term health risk in exchange for this promise of protection.

Given the small nature of the promised, but as of yet unproven, measure of protection, why is it so unspeakably crazy to want to accept the least possible risk?

I mean, can we have a reasonable discussion about this or not?

I want my flu shot without thimerosal. And all three manufacturers make these flu shots without thimerosal. So why can't I get what I want?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Feel free to do whatever you want. I had a choice I chose the vaccine with thimerosal.

I could care less if you get vaccinated or not. If you do I could also care less what vaccine you choose. I see no risk from the thimerosal, feel free to disagree.

[mhatrw]

83. Where can I get a single dose injectable H1N1 vaccine without thimerosal?

Can you answer that question or not?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. You can get a single dose flumist without thimerosal.

[mhatrw]

99. I don't want a live virus vaccine, and I don't trust new inhaler vaccine technology.

Now, where can I get a thimerosal-free single dose injectable H1N1 vaccine? Supposedly they are made by all three manufacturers. In fact, the CDC is using the thimerosal-free single dose injectable versions of these H1N1 vaccines for all of its safety tests except for the experimental adjuvant test.

So how can I get my hands on one of these? Didn't you say your company had some?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. You can't always get what you want.

I said we had thimerosal free vaccines, not thimerosal free injectable vaccines.

[Confusious]

77. How do you prove a negative?

That would be great for you to do.

You could also prove that George bush kept us safe for 8 years with that logic.

[mhatrw]

82. Where can I get a single dose injectable H1N1 vaccine without thimerosal?

Can you answer that question or not?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. I didn't say you could get a single dose injectable vaccine without thimerosal.

I said I had a choice of a vaccine with and without. I didn't say I had a choice of an injectable vaccine with and without.

[mhatrw]

100. Why not? The CDC is using the single dose injectables without thimerosal for its H1N1 vaccine

safety and efficacy tests. All three manufacturers state in their product inserts that they manufacture single dose thimerosal-free versions as well as multidose vial versions with thimerosal. So why can't I get the single dose thimerosal-free version? Are these reserved for the CDC's safety tests only?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. Here is the phone number to the CDC feel free to call and ask. 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636)

[mhatrw]

112. Well, they told me that if the doctor ordered it, I could get it.

But when I called my doctor's office, the receptionist said it is currently being reserved for pregnant women and young children whose parents specifically request it. PPO-speak?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. You'll have to wait with the rest of the people who aren't high priority. Sorry.

[mhatrw]

116. Why are the high priority people little kids and pregnant women?

Here is what the product insert for every CDC approved H1N1 flu vaccine has to say about pregnant women:

Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with (the new swine flu vaccine) or (the seasonal flu vaccine it is based on). It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. (The new swine flu vaccine) should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.

As for young children, the H1N1 vaccine works very poorly for them:

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/qaH1N1pedvax.htm

The preliminary results are based on blood samples taken 8 to 10 days after the first vaccination. Immune responses were strongest among the oldest children, those 10-to 17-years old. In this group of 25 children, a strong immune response was seen in 76 percent who received one 15-microgram dose of 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine. Among 25 volunteers aged 3 to 9 years old, a strong immune response was seen in 36 percent of those given 15 micrograms of vaccine. In the youngest group, 20 children between 6 months and 35 months old, a single 15-microgram dose of vaccine produced a strong immune response in 25 percent of recipients.

Translation: A strong immune response to vaccination was NOT seen in 64% of 3 to 9 year olds and 75% of 6 to 35 month olds.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Because kids are usually the group with the highest number of cases.

and because of the known risk that influenza poses to pregnant women and the babies they are carrying.

[mhatrw]

122. What is the "known risk" influenze poses to pregnant women?

Seriously. What is this "known risk"? The only thing I have seen is that pregnant women in their third trimester are more likely to be hospitalized for influenza than the general population. Well, duh!

And if we are trying to stop a pandemic, why should we initially treat the population (little kids) that vaccine only works for 25% of?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. You can't possibly be that dense.

[mhatrw]

128. Nice cop out. Show me the studies showing influenza is a special risk for pregnant women.

This is what all three product inserts have to say about pregnant women:

Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with (the new swine flu vaccine) or (the seasonal flu vaccine it is based on). It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. (The new swine flu vaccine) should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.

So what makes you say influenza vaccination is "clearly needed" for all pregnant women? Let's see the studies.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. Show me the studies conclusively showing the thimerosal in vaccines causes any health problems.

[mhatrw]

134. You are changing the point. The point was whether influenza is a special risk for pregnant women.

[trotsky]

137. Here's your answer.

Now you have to shut up about THIS red herring. You've got so few, if any left!

http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/clinician_pregnant.htm

However, evidence that influenza can be more severe in pregnant women is available from observations during previous pandemics and from studies among pregnant women who had seasonal influenza. An excess of influenza-associated deaths among pregnant women were reported during the pandemics of 1918–1919 and 1957–1958. Adverse pregnancy outcomes have been reported following previous influenza pandemics, with increased rates of spontaneous abortion and preterm birth reported, especially among women with pneumonia. Case reports and several epidemiologic studies conducted during interpandemic periods also indicate that pregnancy increases the risk for influenza complications for the mother and might increase the risk for adverse perinatal outcomes or delivery complications.

[mhatrw]

140. Complete bullshit. Produce the studies.

[trotsky]

143. What you are proposing...

is that we intentionally infect pregnant women with the flu, and see what the results are with their health and the health of their babies vs. a control group who is not infected with the flu. That's what a "study" would involve. And that would be a "study" worthy of Josef Mengele. You show your scientific illiteracy every time you type something with your keyboard. All we have to go on is stats from previous influenzas, and the data is perfectly clear. I can't help it if you don't like reality.

[mhatrw]

149. What I am proposing is for you to show me any actual studies that

demonstrate that influenza is a higher risk to pregnant women than the general population. Can you produce them or not?

[trotsky]

153. Here you go.

Can't wait to see where you move the goalposts next. :eyes:

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_pregnancy_20090731/en/index.html
http://www.pamf.org/flu/preg.html
http://www.extension.org/pages/Study_Says_Pregnant_Women_Are_More_Severely_Impacted_by_Novel_H1N1_Influenza_Virus_and_Need_Prompt_Treatment_with_Antiviral_Medication
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56S1GW20090729
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Influenza-related+death+rates+for+pregnant+women.-a0154561287

I really can't believe that someone in the 21st century is so uninformed as to think influenza doesn't present a higher risk for pregnant women.

[mhatrw]

155. Try to kick a little harder next time.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_pregnancy_20090731/en/index.html

This cites a single study. This study is based is based solely on the fact that a total of 11 pregnant women were admitted to the hospital because of the H1N1 virus between April 15 and May 18, 2009 and 6 pregnant women died of H1N1 between April 15 and June 16, 2009. As far as the risk of hospitalization goes, of course pregnant women and their doctors are going to and should take every precaution. As far as deaths go, there is no evidence presented in the abstract that the death rate for pregnant women was any higher than any other sub-population. Since hundreds die of the flu every year and tens of millions of women are pregnant at any given moment, I fail to see how this represents an increased risk for pregnant women. Nor does the abstract list the existing medical conditions of the 6 pregnant women who died from H1N1.

http://www.pamf.org/flu/preg.html

As for the first study cited in this link, Neuzil et al. reported that pregnant Medicaid-eligible women in a Tennessee registry had higher hospitalization rates during the influenza season than nonpregnant and postpartum women, particularly during the third trimester of pregnancy. Hospitalization was infrequent, ranging from 3.1 per 10,000 women-months in the first trimester to 10.5 per 10,000 in the third trimester. The study failed to discover a greater incidence of specific adverse events, including death, during pregnancies complicated by influenza. The following factors significantly limit the study's impact:
*The Medicaid population is known to have more comorbidity and receive less adequate outpatient care. Patients are more likely to seek emergency room services at a more advanced stage of illness and thus to be admitted to the hospital more frequently.
*The hospitalization rate was overestimated by the inclusion of admissions for delivery.
*Influenza was not confirmed by laboratory testing and not differentiated from other infections.
*Reasons for admission were never quantified, and included a broad range of ICD-8 and ICD-9 codes.
*Aside from the event of a hospital admission, per se, no difference in morbidity or mortality was reported.

The description given for the second study cited says that women in their third trimester are more likely to go to hospital for the flu than are postpartem women. Well, no duh! Post-partum women have newborns to care for, and women in their third trimesters as well as their doctors are of course legitimately very worried about the effects of their illnesses on the babies they are are carrying. This study also seems to be based on the exact same pregnant Medicaid-eligible women in a Tennessee registry that first study was based on. What is strange is that the http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14710102">actual abstract of the second study makes no mention whatsoever of the claims made for it in the article you produced:

RESULTS: During the eight influenza seasons studied, 293 women with singleton pregnancies had respiratory disease hospitalizations (5.1:1000). Women with asthma had high rates of such hospitalization (59.7:1000). Compared with matched controls, women with respiratory hospitalizations had similar modes of delivery, delivery length of stay, and episodes of preterm labor. The prevalence of prematurity and low birth weight among infants born to such women was likewise similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In this population of pregnant women, those with asthma accounted for half of all respiratory-related hospitalizations during influenza seasons, with 6% of pregnant women with asthma requiring respiratory hospitalization during influenza season, (odds ratio 10.63, 95% CI, 8.18-13.83, compared with women without a medical comorbidity). We detected no significant increase in adverse perinatal outcomes associated with respiratory hospitalizations during influenza season.

So who is zooming whom with this utter bullshit?

The third study cited is the same as the only study cited in your first link.

Those are all the studies cited in your second link.

http://www.extension.org/pages/Study_Says_Pregnant_Women_Are_More_Severely_Impacted_by_Novel_H1N1_Influenza_Virus_and_Need_Prompt_Treatment_with_Antiviral_Medication

This link cites the same study as the only study cited in your first link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56S1GW20090729

This link cites the same study as the only study cited in your first link.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Influenza-related+death+rates+for+pregnant+women.-a0154561287

This link is actually interesting and I had not seen this before, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. But the only medical studies it cites are two articles from the time of the 1918-19 Spanish flu. In the first "Bland reported on pregnant influenza patients in Philadelphia and elsewhere in the fall of 1918; of 337, 155 died." There is no mention of how this death rate compares to other local populations fighting this very virulent strain or how these pregnant women were treated for their afflictions. A second study is mentioned in which "Harris obtained by questionnaire from obstetricians medical histories of 1,350 pregnant patients in Maryland and in 4 large US cities (2). Pneumonia developed in half (678) of these patients and 365 died." Once again, there is no mention of how this death rate compares to other local populations fighting this very virulent strain or how these pregnant women were treated for their afflictions. In addition, comparing the highly virulent Spanish flu and 1919-20 medical practices to the seasonal or H1N1 flu and current medical practices is a complete joke.

So as you can see, the goalposts have not changed in the slightest. You have just not cleared the original bar.

[trotsky]

158. LMAO

You asked for studies, I gave you studies, and you simply refuse to acknowledge them. Your ploys are pathetic, and you refuse to acknowledge ANY data that contradicts your beliefs.

The "dream" study you apparently want is one that is so ridiculously unethical, only a monster would dare perform it. No wonder it appeals to you.

[mhatrw]

159. My dream study is any epidemiological study that clearly shows that the

influenza outcomes of pregnant women are worse than those of comparable women who are not pregnant.

Where are these studies? As far as I know there is one such study (Neuzil, K.M., Reed, G.W., Mitchel, E.F., Simonsen, L., Griffin , M.R. 1998. "Impact of influenza on acute cardiopulmonary hospitalizations in pregnant women."), it was highly flawed as I illustrated above and furthermore it showed no differences in influenza outcomes for pregnant vs. nonpregnant women. So produce the other abstracts. If pregnant women are truly at special risk of influenza, there should be dozens of epidemiological studies proving that the influenza outcomes of pregnant women are worse than those of comparable women who are not pregnant. So where are they?

[trotsky]

160. I posted a whole bunch of them in the other thread that you had to start...

only to further humiliate yourself. Awesome!

[mhatrw]

163. No, you didn't. You listed exactly ONE epidemiology study, the same one you listed here & it didn't

show that influenza is a greater risk to pregnant woman than it is to the general population.

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf

Neuzil et al. reported that pregnant Medicaid-eligible women in a Tennessee registry had higher hospitalization rates during the influenza season than nonpregnant and postpartum women, particularly during the third trimester of pregnancy. Hospitalization was infrequent, ranging from 3.1 per 10,000 women-months in the first trimester to 10.5 per 10,000 in the third trimester. The study failed to discover a greater incidence of specific adverse events, including death, during pregnancies complicated by influenza. The following factors significantly limit the study's impact:
*The Medicaid population is known to have more comorbidity and receive less adequate outpatient care. Patients are more likely to seek emergency room services at a more advanced stage of illness and thus to be admitted to the hospital more frequently.
*The hospitalization rate was overestimated by the inclusion of admissions for delivery.
*Influenza was not confirmed by laboratory testing and not differentiated from other infections.
*Reasons for admission were never quantified, and included a broad range of ICD-8 and ICD-9 codes.
*Aside from the event of a hospital admission, per se, no difference in morbidity or mortality was reported.

[gkhouston]

170. In a circle, I'm betting.

The same shit keeps circling 'round and 'round, like a toilet that won't flush properly. x(

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. So you think Thimerosal and Mercury are the same thing? LOL.

[mhatrw]

58. Can you just admit that you would rather get the exact same shot without thimerosal than with it?

I didn't think so. And that proves, beyond a doubt, that you are nothing but a shill.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index1.html

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison." In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, 10 babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. I got the H1N1 vaccine over 2 weeks ago with thimerosal in it, I don't care about it.

I've never had a problem with the many, many vaccines I've gotten. Almost all contained thimerosal. We had both the Flumist H1N1 vaccine and the injectable H1N1 vaccine. I hadn't had my seasonal flu shot so I took injections of both the seasonal vaccine and the H1N1 vaccine.

[mhatrw]

69. See? I knew you could not admit even the most obvious thing in the world.

Why can't you even admit that, all other things being equal, it is safer to get a vaccine without thimerosal than with it?

Why are you afraid to admit even the most obvious, indisputable thing in the world?

Not in your talking points?

Seriously. Why should anyone discuss anything with someone who can not admit a single point, no matter how indisputable?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Indisputable, LOL. Never had a problem with thimerosal, I have had a problem with staphylococcus.

[mhatrw]

84. Where can I get a single dose injectable H1N1 vaccine without thimerosal?

Can you answer that question or not?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. You can get a single dose flumist without thimerosal.

[mhatrw]

102. Again. I don't want FLUMIST. It's seasonal version has too many incidences of major side effects.

What I want is one of the single dose thimerosal-free versions of AFLURIA, FLUVIRIN or Fluzone (preferably Fluzone). These are the versions the CDC is using for its safety tests. So how can I get one?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. Here is the phone number to the CDC feel free to call and ask. 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Why do you think thimerosal is included in vaccines?

[mhatrw]

85. It is not in all vaccines. In fact, it is strictly banned in all vaccines in many countries.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. I didn't say it was in all vaccines. I asked why you thought it was in some vaccines?

[mhatrw]

103. Ostensibly to save money (read:increase profits) and prevent contamination in multidose vials.

But I have seen no studies whatsoever demonstrating its effectiveness as a vaccine preservative, nor its comparable effectiveness and safety to other potential vaccine preservative candidates.

Do you know of any such studies?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Studies have shown it to be a very effective as a bacteriostatic and antifungal agent.

It is in those regards that it is used as a preservative.

[mhatrw]

115. Let's see the studies.

I am very curious about these studies. I would like to see how well thimerosal kills microbes at what concentrations compared to other potential vaccine preservatives.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. You won't believe them anyway. Just like you won't get the vaccine with or without thimerosal.

[mhatrw]

127. Nice cop out. And you are completely wrong. I have now studied this vaccine carefully and

if it didn't have thimerosal in it, I would recommend the injectable versions (AFLURIA, in particular) to all except pregnant women and kids under 6.

Or you could take your chances with the flu. I wouldn't push it on anyone, but if it were cheap and readily available, I would in fact recommend it, especially to healthy adults who work with multiple groups of young children.

[HuckleB]

161. ROTFLMAO!

You haven't studied a thing. You've just repeated BS propaganda that you don't understand.

[mhatrw]

164. Great contribution to the thread!

BIG PHARMA IS AWSUM!!1!!!!!!11

[HuckleB]

165. I said nothing about "big pharma."

ROTFLMAO!

[uppityperson]

79. Good grief. Have you ever considered that someone might hold a different opinion?

that what is "the most obvious thing in the world" to you is just that way...to you?

I got a hini vac from a multi-dose vial, happily and readily because that was what was available and I have never seen proof from a reputable source to show me I shouldn't. What is "the most obvious thing in the world" to me is different than to you.

[mhatrw]

86. So you would rather get the same exact vaccine with thimerosal than without?

Is that really what you are saying?

If not, why are you replying at all?

[uppityperson]

98. Here is what I am saying that you just replied to.

Have you ever considered that someone might hold a different opinion?

that what is "the most obvious thing in the world" to you is just that way...to you?

I got a hini vac from a multi-dose vial, happily and readily because that was what was available and I have never seen proof from a reputable source to show me I shouldn't. What is "the most obvious thing in the world" to me is different than to you.

[mhatrw]

106. So if you had a choice of drinking a glass of water with mercury in it or

a pure glass of water, would you also choose the glass of water with mercury in it?

Just wondering.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. If mercury and thimerosal were the same thing you might have a point.

[mhatrw]

114. LOL. You guys are hilarious. Thimerosal is an indisputably highly potent neurotoxin.

But you are not allowed to admit even so much as the fact that, all other things being equal, you would rather get the same exact vaccine without it than with it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. and it's not mercury.

[mhatrw]

121. Yes. You are right. Nor is hydorchloric acid chlorine. So would you like a glass?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. I doubt any of them taste very good. I'll stick with Jameson.

[mhatrw]

129. Now we are getting somewhere. Would you rather drink a shot of Jameson or get a shot of thimerosal?

Just wondering how far you are willing to take this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. I rather take the H1N1 vaccine with thimerosal than drink Jameson.

If that was my only chance to take the vaccine. If I could take the vaccine the next day I would drink the Jameson.

[mhatrw]

166. So you would trade a single day of protection against the vaunted SWINE FLU

for a measly shot of Jameson?

[uppityperson]

136. If you had a choice between sucking the snot out of a dog's nose until its head collapsed, or slidin

or sliding down a 50 ft razorblade with no pants on, which would you chose?

That was a leap of logic on your part. Or non-logic.

[mhatrw]

141. Cute, but also completely idiotic.

Is this now the "Throw Things Against the Wall and See if They Stick" Channel?

[uppityperson]

146. makes as much sense as the post it is replying to.

I thought we were playing "let's give wild choices that have nothing to do with the topic" game and figured the one from my childhood would fit right in.

[Confusious]

78. Thats funny

"If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies."

Lets see, a vaccine is a weakened virus, a living tissue. So if you used thermisol, you would kill all the tissue, so the vaccine would be worthless.

They must have used some sort of l33t shaman magic to wipe out smallpox, because the vaccine would do nothing.

FAIL! try again.

[mhatrw]

87. What?

:rofl:

[Confusious]

81. that's a lovely article

To bad rolling stone had to apologize and make corrections, not once, but over and over again for it.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a scion of the most famous Democratic family of all, authored a deeply flawed 2005 Rolling Stone piece called “Deadly Immunity.” In it, he accused the government of protecting drug companies from litigation by concealing evidence that mercury in vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids. The article was roundly discredited for, among other things, overestimating the amount of mercury in childhood vaccines by more than 100-fold, causing Rolling Stone to issue not one but a prolonged series of corrections and clarifications. But that did little to unring the bell.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/3/

[mhatrw]

88. To bad, indeed

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. So you think ethylmercury and mercury are the same thing?

[trotsky]

108. Not only that...

she evidently thinks that a microgram of thimerosal in a vaccine is the same as drinking a glass full of elemental mercury.

The most rabid anti-vaxers are also the most scientifically illiterate. This is no coincidence.

[blondeatlast]

11. Die from the infenitisimal chance that the vax is bad or from the much bigger chance I, immunity

challenged insulin-dependent that I am, get the vicious swine flu?

Ooh, tough choice. :eyes:

(I'm getting the vax--but thanks for the reactionary info)

[mhatrw]

20. Are you getting yours with or without the extra mercury?

This is your own personal health decision, of course. Only you can make the call. But don't pretend that the information presented in the OP was meaningless or counterproductive. It's just information, which is helpful even if you are 100% committed to getting every shot you can.

[trotsky]

31. Yeah, it's meaningless AND counterproductive.

Because you don't understand basic chemistry, and the difference between elemental mercury, methylmercury, and ethlymercury compounds.

That's why no one can take you seriously. You just simply don't understand.

[mhatrw]

32. What don't I understand? Please help me.

Is there a type of mercury that is good for you when injected into your body?

[trotsky]

33. Thank you.

You illustrate your ignorance on this topic better than I could ever point it out.

[mhatrw]

34. So I take it that means that all forms of mercury are poisonous to inject into your body?

Yes or no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. When applied to human nerve cells it changes cell membrane permeability and induces programmed cell death.<8> It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).<9> In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.<2>

Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-time of about 18 days, and from the brain in about 14 days. Inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer clearance, at least 120 days; it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood.<10>

Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury.<10> Methylmercury and ethylmercury distributes to all body tissues, crossing the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier, and ethylmercury also moves freely throughout the body.<11> Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is cleared from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.<10> A 2008 study found that the half-life of blood mercury after vaccination averages 3.7 days for newborns and infants, much shorter than the 44 days for methylmercury.<12>

[trotsky]

35. Nope, it just means that you are engaging in misinformed fearmongering.

You don't understand chemistry, you don't understand biology, and you certainly don't understand one of the most basic rules of toxicology, which is "The dose makes the poison."

I encourage you to post your ignorance more and more, so that fewer and fewer people will even give you the time of day.

[mhatrw]

36. Would it be safer to get the shot with or without thiomersal?

Answer the question. Given the choice, would you rather get injected with the very same vaccine with or without mercury?

I must admit that I do love your "you are ignorant because you'd rather not be injected with ethylmercury" take.

[trotsky]

38. It honestly would not matter to me.

No adverse affect (other than allergy, which my family and I do not have) has EVER been linked to thimerosal in vaccines. My children and I already got the seasonal flu shot this year - WITH MERCURY!!!11bang!eleventy!1!!! - and we will be getting the H1N1 vaccine just as soon as we can.

I am instead quite grateful for thimerosal, as it is an extremely safe, effective, and cheap preservative that makes vaccines more affordable and more available to everyone.

[mhatrw]

41. Yes. Let us all take a moment to thank God for the wonder that is cheap thimerosal.

Just as http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html">Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. did!

[trotsky]

53. Debunked and disproven.

RFK Jr. needs to stick with what he knows. He embarrasses himself and tarnishes the Kennedy name by pushing pseudo-science and lies.

[mhatrw]

59. Yes. Just take your two injections of thimerosal and shut up about it already!

It's just like a couple cans of tuna for your blood brain barrier! And you like tunafish. Don't you?

You have been given your marching orders from Eli Lilly. He has made you an offer you can't refuse.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

12. Well I just had the swine flu

and it was a joke. The weakest flu I have ever had and I get it pretty much yearly unless i get a flu shot. I had the chills for 8 hours total and a bad cough for a day. Three days later I still have a little tiny bit of a cough but over all that flu was weaksauce. My whole family got it including the kids and all are doing fine.


YMMV

[spoony]

14. Um, how do you know it was h1n1? nt

[blondeatlast]

15. +1. nt

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

21. We had our youngest son tested

when he came down with it. He was the last to get it oddly enough but is only 5 months old so we took him to the doctor.

The rest of us just didnt get sick enough to warrent a doctors trip but I didnt want to take chances with the 5 month old so we took him in and they swabbed his cheek. Came back with the results and said Congrats you all had the swiine flu.

We all had the same symptoms and it clearly passed from my older son to my wife to me to the baby.

[mhatrw]

17. It may not have been swine flu

http://www.youtube.com/v/zcHdmnTbH9Q

[Robb]

25. It's all a bunch of hoopla.

I mean, really, none of this is worrisome. I mean, it's week 42. Nothing to see here.

[mhatrw]

27. When you cause a hysteria, you get a lot of hospital visits that you wouldn't see otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/v/zcHdmnTbH9Q

[Robb]

28. When you get all your news from YouTube, you appear a fool.

Enjoy your nuttery. Off to ignore with you.

[mhatrw]

29. It's a CBS News report. What? Not your style?

What's wrong? Not fair and balanced enough for you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. and your dismissal of the pediatric deaths is despicable.

[mhatrw]

42. How many pediatric deaths have been caused by flu so far in 2009-10? 74

How many pediatrics deaths were caused by flu in 2008-09? 117

It's not the deadly epidemic you and the media are making it out to be. It's just another flu. Maybe the total number of pediatric deaths will end up higher than last year by the time this year's flu season is over. It's definitely possible, and it's incredibly tragic that any kid ever dies of anything. But just because a hundred kids out of 40 million tragically die (0.00025%), it doesn't mean that we should stop weighing medical risks vs. medical benefits when making our personal medical decisions.

Also note the H1N1 vaccine works very poorly in little kids:

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/qaH1N1pedvax.htm

The preliminary results are based on blood samples taken 8 to 10 days after the first vaccination. Immune responses were strongest among the oldest children, those 10-to 17-years old. In this group of 25 children, a strong immune response was seen in 76 percent who received one 15-microgram dose of 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine. Among 25 volunteers aged 3 to 9 years old, a strong immune response was seen in 36 percent of those given 15 micrograms of vaccine. In the youngest group, 20 children between 6 months and 35 months old, a single 15-microgram dose of vaccine produced a strong immune response in 25 percent of recipients.

Translation: A strong immune response to vaccination was not seen in 64% of 3-9 years and 75% of 6 - 35 months olds.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Again you insist on dismissing the deaths. You are a real piece of !

[mhatrw]

46. Appeal to emotion combined with a personal attack! Nice job!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. Thanks. It makes no sense for me to argue with someone who doesn't understand basic science.

[mhatrw]

52. Thanks for your kind concession speech.

It makes no sense for you to argue with me because you always lose.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Keep your head in the sand. It seems to be working well for you.

[mhatrw]

60. One question. Would you personally rather be injected with a flu vaccine

with thimerosal or the exact same flu vaccine without thimerosal?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Whichever is available is fine with me? I got the H1N1 vaccine over 2 weeks ago.

I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about Thimerosal.

[mhatrw]

71. But that's not what I asked you. What I asked you was if there were two vaccines in front of you,

both the exact same except that one contained thimerosal, which one would you choose?

You must choose one and only one. You cannot chose both. So which one will it be, Dave?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. I had a choice, my department had both. I chose the vaccine with thimerosal.

[mhatrw]

89. Why?

Seriously. Why?

Also, what company do you work for? Where can I get a single dose thimerosal-free shot?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. I work for a metropolitan fire department.

The flumist that we have is thimerosal free. As I already said I see no threat from thimerosal and I have a lot of sinus problems, so I didn't want the flumist.

[mhatrw]

107. Good choice. I don't want FLUMIST either.

What I want is one of the single dose thimerosal-free versions of the injectable H1N1 vaccines. You know, the version the CDC is using for all of its safety and efficacy tests.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. So now you approve of my choice of an injectable vaccine containing thimerosal. LOL.

[mhatrw]

120. Sure. I'd definitely get it over FLUMIST if I were you. Why does that surprise you?

Look, as relatively healthy adults, we have been and are constantly exposed to all sorts of dangerous chemicals. If the reward for getting a vaccine were avoiding death or permanent disability, who would care about the relatively tiny risk of thimerosal? Thimerosal certainly doesn't kill most healthy adults. Its side effects at a single vaccine dosage on most healthy adults are subtle, cumulative and long term at worst.

But considering that the benefits conferred to healthy adults by swine flu vaccination are not all that significant, why not try to eliminate as much risk as possible?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. Risk for whom?

[mhatrw]

130. "You can't possibly be that dense."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. So you think you are the only one at risk if you get the flu! Wow you are that dense.

[mhatrw]

135. No, I think I am primarily the one at risk if I get vaccinated.

But with a live vaccine such as FLUMIST, that may not be the case.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

139. Good luck with that.

[uppityperson]

80. I'd chose the multidose vial, with thimerosal. Save the other for those who want it.

Maybe some people who are scared of thimerosal will get the vaccine without and keep from getting sick.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

138. aw, come on, that was something we used to tell each other as kids.

"would you rather...snot...slide..."

[mhatrw]

142. Kudos to you for responding to your own message!

[uppityperson]

145. I thought it was what I'd posted above, but that is still there, I was mistaken

Mine is still there. Don't know what this one was as none of mine are missing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=75048&mesg_id=75544

[uppityperson]

30. Another fun graph showing flu trends for last 6 yrs...

http://www.google.org/flutrends/
click on a country and it will show you graph, you can also go down to state, province, whatever local smaller unit is.

[mhatrw]

45. Addendum: Safety trials being done using thimerosal free single dose injections.

Typical Big Pharma "science." We all get the shots with mercury, while the safety trials are being done using shots without mercury.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/vteuH1N1qa.htm

All the safety trials on these new H1N1 vaccines are being done using the thimerosal-free or thimerosal-removed single dose versions of these vaccines.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/qaH1N1pedvax.htm

Do the vaccines used in the pediatric trials contain thimerosal or adjuvants?

No. The 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine and the seasonal influenza vaccine used in these trials do not contain thimerosal or adjuvants.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/H1N1pregnanttrials.htm

Does the vaccine contain either the preservative thimerosal or an adjuvant?

No. The vaccine does not contain thimerosal, a preservative.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/H1N1VacASTHMAqa.htm

During the production of the vaccine, thimerosal, a chemical that prevents bacterial contamination, is required. This chemical is removed in the preparation of the single-dose syringes containing the vaccine, which will be used in this clinical trial.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/H1N1VacHIVChildYouthPregWomenqa.htm

The 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine manufactured by Novartis contains a trace amount of thimerosal, a mercury derivative used in the manufacture of the vaccine and removed by subsequent purification steps.

The exception to the rule is the safety study being done on the H1N1 vaccine plus the AS03 adjuvant (not currently approved for use by the CDC):

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AdjuvantH1N1QA.htm

Does the candidate vaccine contain the preservative thimerosal?

Yes, the 2009 H1N1 vaccine used in this study contains the preservative thimerosal to prevent potential contamination after the vaccine vial is opened.

[Why Syzygy]

171. Have you seen the patent dates?

I posted some of the package insert material weeks ago, and read a lot at that time.
You're doing a good job. I'm worn out.

Have you seen the patent applications? They were patented before the *surprise* outbreak in spring 2009.