Slashdot Mirror
Seasonal Flu Shots Double Risk of Getting Swine Flu, Says New Study
krou writes "A Canadian study currently under peer review apparently suggests that individuals given seasonal flu shots are twice as likely to get swine flu. The 'perplexing' study has thrown influenza health plans into disarray, with Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia all suspending seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 years of age. The study appears to be confined to Canada; the US, Britain, and Australia have not reported the same problem, so some are suggesting that the research has 'study bias.' However, the research appears to be 'solid' according to Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, head of adult infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba. 'There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers. And the sample size is very large — 12 or 13 million people taken from the central reporting systems in three provinces.''
Flu shots are for people with weak immune systems and old people that are at higher risk to "die" from it. Never get one done if you don't _need it_. I've see more people almost die due to allergic reactions to shots than i have due to a bad case of the flu.
IF you have health problem, or a weak immunitary system, then you are likely to have had flu shots in the past, AND you are likely to catch swine flu now that a shot for it does not exist yet. So nothing particularly stunning here.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Don't get vaccinated for multiple strains that are more deadly because it makes you twice as likely to catch only one strain?
I can see several reasons that those who obtain flu vaccines are more likely to contract the swine flu (as well as all the other versions of the flu.) First there's the age issue. The elderly are more likely to obtain a flu vaccine and are a higher risk group to begin with. But you also have the problems of people choosing to obtain the vaccine or not. Those who have never had a problem with the flu aren't likely to vaccinate themselves while those who have are more likely to obtain the vaccination. So in general you would expect those who obtain the vaccine to have more problems with the flu than those who don't.
That said, it's entirely possible the study accounted for all that, but we have no way to know as the study hasn't been published yet . It's only been distributed for peer review at this point.Until the actual methods are available, I consider this just another example of media sensationalism regarding the swine flu.
Get the vaccine to avoid a virus you will probably get, but it puts you at higher risk for a virus you have a tiny chance of catching. Sold.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I did a little googling, and found this via the who's article site: http://repository.searo.who.int/
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090930/h1n1_vaccine/20091001?hub=Health&s_name=
One day after the above article was published.
I think this is the case of the media reporting some scientific findings before it went completely through the peer review process. Sounds like it still isn't decided yet.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread494986/pg1
This is most likely a case of media hype driving public policy.
I heard a segment on NPR on this. Basically, it's just one study still in the very preliminary stages as studies go. Moreover, thee experts they interviewed said that there was no known biological reason why this would happen.
Given the amount of research into influenza, how to vaccinate against it, and how the bodies immune system responds to these vaccines, I think it's pretty safe to say that there won't be any medical surprises regarding the interaction between two such vaccines.
Until this is vigorously peer reviewed and at least another supporting study by other researchers is done, I call this a definite correlation (which we ALL know does not equal causation....right?).
People who bother to get flu shots do so because they are more at risk of catching the flu (regardless of the type)?
Please consider the following from the article and the paper:
1) The vast majority of provinces have suspended vaccinations for people not over 65. These provinces likely have several individuals on their health boards with more qualifications than the average SD poster.
2) The sample size was 12 to 13 million people. The paper was written by a large group of very high level names, and the initial peer review results don't involve "sampling bias" or "conditional probability" attacks.
3) The vaccination DOES NOT boost the chances of normal flu, but DOES boosts the chances of swine flu. Accounting for age group and health differences, the trend still remains. People who have gotten vaccinated up to two years ago still show a statistically significant difference in their chance of catching swine flu.
4) Before the bandwagon leaves on the "people who are more likely to get sick are more likely to get vaccinated, accounting for the 100% increase", people who get vaccinations aren't twice as likely to catch flu as people who don't get vaccinations. There's definitely something going on here.
TLDR: This isn't some crackpot study or some anti-vaccination study. They noticed something weird, and like a good pack of scientists, are investigating it.
Signatures are the new names.
..when an article about stunning new findings that will scare everyone says "currently in peer review". People who leak this stuff should have their funding sources revoked.
Super Number One, a podcast about all things geek
"'There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers. "
You do realize, sir, that this really proves little, right? I'd say around 90+% of scientists I know are credible and excellent researchers. We all *want* to do good work and few of us would willingly or knowingly compromise that.
This doesn't stop us from making honest, hard-to-spot mistakes. It's one thing to be sloppy (and that does happen sometimes) or to be dishonest (that also happens, rarely). But in any research, there will be factors you simply didn't know about and, let's be fair, shouldn't be expected to anticipate.
So saying that these are good researchers is, at best, suggesting that you think that they didn't lie or miss something obvious that they should have noticed. At worst, it sounds dangerously like an argument from authority.
This is not necessarily surprising or a new idea. A researcher at Rice University (Michael Deem, whom I have heard speak on this) studies the genetic basis for the vaccine and the resulting efficacy in any given year and there are MANY years in which getting a flu vaccine the previous year will actually increase your chances of getting the flu the next, or make it worse. You can find an interesting calculator here: http://www.mwdeem.rice.edu/pepitope/, where there is also a link to his most important paper on it at the bottom (no registration req.). Here is an excerpt:
Vaccine efficacy can even be negative, however, due to original antigenic sin [7-9], the tendency for antibodies produced in response to exposure to infl uenza vaccine antigens to suppress the creation of new, different antibodies in response to exposure to new versions of the infl uenza virus. The efficacy of the annual in fluenza vaccine, and whether original antigenic sin may occur, depends sensitively on how similar the vaccine and circulating viral strains are. Current state of the art measures of antigenic distance are based on ferret antisera hemagglutinin inhibition assays [10-12], and these distances are assumed to correlate well with vaccine efficacies in humans. However, to our knowledge no such good correlation has ever been shown for an experimental or theoretical measure of antigenic distance.
Ever since I heard this talk, and learned that the flu vaccine is actually a random guess each year, I don't bother with it. I'm young, strong, and tough and very very unlikely to die, I figure.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
1. Look up Rhinovirus and Influenza.
2. Notice that they are not the same thing.
In addition to the selection bias already mentioned (people more likely to get the flu are more likely to get flu shots), there's another good reason why it might be that people who didn't get the seasonal flu vaccine are less likely to have gotten the H1N1 flu--that's because they're far more likely to have gotten the regular ("seasonal") flu instead! Turns out that whenever we get a viral illness, our bodies ramp up production of interferons and generally "batten down the hatches" to make us more resistant to viral illnesses in general for a short period of time (weeks) afterwards.
If I'm right, then the powers-that-be in the Canadian health system may be wearing a lot of egg on their faces in the next few months, as the "real" (northern hemisphere) flu season hits. Over time, the unvaccinated people who initially resisted H1N1 because they caught a seasonal flu will once more become fully susceptible to the H1N1 strain as well.
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
So... which is it? 12.. or 13? Thats a million person difference. Why the hell is this number not solidly reported?
This is interesting, but I expect this is the last that I will hear of it and that this story will never make it into the main stream media, by which I mean outlets like the three major U.S.A. network TV news shows. It sends a message contrary to what they seem to want to preach, and almost encourages people to think and make informed choices for themselves.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Disclaimer: I am not an anti-vaccination nutjob. The following post refers to the flu vaccination, and the flu vaccination only.
First off, with regard to TFA, this alone should not discourage people from getting the flu shot. The simple fact is that the "swine flu" is the same as the "regular flu" that we get every year. It is not particularly more infectious or deadly in any segment of the population than any other flu strain. The fear surrounding this particular strain is simply manufactured by the media. If the flu vaccine reduces the chance of getting the other 15-20 strains of flu by a significant amount, but doubles your risk of this particular strain, you still come out ahead.
However, most people should not even consider getting a flu shot in the first place. If you are between the ages of ~15 and ~60, and are in general good health, you should not get the flu shot. It terrifies me when I see flu shots being given out to students at local schools and colleges. These are the people who have absolutely zero risk of dying from the flu. None. Even if it leads to pneumonia, there is only a risk of death if proper medical treatment is not given. The worst that can happen is, well, that they catch the flu for a week or so.
The flu shot, on the other hand, can be extremely dangerous. My aunt was a nurse, and thus was required by her job to take the flu shot every year. She had been taking them for nearly a decade when, in her mid-thirties, she was paralyzed from the waist down by the side-effects of the flu shot. Had she not taken the shot, the worst that would have happened to her would have been simply getting the flu. She got a large settlement from the vaccine manufacturer and her employer. It was a rather fast process, as they knew beforehand that a certain percentage of people who take the flu shot would have this reaction. The cost of the settlements is simply rolled in to the cost of the vaccine. A couple of years later, a friend of the family suffered similar complications from the flu shot, and died. He was only 28 at the time, and in perfect health. Had he not taken the shot, the worst that would have happened to him would have been simply getting the flu.
The results of this study are interesting, but they make little difference. The vast majority of people should not be getting the flu shot in the first place. Taking it is simply rolling the dice unnecessarily. For those who are very young or old, the risks from the flu shot and the risks from the flu itself start to even out. In that case, the shot may indeed be a better idea. The results of this study do not change that fact.
Basically the issue with flu vaccination is this: it's recommended for the elderly and other more-susceptible people, because they have the most to lose if they get influenza. A relatively modest reduction in influenza incidence in this population will save many lives. Young healthy people getting the flu vaccine, unless you are caring for this susceptible population, matters less.
Now, what about H1N1 strain? The elderly actually have some immunity to this strain. Us younger folks have never encountered it before. This is probably why it's mostly younger people falling to H1N1, more so than older folk.
The vaccination recommendation put forth where I live?... Elderly people should get the "regular" seasonal flu vaccine (ie protection against what has always been a great cause of morbidity and mortality in this population), and everyone else should get the H1N1-specific vaccine, because this population is quite susceptible to it. Makes sense, I think.
There is a misconception that being "healthy" will prevent you from getting a primary viral infection, but this is not true. For example if you have never been exposed to varicella-zoster virus (the virus that causes both chicken pox and shingles) and if you inhale viral particles then you WILL come down with chicken pox - I don't care how "healthy" you think you are. Being healthy will, however, usually limit the severe the primary infection.
Being healthy will also allow you to build up a strong specific immune response after exposure to an antigen, so secondary infections by the same or similar viruses can be prevented. As we age and our immunity wanes then the varicella-zoster virus that has been stored in our nervous system for decades will have a chance to erupt again - now you have a case of shingles.
Being "healthy" can prevent a primary bacterial infection, just not a viral one.
If you are young and healthy and think that you don't need the vaccine because you "never get the flu" then you need to realize that you are actually the most likely person in the world to get the flu. Older people are more likely to be resistant to swine flu because many have been exposed before and they carry specific neutralizing antibodies.
So one of the reasons that the conclusion of the article is unlikely to hold up under analysis is that if you've never been exposed to the pandemic H1N1 virus then you are completely vulnerable. Getting the seasonal flu vaccine can't make you any more vulnerable than you already are. Actually I think that the best reason not to draw conclusions from the article is the fact that multiple other countries failed to observe what the Canadians observed.
There is so much paranoia about vaccines that people will seize on any bizarre pseudo-scientific reason not to get one. Unless you are anaphylactic to egg proteins (and I know you aren't) the only non-paranoid reason you should be giving for not getting vaccinated is that you are too lazy and unmotivated, or maybe you have a crippling phobia of needles. Everyone else who gives a different reason is just wearing a tin-foil hat.
One mechanism that could account for this is "risky behaviour", which is flu-vaccinated people being less concerned about being in contact with symptomatic people due to their perceived protection through the vaccine. Since the regular flu vaccine does not protect against "swine flu", vaccinated people are more likely to get it. The flip-side being unvaccinated people go out of their way to stay away from symptomatic people, and so are less likely to contract it.
This might have something to do with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
The idea is that if your immune system learns to recognize an antigen similar to, but not sufficiently similar to, the antigen of a new threat, then your body may mount a less effective immune defense against the variant than it already knows. In other words, your body learns to fight seasonal strain of flu, then encounters similar H1N1. Now your body produces antibodies to the original flu, which bind more weakly to H1N1 proteins than an antibody that would have been made especially for H1N1, leading to an overall more severe infection than you otherwise would have had.
~Ben
To me, the most logical explanation is that people who tend to get regular flu vaccines (e.g. teachers, etc.) are generally at higher risk of contracting the flu in the first place due to occupational risk factors, etc.
Kythe
Given the fact that the people who received this vaccine should now have immunity to the normal flu, it stands to reason their chances of getting normal flu would not be boosted. If, on the other hand, people who get the vaccine tend to be people at high risk of getting flu in general due to occupational risks, travel habits, etc., or they tend to engage in more risky behavior because they've had the regular flu vaccine, a correlation with an increased incidence of the novel H1N1 simultaneously makes sense.
Kythe
This is interesting. Can you point me to a source that will help me learn about the side effect profile and frequency of flu vaccines? I know Google Is My Friend, but since you have some family experience with the issue, I thought I'd check with you first, then Google. Thanks.
Doesn't think much of it either
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940
it's not AIDS, or even cancer, that's gonna do the world in, it's gonna be Canadian Bacon!
No. You have to find something that's limited to Canada. Something widely consumed, deadly to your health, and something that doesn't exist outside of Canada: Poutine.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Lots of Canadians already had swine flu. It took me about 6 months to recover - from November 2008 till June 2009. I have seen co-workers undergoing the same ordeal - coughing for 6 months straight. So the statiscs may be skewed, but I'll take my common flu shot, since I don't want to get the next one.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I read up on the syndrome you described because I had never heard of it. It's Guillain-Barré (pronounced ghee-YAN bah-RAY) syndrome (GBS) and seems to manifest after a bacterial or viral infection, which can include a flu shot. Other than that, there's not much else known of the syndrome. For what it's worth, the CDC reports only one of many studies found that around one in one million vaccinated persons may be at risk for developing the syndrome.
Still very interesting. Thanks for pointing this out.
As a resident of Canada who has faithfully obtained the seasonal influenza vaccination nearly every year for the last 5 years, and the son of someone who works in the our provincial healthcare field, let me raise the following points about this study and the way vaccinations work in Canada, because it is entirely different that in the US or perhaps other areas of the world.
In Canada, it can be rather difficult to obtain the season influenza vaccination, since there tends to be a shortage every year. This means that people who are in at risk groups receive it first. These high risk groups include 1. Canadians aged 65 and over, 2. People with immunodeficiency diseases such as AIDS, HIV, etc., 3. People with diseases such as cancer, and 4. People with chronic conditions/diseases such as asthma, etc.
Canadians under the age of 65 with normal immune systems, and no diseases do not as easy access to seasonal influenza. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that he sample space is 12 million people as there are only 33 million Canadians. You can't tell me that an combined number of 12 million Canadians have received the seasonal influenza vaccination and/or received swine flu to allow this study to be possible. I propose the following reasons for people who received the vaccination are twice as likely are for the same reasons some people in Canada get "first dibs" on getting the vaccination in the first place.
In that timeframe, I actually had 3 annual flu shots. Every single time I got the shots, I was ill within about 8 hours and it stayed very sick for about 72 hours.
If a placebo can make you feel better - it strikes me that fear can make you sick.
So it has not yet completed peer review.
Can't say I'd be surprised if it's supported: a certain number of people won't build antibiodies. My wife and I found out this year that I am immunodeficient: I've had pneumonia four times from February through June, fortunately I didn't require hospitalization and suffered no lung damage because of it. I'm sure there's a fair number of people out there who are immunodeficient and don't know it. In my case, we didn't know until June, and we were talking about getting me a pneumonia immunization to prevent further episodes. It would have been wasted vaccine as my body wouldn't build antibodies at that time, we don't know if it will now, now that I've started treatment: that's the next set of tests.
I do know that, of the last five winter flu seasons, I didn't get a vaccine the first year and got really sick. Same with my wife. I've gotten the vaccine each subsequent year and not gotten sick, same with my wife. We don't know right now if I'll be able to get it (or swine flu or pneumonia or tetanus) this year, we'll wait and see.
I also started blogging about it at http://pneumoboy.blogspot.com/
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
There's got to be a significant correlation between having the seasonal flu vaccine recommended for you, and being exposed to swine flu. Surely we should expect that people who choose to get seasonal flu shots do so in part because they're more likely than average to come down with the flu if they don't get a vaccine. Being at high risk for exposure to the flu is a clear mediating factor in leading to both getting every available flu shot and coming down with any strain that goes around that there isn't a vaccine for.
To put it another way, we vaccinate some people go keep them from spreading the flu. If there's a link between getting the vaccine and getting the flu if you don't get the vaccine, then we're vaccinating the right people, and we should go on vaccinating them. (But it's worth making sure people know that they can't act like they're immune to the flu this year.)
Of course, the study could have found an actual danger to the vaccine, but we can't tell until the peer review is complete; peer review is where people will come to some sort of consensus on what the risk is that this value should be compared to.
The simple fact is that the "swine flu" is the same as the "regular flu" that we get every year. It is not particularly more infectious or deadly in any segment of the population than any other flu strain.
This contradicts several news stories I've heard. I haven't heard much about H1N1 being more deadly, but I have heard a higher percentage of people are getting it than normal seasonal flu. Can you provide any references to resolve our contradictory stories?
My aunt was a nurse, and thus was required by her job to take the flu shot every year. She had been taking them for nearly a decade when, in her mid-thirties, she was paralyzed from the waist down by the side-effects of the flu shot.
It sounds like your aunt might have gotten Guillain-Barré Syndrome. According to the CDC one study suggested a 1 in a million people will get GBS from flu vaccinations, though several others have shown no such association.
Assuming this is the case, the evidence is sketchy about a correlation between the two. At best it's a one in a million chance.
I do agree though that there's little reason for normal healthy people to get flu vaccinations. I never have myself, and my workplace offers them for free. I've seen a few people feel cruddy, or get mildly sick from flu vaccines, so I personally would rather just take my chances. A think your alarm is a bit unwarranted though. People take much higher risks for far lower rewards every day.
AccountKiller
It's not just your health that you effect when you choose not to be vaccinated.
Bruce Perens.
You jest but I think you're right. I hate hospitals, they're full of sick people.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Two anecdotal stories doesn't outweigh all the evidence that flu shots save many more lives than they take.
H1N1, unlike other flu strains, has shown signs of attacking healthier immune systems, producing cytokine storms. The CDC didn't recommend that 19-24 year olds get the vaccine just for the heck of it.
H1N1 is predicted to have a 0.05 to 0.08 percent chance of death. Multiple that by the number of people that normally get the flu each year, and you can see why the medical community is worried.
Do me a favor if your in the "flu vaccines are bad" crowd. Please be extra careful to not catch the flu (hand washing often, don't touch your eyes, nose, etc..), and if you do catch it, at the very first sniffle, please stay home.
Even a layperson understands that flu shots exercise your immune system. The shots work by exposing your system to a weaken version of the flu, which your body forms a reaction to and is able to deal with a live virus later much more quickly and with less severe symptoms (often people end up being asymptomatic). We could probably save millions in lost labor due to people taking sick days if all healthy adults got flu shots.
I don't know how you came to your conclusions, but they don't even pass a simple test of common sense. I would be interested in seeing studies that support your claims, but I was not able to find any on my own in the 5 or so minutes of googling.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why exactly is that unethical? A double-blind study doesn't mean you have to test on an unsuspecting public. It just means neither the "patients" or the people directly tending to them don't know who got the real vaccine. You can do this with volunteers. What seems unethical is pushing so hard to vaccinate the public *without* doing such a study.
Actually in many cases it's a quite disgusting reality. We have a chain of hospitals locally that have really great TV commercials - they essentially say "If you don't have one of our doctors, you'll fucking DIE". They're really dramatic and obviously designed to instil fear in the audience.
No, the large number of people who dislike the medical establishment should be taken as an indicator of something. Could be anything from bad P.R. to misunderstanding to actual bad practice. Don't rail against these folks, behind such a "movement" there is always some grain of truth.
Why should *I* get the vaccination and not my old granny? She's the one who might die from it, and I'm not the only person whom she may come in contact with. Not to mention if there's a problem with the vaccine, she's less loss to society than me and the other folks who you'd suggest need to be vaccinated - you know, considering the public good.
My grandmother (who was in fact affectionately known as "Granny") did in fact die of the flu at age 92. Half of my family caught it from relatives at the funeral - including my grandfather who survived it quite well along with the rest of us. I don't recall hearing about any secondary infections either. Again, if your immune system is not up to par, you're probably a good candidate for vaccination. If it is, you really don't have much to worry about.
You sound convincing, but you didn't tell us the fatality rate for flu among young healthy people. I would bet it's less than 1 in a million, but I don't actually have any data - just like you. In fact, I do bet every year I don't get the shot. To repeat what the other guy said, we should vaccinate the people at higher risk. If you want an all-out public vaccination, let's aim for eradication rather than play games letting it evolve while making annual payments for that service.
"No biological reason *that we know of* for this". It probably is an error, but I really hate how "experts" always think they know *everything* and can reject something new (this flu is less than 12 months old) just because it doesn't fit their world view. Except for physicists of course, who try to explain all sorts of stuff with exotic "dark" explanations ;-)
I've only just gotten over H1N1 myself, and I can tell you I didn't have any vaccinations in the past twelve months. Battle of the dueling anecdotes, anyone?
More likely is that while you were there receiving the vaccination, some dope who was in line sneezed on everyone.
Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
I have a hypothesis for how it might work. It's completely unsupported by any knowledge of reality, but the study hasn't passed peer review so we're on even footing.
Early 2008 - Epidemiologists make a guess for what flu variants will be common during the following winter.
Late 2008 - Many people get vaccinated for the upcoming seasonal flu.
Early 2009 - Seasonal flu peaks. It's not quite what was in the vaccine, but it's close enough that most of those vaccinated are protected. Many who weren't vaccinated get seasonal flu and become naturally immune to it. One of those people infected is also infected with a swine virus and those viruses combine into swine flu.
Mid 2009 - Swine flu begins circulating. People who had the previous seasonal flu already have antibodies that help with the swine flu. Those who were vaccinated for the previous seasonal flu have antibodies that are less accurate since the vaccine didn't perfectly match the circulating virus. Thus they are less protected from the swine flu.
Moral of the story - What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Avoiding getting almost killed once leaves you less prepared for a similar attack later. But it might still have been worth dodging the first bullet if that bullet had your name on it and instead you live to fight another day.
While your body is busy making antibodies for whatever strain of flu you've been vaccinated for, it's less able to fight off other viruses - swine flu just happens to be the current virulent virus in large parts of the world.
their are side affects to the flu shot. Also their are costs (in $ and time.) Also the timing may not work out for you, you do not want the shot while already sick, or are doing something strenuous in the 2 days after the shot (it is a additional stress to your system.) ;)
Not saying it is a net negative, just that their are more than 2 legit reasons to pass.
Oh one other reason, if you would rather be sick at home than go to work. And you too honest to just lie.
There was something odd about the Spanish Flu, which was a more deadly version of H1N1. It attacked and killed the healthy and young far more than the sick and the weak, the very young and the elderly.
Now, the report, below says that the two H1N1's are "distant cousins" and "totally not related", but...
The newer "swine flu" H1N1 strain also seems to be following that pattern -- killing teens and "the very healthy" more than the old or young people, in spite of their relative health.
The Spanish Flu made the body attack itself -- the healthier you were, the worse the reaction Click Here:
Main article: 1918 flu pandemic
The Spanish flu, also known as La Gripe Española, or La Pesadilla, was an unusually severe and deadly strain of avian influenza, a viral infectious disease, that killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide over about a year in 1918 and 1919. It is thought to be one of the most deadly pandemics in human history. It was caused by the H1N1 type of influenza virus.[4]
The 1918 flu caused an unusual number of deaths, possibly due to it causing a cytokine storm in the body.[5][6] (The current H5N1 bird flu, also an Influenza A virus, has a similar effect.)[7] The Spanish flu virus infected lung cells, leading to overstimulation of the immune system via release of cytokines into the lung tissue. This leads to extensive leukocyte migration towards the lungs, causing destruction of lung tissue and secretion of liquid into the organ. This makes it difficult for the patient to breathe. In contrast to other pandemics, which mostly kill the old and the very young, the 1918 pandemic killed unusual numbers of young adults, which may have been due to their healthy immune systems mounting a too-strong and damaging response to the infection.[2]
The term "Spanish" flu was coined because Spain was at the time the only European country where the press were printing reports of the outbreak, which had killed thousands in the armies fighting World War I. Other countries suppressed the news in order to protect morale.[8]
Perhaps there is something to this study. Now, I don't believe studies as a rule and I have criticized the same, but logic and history seem to add evidence to the *strong* correlation.
As to this study, I think it's a lot closer to being airtight than most (very large sample size, fractional percent margin of error, good science, peer reviews, findings being scrutinized and met with skepticism):
Sadly, I'm not as dubious of this Canadian study as others and will weigh my options for my family.... :-(
Your idea of risk is intriguing. I'd prefer a 100% chance of being out with the flu for a week over a 0.01% chance of paralysis or death.
Of course fear and the thought that you have the flu can make you sick. You create everything around you, why wouldn't you create your own diseases too? Mind over matter is largely ignored in the scientific community, but it's possible to manipulate Your Universe just by the process of thought and intention. Think about it.
GeoKone.NET
If you are between the ages of ~15 and ~60, and are in general good health, you should not get the flu shot. It terrifies me when I see flu shots being given out to students at local schools and colleges. These are the people who have absolutely zero risk of dying from the flu. None.
Not quite: The Spanish Flu seems to have killed especially healthy young adults.
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
and I just got my flu shot on Saturday, which was my first flu shot in probably 15 years! Then, I read this little gem of information. Crap. Is there an undo shot for a flu shot? :(
The simple fact is that the "swine flu" is the same as the "regular flu" that we get every year.
Generalizing much? H1N1 2009: "It has two genes from flu viruses that normally circulate in pigs in Europe and Asia and bird (avian) genes and human genes. Scientists call this a "quadruple reassortant" virus. (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm)
If the flu vaccine reduces the chance of getting the other 15-20 strains of flu by a significant amount, but doubles your risk of this particular strain, you still come out ahead.
The seasonal flu vaccine is made to respond to three strains of influenza virus, not 15-20 strains. (Google it.)
Your aunt was probably hit by the Guillain-Barré -syndrome which affects 1 in a million people vaccinated. Anecdotal evidence is the root of many evil and should not appear in medical debate.
Of course, if you bothered to check Pubmed, you would have found dozens and dozens of placebo controlled trials of flu vaccines. Which should tell you something about getting your scientific knowledge from some guy quoted in the New York Times (journalism tip: when a newspaper quotes somebody else as saying something, they are not responsible for the accuracy of that statement).
The seasonal updates of the flu vaccines can't be individually tested in placebo trials of course, because by the time the trial was over, it would be too late for the vaccine to save any lives--the flu would have come and gone. However, statistical evidence shows that seasonal flu vaccines (when vaccine developers correctly predict what flu strain will go world-wide) are highly safe and effective, just as expected from the results of placebo studies.
And if she'd had the flu shot every year, and then one year gotten hit by a car, would that be the fault of the vaccine, too?
People get this kind of paralysis all the time without being vaccinated. It can be triggered by a cold or an infection. So it is certainly plausible that it could have been triggered by a flu shot. The vaccine compensation program gives the benefit of the doubt to people who may have been injured, which is reasonable, because people who get vaccinated are performing a public service by protecting their neighbors. But except for 1976 year when there was a spike in Guillain-Barré Syndrome paralysis (and the flu vaccinations were discontinued), there has been no clear evidence of increased rates of paralysis. It is even possible that some other infection going around in '76 was actually at fault. The risk, if it exists, is probably on the order of 1 in a million, less than the risk of dying from flu.
Here is the CDC info page on the subject.
I beleive the reason people who received a flu shot are more likely to contract a flu variety not covered by the flu shot is because receivers of flu shots are a self-selecting population of people who consider themselves at a higher risk of contracting flu in the first place. Nurses, teachers, the elderly, and immuno-compromised people all get flu shots because they are at higher risk; of course they contract flu more often, with or without the shots.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Talk to your fucking doctor before you make any decisions on whether to take a vaccine or not - some anonymous schlomo on Slashdot should never influence your opinion on matters of health - your DOCTOR is that person.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I've see more people almost die due to allergic reactions to shots than i have due to a bad case of the flu.
Do you have any data or links to support this idea?
I just got the seasonal flu shot because last year I got a flu that hit my bowels pretty hard. My gut won't even hold in water. After two days of the runs, I had to 'hold it in' just to get my gut to absorb water. My kidneys were hurting and I knew I was heading to the hospital if I didn't get my kidneys to produce.
'Holding it in' worked, BTW. It wasn't fun, but it worked.
But this concept that the seasonal flu shot increases risk of H1N1 is alarming. My brother, who is a lion, was down for three days with the swine flu.
Best regards.
That particular study about verteboplasty was related to relief of pain; a very tricky subject area.
Verteboplasty might also be indicated in compromised lung function due to kyphosis. I've seen old ladies with osteoporosis/kyphosis wither and die and I have to wonder if verteboplasty wouldn't have helped them live longer lives, yet the treatment is withheld because of questions about efficacy that are related to pain, not lung function.
I lose faith with these 'studies' when I see such conflicting information about what ought to be straightforward science. Vaccines have eliminated many dangerous diseases that were once commonplace; polio, small pox, rubella, tetanus, yet we get bombarded with reports that vaccines don't work or are dangerous.
I'll take my chances with verteboplasty if I get kyphosis.
Best regards.
You're assuming there's a 100% chance you won't actually get the flu when you take a shot. The flu shot you take will only prevent you from getting that one particular strain, so you could very well get your flu shot and still catch a different strain.
Paralysis is just the tip of the iceberg of side effects - flu shots contain mercury and formaldehyde, may lead to alzheimers etc.. (google to find your own credible sources, there's plenty of anti-flu-shot sites with no valid links and perhaps other bogus claims) The chances of getting some of these side effects may be slim, but i'd prefer to risk getting the flu several times in my life, than significantly increase my chances of getting Alzheimer's or dementia later
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
I am approaching the mature age and used to catch everything, several times almost fatally some years ago, following living in very North America (no sunlight).
Now I take an iron free, low copper multivitamin, vitamin C four times a day, a B50 complex, and a 2000 or 5000 iu vitamin D3 each day, per the latest medical science on D. If someone sneezes right on me all gooey, or I feel scratchy, I immediately go to hourly on the C until I "forget" and double the D. See the vitaminDcouncil.org and www.vitamincfoundation.org/ Sick people go to bowel tolerance on C and 15,000 iu on vitamin D for up to 3 days.
Read it an weep for those friends and family who died unnecessarily. Read it and live.