Slashdot Mirror


For Some Medical Workers, a Flu Shot Or Possible Job Loss

theodp writes "Want to work at Winthrop Hospital? Roll up your sleeve, and we'll talk. TIME reports that every employee at the Long Island hospital — from doctors and nurses who care for patients to the administrative, housekeeping and food-service personnel — must be vaccinated against both seasonal and H1N1 flu or face termination. The mandate comes from the health department of New York, the first state to require all health-care workers to be vaccinated against influenza. Meanwhile, two-thirds of parents say they'll avoid flu shots for their little ones like, well, the flu. So who should you believe — Dr. Bill Frist or 'Dr.' Bill Maher? Before you decide, perhaps a consultation with Dr. Google is in order."

541 comments

  1. Captain Obvious by Fryth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If everyone had the flu shot, there would be no more flu.

    If more people have the flu shot, there will be less flu than there is now.

    1. Re:Captain Obvious by daninspokane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am no medical expert but I am pretty sure we can't "cure" the flu... Doesn't the thing constantly mutate making a "polio-like" vaccine impossible?

      --
      Slashdot is too nerdy for me.
    2. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If everyone had the flu shot, there would be no more flu.

      If more people have the flu shot, there will be less flu than there is now.

      Absolutely not true. Try some prevention for a change. Get people to wash their hands, stop picking their nose, and stay at home when they're sick. Don't share mice, keyboards, phones. Stop with the "pair programming" where you're breathing down each others' backs. The flu shot is a crap-shoot in terms of effectiveness, and stats show that this latest virus is no more fatal than the average.

      For example, of the 151 cases in Mexico when it first started, upon re-examination, only 6 were swine flu.

      This tendancy to report ANYTHING as "possibly H1N1 - PANIC!!!" is stupid. I've never had a flu shot, and never will. And if you've had one, keep away from me - you're more, not less, likely to have a compromised immune system in the long run if you get annual flu shots.

    3. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Captain Stupidly Obvious, as well as Captain Beside the Point since the point is whether your employer or the goobermint should be able to force you to get the shot. And like even a borken clock is right twice a day, this goes to show that even famously moronic uber dickhead Bill Maher can be accidently right about something.

    4. Re:Captain Obvious by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the influenza pandemic will kill off Extreme Programming, now that's something I can get behind.

    5. Re:Captain Obvious by grommit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not a doctor so could you please explain to me how kickstarting my immune system against a specific strain of disease will compromise my immune system? I'd understand if a vaccine was designed to fight off the disease on their own but they're not. They prime your own immune system to start building up the immunities on its own. At least, that's kinda how my doctor explained them to me. Maybe my doctor doesn't know as much about vaccines as you do.

    6. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't share mice

      But they are so cute and cuddly in my han OUCH DAMN THING JUST BIT ME!

      ---

      In other news, Doctors in Raleigh, North Carolina have just found the first case of rodent flu! Stay tuned to learn more!

    7. Re:Captain Obvious by Fryth · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely right about prevention being key, and handwashing is an extremely neglected, important way to fight disease (disclaimer: of _course_ i am not any kind of doctor).

      But there's nothing wrong with getting a flu shot, and it can only improve matters in the vast majority of situations. There may be circumstances where getting a shot would be unhealthy, sure.

      Forcing people to get one seems like it causes other, ethical, problems, though, which I didn't mention in my post which is now modded flamebait :)

    8. Re:Captain Obvious by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      I believe the reasoning may go something like this: the vaccine (if I understand everything correctly) contains a dead or crippled version of the disease in question, perhaps even deactivated toxins. The body will have its typical reaction to the disease itself, and will attack the (mostly) harmless vaccine, with the purpose being to cause the immune system to recognize the vaccine as foreign, destroy it, and remember how to destroy it.

      I suspect that the GP resists this, perhaps assuming that a more natural exposure to e.g. the flu will result in a better immune system, as it will have to do all the fighting on its own against a real opponent, not a crippled on.

      --
      SSC
    9. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if you've had one, keep away from me - you're more, not less, likely to have a compromised immune system in the long run if you get annual flu shots.

      May you please provide some evidence for this claim? If you are talking about antigenic sin, that only applies if you get the shot regularly, but then skip a year:

      http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392095

      The flu shot is a crap-shoot in terms of effectiveness

      From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113154000,

      "If you are vaccinated with the injected vaccine, you have about a 70 percent chance of preventing influenza."

      70% is a crap-shoot? Really?

      latest virus is no more fatal than the average

      About 36,000 a year die on average from the flu each year.

      Anyway, the flu shot isn't a "crap-shoot" and an immune system destroyer as you claim... it is exactly the opposite, actually.

    10. Re:Captain Obvious by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the GP resists this, perhaps assuming that a more natural exposure to e.g. the flu will result in a better immune system, as it will have to do all the fighting on its own against a real opponent, not a crippled on.

      That sounds like awful reasoning. Getting a flu shot doesn't prevent you from also getting natural exposure to the flu.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    11. Re:Captain Obvious by gijoel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you're planning on living in a bubble? No? Living in your casino's hotel room with Kleenex boxes on your feet? No? then just how do you plan on avoiding the flu?

      In an ideal world your advice would work, but we don't live in an ideal world. People forget to wash their hands, or don't do it properly. They pick their noses cause it's fun. They'll paw your keyboard and mice because they just want to check their facebook and don't feel like tromping five feet to their own machine.

      Stop pair programming? Huh, yeah sure you're PHB isn't going to tell you to man up and get on with it, is he now? Some magazine told him that it would increase productivity. If it's the choice between your sniffles and productivity, well you're gonna be sneezing a lot.

      Keep sick people at home. That's a fantastic idea. You absolutely have my 150% unqualified support. Unfortunately sick people are still going to show up for work. It could be because they don't get sick leave. Or they don't think their flu is that bad. Or they've blown all their sick leave on guild raids. Or they're suffering under some messed up Calvinist work ethic that would drag their corpse into work if they could figure out some way of getting their dead limbs to work.

      As for the rest of your anti-vac rant; where's your f@$#ing evidence? I'm sick of anti-vac propaganda that pulls suspicions and hysteria from its' arse and expects me to swallow it without thinking.

      I'll be sticking to my annual flu shots thank you very much. And you can keep your vunerable immune system in your damn biohazard suit.

    12. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Read what you wrote - "They prime your own immune system to start building up the immunities on its own." Unfortunately, antibodies aren't all that discrete. For example, the same antibody reaction that's been implicated in type one (juvenile) diabetes, where cows milk ends up leaking into the infants' bloodstream and provoking an antibody reaction; later on in life, the same antibodies start destroying the isles of langrahen; once enough are gone, no more insulin production.

      Repeatedly injecting foreign substances to provoke immune responses has also been implicated in rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases later in life.

      And no, doctors aren't necessarily up on the latest and greatest. Look how many decades they told people with peptic ulcers to see a shrink to learn to handle stress. The flat-out refused to believe that ulcers were caused by an infection. Ditto with certain forms of cancer and viruses. Heck, they thought they could "cure" gays and lesbians for over a century. Some even wanted to "cure" the "disease" of being left-handed up until a decade ago.

      Even now, some doctors are saying thatyou should pick your nose and eat it, despite the fact that the boogers are there FOR YOUR PROTECTION, and picking your nose short-circuits that process, damages tissue (allowing direct access to the blood stream), and helps spread contaminants (stop wiping your snot all over the place - it's like a culture medium for bacteria).

      In other words, doctors can also fall victim to simplistic logical fallacies. Or are you going to start picking your nose and chewing it because some doctor mistakenly thinks it's the right thing to do?

    13. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, of the 151 cases in Mexico

      Mmmm... cases of 151 in Mexico... are we talking about the Bacardi Flu?

    14. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually very rare that mice bite.

    15. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      No, the reasoning is as follows:
      1. the flu shot you receive is not going to be the virus you're exposed to this winter. It may be close, but it won't be an exact match (the virus constantly mutates which reminds me - why do fundies want flu shots if they don't believe in evolution?). It may also be way off. Either way, any time you inject something to provoke an immune response, you're taking a risk of getting more than you bargained for. Immune responses to other proteins in the vaccine, an over-reaction because your number has come up, etc.
      2. every time you introduce foreign antigens into the body, you increase the odds of auto-immune responses. Look at dogs whose owners are stupid enough to have their dogs vaccinated annually - they have a higher incidence of both arthritis and lepto-spirosis. Sometimes, that which doesn't kill you makes you weaker, not stronger, in the long run;
      3. not every pathogen is amenable to vaccines. The body only has a bit more than a couple of hundred different templates to match up against diseases. If you don't have the right template, a vaccine simply isn't possible.
      4. The first contact with a foreign agent may just prime the system for a fatal over-reaction the next time in some people. Think about bee and wasp stings, or injectable iodine for CAT scans, as examples.
      5. people die from the flu every year. Millions. H1N1 doesn't look to be any worse, statistically, than the average flu. People are confusing people coming down with H1N1 with people dying from it. They're also using H1N1 as a "grab-bag" for deaths. Of the 151 original fatal cases in Mexico, turns out 145 were NOT from H1N1. Big difference between 151 and 6. What we're seeing is the same herd mentality we've seen in the housing bubble, and the internet stock bubble.

      In other words, while I agree with some vaccines, I don't agree with flu vaccines. The virus mutates too quickly, and we'd be better of practicing proper hygene to limit its' spread. Wash you hands, stop picking your nose, don't share cups, plates, utensils, mice, keyboards, phones, teach people not to rub their eyes with their hands (great way to get that bug you picked up off a door handle into your body), don't allow people to come into work or school sick ("but I don't want to waste a sick day being sick whaaa!!!"), get plenty of fresh air, good food, and exercise, make sure that work places and bedrooms are well ventilated, and stay away from smokers.

      It's just common sense - but too often, we just want a pill because it's less work.

    16. Re:Captain Obvious by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Give me a good peer reviewed study that says flu shots are bad.

    17. Re:Captain Obvious by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, its totally true. the fact that it is at -1 is an insult to /. to have something so clearly modded "-1 disagree, i'm ignorant"

    18. Re:Captain Obvious by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Well... if you get the Chicken Pox for real, you get it once and (typically) are done with it forever. But the Chicken Pox shot, don't you have to get twice in your life to get the same results?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    19. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pick my nose and eat it all the time, and I'm the healthiest person in my family.

      Disclaimer: Correlation is not causation.

    20. Re:Captain Obvious by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113154000,

      "If you are vaccinated with the injected vaccine, you have about a 70 percent chance of preventing influenza."

      70% is a crap-shoot? Really?

      Because the media would never misquote numbers right? http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm First, the flu shot will not completely prevent getting the flu. It most cases having had the right flu vacine to match the strain you are infected with will reduce the severity and duration That 30-70% figure the figure for how many people will experience reduced symptoms. This is still completely ignoring the fact that your odds of getting the right vacinne to match your particular strain are very low.

    21. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      A 70% chance of preventing influenza is worse than my current odds - which are well above 98% historically (only had the flu once on over half a century, and never had a flu shot in my life).

      I'll stick with what works. as apposed to an almost 1 in 3 chance of getting it if I *do* get a flu shot.

      But speaking of vaccines - the latest polio outbreak in Africa was CAUSED by the polio vaccine:

      Polio surge in Nigeria after vaccine virus mutates

      LONDON (AP) -- Polio, a dreaded paralyzing disease stamped out in the industrialized world, is spreading in Nigeria despite efforts to stamp it out. And health officials say in some cases, it's caused by the vaccine used to fight it.

      In July, the World Health Organization issued a warning that this vaccine-spread virus might extend beyond Africa. So far, 124 Nigerian children have been paralyzed this year -- about twice those afflicted in 2008.

      Experts have long believed epidemics unleashed by a vaccine's mutated virus wouldn't last since the vaccine only contains a weakened virus strain -- but that assumption is coming under pressure. Some experts now say that once viruses from vaccines start circulating they can become just as dangerous as wild viruses.

      "The only difference is that this virus was originally in a vaccine vial," said Olen Kew, a virologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      Kew said genetic analysis proves mutated viruses from the vaccine have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria.

      So, I won't be bothering to infect myself with the flu.

    22. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they (you know, the doctors and the media that reports on it) have said that if you get the flu vaccine, you are more likely to get H1N1. So, it's certainly possible, though probably not in the way that GP imagines.

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/study-prompts-provinces-to-rethink-flu-p%3E%20lan/article1303330/

    23. Re:Captain Obvious by ProfM · · Score: 1

      And if you've had one, keep away from me - you're more, not less, likely to have a compromised immune system in the long run if you get annual flu shots.

      Ahhh ... so you're the one who took George Carlin seriously ... you please get away from me, after swimming in the Hudson. Sheesh.

    24. Re:Captain Obvious by wisty · · Score: 1

      Extreme Programming has it's uses, especially when the job is "just implementation".

      1 person is more creative than 2, but that's often a disadvantage. Corporate in-house stuff needs drones, and XP is good for dumbing good programmers down just enough that they don't hang themselves on their own ropes.

    25. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If you look elsewhere in the thread, you'll see quotes from The Lancet wrt auto-immune diseases and vaccines, and to WHO admitting that the polio vaccine in Nigeria mutated and is now causing polio instead of curing it.

      But yes, Carlin was one of the great ones :-)

    26. Re:Captain Obvious by eln · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you don't get exposed to Chicken Pox until you're older, or heaven forbid pregnant, it can be very serious to you and your fetus. Given this, it's safer to get the vaccine as a child rather than risk possible serious complications if you're not lucky enough to contract the disease at a young age.

    27. Re:Captain Obvious by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's referred to as "original sin". That is, when presented with a novel antigen, antibodies are formed in response. Then if a similar antigen is presented later it will respond with the marginally effective antibodies against the first antigen rather than producing a maximally effective one tailored to the second antigen.

    28. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I've posted links elsewhere in the thread to articles in The Lancet, as well as a study currently being peer-reviewed on an expedited bases that showed that people who received flu shots in the past are twice as likely to get H1N1.

      Distributed for peer review last week, the study confounded infectious-disease experts in suggesting that people vaccinated against seasonal flu are twice as likely to catch swine flu.

      The paper is under peer review, and lead researchers Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and Gaston De Serres of Laval University must stay mum until it's published.

      Met with intense early skepticism both in Canada and abroad, the paper has since convinced several provincial health agencies to announce hasty suspensions of seasonal flu vaccinations, long-held fixtures of public-health planning.

      "It has confused things very badly," said Dr. Ethan Rubinstein, head of adult infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba. "And it has certainly cost us credibility from the public because of conflicting recommendations. Until last week, there had always been much encouragement to get the seasonal flu vaccine."

      On Sunday Quebec joined Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia in suspending seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 years of age. Quebec's Health Ministry announced it would postpone vaccinations until January, clearing the autumn months for health professionals to focus on vaccinating against H1N1, which is expected to the more severe influenza strain this season.

      "By the time the H1N1 wave is over, there will be ample time to vaccinate for seasonal flu," Dr. Rubinstein said.

      B.C. is expected to announce a similar suspension during a press conference Monday morning.

      Other provinces, including Manitoba, are still pondering a response to the research.

      New Brunswick is a lone hold-out, announcing last week it would forge ahead with seasonal flu shots for all residents in October, as originally planned.

      This is a much larger, more comprehensive study (13 million people) than most, which is why it may have found a correlation that other studies missed.

      An international panel is currently scrutinizing the research data. "The review process has been expedited, so we're hoping for a response within days," said Roy Wadia, spokesman for the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

      Dr. Rubinstein, who has read the study, said it appears sound.

      "There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers," he said. "And the sample size is very large - 12 or 13 million people taken from the central reporting systems in three provinces. The research is solid."

      The vaccine suspensions do not apply for people over 65. Seniors are considered more susceptible to severe seasonal flu symptoms. At the same time, they carry antibodies from a 1957 pandemic that seem to neutralize the current version of H1N1.

      Even if the statistical link is proven, the medical link between seasonal flu shots and H1N1 remains mysterious. One hypothesis suggests seasonal flu vaccine preoccupies the cells that would otherwise produce antibodies against H1N1.

      But, according to Dr. Rubinstein, the research shows that people who received the seasonal shot during the 2007-08 flu season remained vulnerable to swine flu well into 2009 - an interval that should provide most immune systems ample restoration time.

      "We don't understand the mechanism," Dr. Rubinstein said. "At the present time it is quite perplexing."

      Or it could be that the negative effect of the vaccine extends for longer than originally thought. As one othr example, there is similar evidence wrt the MMR vaccine.

    29. Re:Captain Obvious by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but you're already eating your snot. Most of it drips down your throat from the back of your nose and gets swallowed.

    30. Re:Captain Obvious by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Proved the wrong thing.

      You are showing that seasonal vaccines negatively effect the H1N1 virus. Even in your quote it says that the goal of not using the seasonal vaccine is so that you can focus on the H1N1 vaccine. Which is to say the vaccine is a good thing and useful and Lancet supports it.

      Yay terrible arguments.

    31. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The stuff that drips down your throat naturally is much less contaminated than the crusties in your nose that some people seem to take so much delight in. Don't pick your nose, don't eat your boogers, and you can have my keyboard when you pry it from my cold dead hands - until then, don't put your booger-stained mits on it.

      I remember one time when I had to fix a sales reps' computer, and I told the boss "Okay, I'll be back in 15 minutes." Went and bought bright yellow rubber gloves - the kind you use for washing the dishes. He said "you can't work on his computer in front of him like that!" I said "Then you do it - I'll tell you exactly what has to be done, but I'm not touching his keyboard. I know where his hands have been!" His response? "Use the gloves."

    32. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      It proves that vaccines can have negative effects on immunity to closely-related diseases - which backs up my initial assertion that vaccines can have negative effects on the immune system.

      H1N1 isn't any more lethal than other flus. This has been a real exercise in over-hype. People think it's worse than ebola, the way they're acting. It's the flu. It will cull the same (or in this case, fewer) of the population than the normal flu. Just quarantine the people who have it, and take the regular flu precautions (wash your hands, don't let anyone cough on you or use your keyboard, make sure there's adequate ventilation so the level of virus particles in the environment is low, get plenty of rest and eat right).

      and if you were around for the 1957 epidemic, relax, unless you have other severe health problems, you're probably immune - the strains are close enough, which explains why older people aren't nearly as susceptible.

    33. Re:Captain Obvious by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      Bad news. You are exposed to hundreds of viruses every day. If being exposed to viruses and antigens is going to cause a bad reaction in you it is going to happen without the flu shot.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    34. Re:Captain Obvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between being exposed in the natural environment, when the largest organ your body has - the skin - can protect you, and injecting the stuff directly into you,

      Case in point - HIV. There's no evidence that you can get HIV from getting contaminated blood splashed onto intact skin. There's LOTS of evidence for transmission via needle pricks, open sores, etc.

      Couple that with the latest news - that previous flu injections can make you twice as susceptible to the H1N1 strain, and you've got to wonder about the advisability of trying to vaccinate against a rapidly-mutating virus.

      Not that flu shots are all that trusted anyways - I don't know anyone who bothers with them. When I ask them how many times they've had the flu, most of them are like me - maybe once. I'll take the guarantee of being sick for a week once in my life and getting over it, over the possibility of increased susceptibility to a broad range of auto-immune disasters, like arthritis, in my old age. 10 to 30 years of joint problems isn't worth it, even if the odds are only 1 in 1,000. Actually, if the odds are anything worse than 1 in 52,000 for long-range auto-immune side effects, you're better off with catching the flu - especially a mild strain like H1N1, which is predicted to remain at the low range of lethality.

      Another funny thing about this strain - being a fat slob seems to be the #1 indicator of being "at risk". Not just the morbidly obese, but the regular fatties who can still "belly up to the bar" at the all-you-can-eat. Well, it's one way to cull the herd, and encourage people to take better care of themselves, but you're not going to hear much about it, because it's just SO politically incorrect to tell people to stop stuffing their faces like every meal is going to be their last. Like it's politically incorrect for doctors to tell smokers that if they don't want to quit, the doc doesn't want to waste their time when they can be helping patients who DO want to quit. They claim the doctor has a moral obligation to help them, forgetting that (1) the doctor has no obligation to help a patient who won't cooperate in their own care, and (2) they doctor has the same obligation to help others, so since nobody has unlimited time, triage is necessary. Besides, after a few doctors not-so-politely tell them to FOAD if they won't help themselves, some of them get the message and get with the program. The others - they were going to die anyway, so give 'em their darwin.

      It might sound cruel, but so is disease, and the biggest health-care problems are self-inflicted lifestyle diseases from smoking and over-eating, not the flu. Just look at the death stats.

  2. Why is it you can't sue. by clandonald · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    1. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Why is it you can't sue the makers of vaccines, if the vaccine makes you sick?"

      In order for vaccination to "work" - from a public health standpoint - a majority of the population needs to be vaccinated. (I think the number's 75%.) If you are giving that many people a shot someone is going to get sick, even if there is nothing "wrong" with the vaccine. Add to that the fact that vaccines are a low margin product - per the supply/demand curve, it needs to be cheap as possible so the most people will get it.

      So, you have a product that:
      1) will definitely make someone sick and/or kill them
      2) You are barely making any money on it
      3) there is no "informed consent" defense - most vaccines are mandated.

      Why would any company make such a product when they will inevitable get sued for far more than the profit from it? No one would. So the US government, in order to induce the production of vaccines, gave vaccine manufacturers immunity from suit and set up a fund to compensate the people they KNOW will be hurt.

      Short answer - you can't sue for injury from a vaccine because, if you could, there would be no vaccines.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Alarindris · · Score: 1

      You can.

      My girlfriend's mom got a flu shot years back and got nerve damage from it, the settlement is supposed to be in the 6 figure range.

    3. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by sonnejw0 · · Score: 1

      The symptoms of the flu, such as cough and nasal drip, are the result of the activation of the immune system. Just because your immune system is recognizing antigen and mounting an immune response does not mean you have been infected with the flu virus. It simply means your immune system is being activated and as a result you will become immune to the flu.

      You are most infected with the virus before you get a single symptom, because the symptoms are your body mounting a response to the virus. Just because you get a cough doesn't mean the flu-shot has the potential of infecting or killing you.

    4. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I'd bet there is more to that story than just a bad reaction to a vaccine. Not that is makes it any better for your GF's mom :(

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    5. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by shadowturtle · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Guillain-Barré syndrome. Anyways, while I believe you can still sue, since the 1988 there's been an alternative from the US government called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The Department of Health and Human Services has a page with information on this program at http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/.

    6. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by clandonald · · Score: 0

      So tax-payer pay for the damages caused by vaccine makers. Now how come the gov doesn't pay the insurance premiums for my construction company?

      --
      The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    7. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought was rather interesting about Anthrax. It basically turns your immune response into overdrive to the extent that it kills you. And then the bacteria can feed on your remains at leisure.

    8. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The makers of vaccines, if the vaccine makes you sick? http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/07/dont-even-think-about-suing-if-youre-hurt-by-swine-flu-vaccines/

      For one, how do you prove it made you sick? You are exposed to an AMAZING number of other variable in your environment that could have gotten you sick. Generally this is also why most medicines have a laundry list of side-effect, because the people they tested during whatever phase of the test exibited signs of illness X, which usually has nothing to do with whatever meds they were testing, but because the person was going to get this illness regardless of the meds being tested. The same can be said of vaccines.

    9. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Because the group of people who are at risk from your buildings and who benefit from your buildings are very clear, and any hysteria associated with your building being dangerous only results in people not entering it, not a public health crisis. Also, it is likely that you can afford to insure yourself against liability in the private market (whereas vaccine makers probably cannot, which again leads to a public health crisis, as vaccines do more than protect the vaccinated, they bend the curve...).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because your construction company isn't vital to public health.

    11. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by clandonald · · Score: 0

      but I make less money so I should be subsidised by the government because of low profit margins. Google phamaceutical profits and the very first thing to pop up is. The pharmaceutical industry is among the most profitable in the world, with profits nearly four times the average

      --
      The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    12. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by vxvxvxvx · · Score: 1

      The taxpayers also benefit from the money the government uses on vaccines. The more that are vaccinated the slower the spread of disease and the more controlled it is. So even those who are not vaccinated benefit. How the vaccines have anything to do with the insurance premiums for your construction company is beyond me.

    13. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Add to that the fact that vaccines are a low margin product

      I have trouble believing that. :P

      Even $6 profit on a vaccine is still 1.2 billion dollars profit if you have 200 million vaccinations.

      But honestly, I've seen the way some of these vaccines are produced, so I have trouble believing they cost more than $0.50 per dose. I haven't kept up on what an H1N1 vaccine costs our governments per dose, but I'm betting the profit is higher than $6.

    14. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by maxume · · Score: 1

      "Pharmaceuticals" is a poor proxy for "vaccines". If you don't see why this is, think about it for a long time.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure you marry your girlfriend, she's possibly gonna get a large inheritance.

    16. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by arkenian · · Score: 1

      Add to that the fact that vaccines are a low margin product

      I have trouble believing that. :P

      Even $6 profit on a vaccine is still 1.2 billion dollars profit if you have 200 million vaccinations.

      But honestly, I've seen the way some of these vaccines are produced, so I have trouble believing they cost more than $0.50 per dose. I haven't kept up on what an H1N1 vaccine costs our governments per dose, but I'm betting the profit is higher than $6.

      Its not the production cost. Once you develop the vaccine it is, actually pretty cheap to produce (although distribution is non-trivial) Mostly though, they're recouping a crash development cost. I don't know factually either way, but I've always been under the impression that vaccines were low margin as well. And I doubt, highly, that they cost .50 a dose.

    17. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by iive · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/squalene-the-swine-flu-vaccine%E2%80%99s-dirty-little-secret-exposed.html
      It's nice read.
      In short, to make vaccine cheaper, they use additative that is very likely the cause of autoimmune diseases know as Gulf War Syndrome.
      Vaccines have always been trade-offs, however here we have the following decision: 25% to get GWS if vaccinated or 0.1% of dying from Swine Flu if infected.

    18. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by clandonald · · Score: 0

      So pharmaceutical don't make vaccines? I'm confused?

      --
      The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    19. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention an important point about Anthrax - Military personnel and contractors involved in biosecurity or deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Korea are required to get the Anthrax vaccine. It's sparked many dismissals, lawsuits, and controversies as well as some adverse effects and was widely believed to be a cause of Gulf War Syndrome.

      Wiki Link.

    20. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      I dont buy that. The vaccine if they really worked it wouldnt matter how many people got the vaccine. The people who got the vaccine would be protected, and the people who didnt would only be harming themselves.

      There is evidence and testing that the swine flu vaccine has some serious problems due to the use of a Squalene adjuvant which has been proven to cause large numbers of cases of arthritis and autoimmune diseases in rats. Worse a lot of this may not show up right away but lead to a gradual degeneration which may not be attributed to the vaccine.

      There is no compelling reason to force medicate peple and each person has to weigh the risk for themselves. The squalene ingredient probably should be illegal and when we have such a dangerous thing in a vaccine no one should take it. The mercury is also a concern and as long as vaccines contin mercury, formaldahyde and other nasties, which are known toxins, and not an essential part of the vaccine, and which causes more than rare health problems, the vaccine makers have already shown they are not trustworthy or concerned about safety.

    21. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Awareness is the first step. I'll try to help: that pharmaceutical companies make large profits does not mean that they make large profits on vaccines.

      To put it another way, subsidizing vaccines is different than subsidizing pharmaceuticals in general.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    22. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      You can't sue because you willingly and *KNOWINGLY* take the shot with all the precautions and potentials available to you.

      It's a good idea to know wtf you're doing before you do it, to include getting a shot. Not knowing is your own damn fault. It's a part of being an adult called RESPONSIBILITY. It used to be all the rage, but as of late it seems BLAME is the new way...

    23. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In order for vaccination to "work" - from a public health standpoint - a majority of the population needs to be vaccinated. (I think the number's 75%.)

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

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    24. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Informative

      The vaccine if they really worked it wouldnt matter how many people got the vaccine. The people who got the vaccine would be protected, and the people who didnt would only be harming themselves.

      That would be true if "really worked" was a binary, 100% or 0% status. This is not the case.

      Vaccines do not protect everyone they are given to (the vaccine merely trains immune systems, after all, which differ from person to person). Even if they were foolproof, vaccines cannot be administered to everyone - even if the risk of complications is far less than the risk of the disease in most people, there may be individuals (e.g. very young infants for the flu vaccine) for whom that is not the case. These still-vulnerable individuals benefit instead from "herd immunity":

      One way to make yourself safe from a disease is to make yourself immune, so you can't get the disease. If that is impossible, another way to make yourself safe is to live in a population who have mostly made themselves immune, so you have no contact with anyone who can give you the disease.

      Unfortunately, herd immunity also allows people to "defect" from their vaccinations; that's the entire reason why people would even consider skipping a vaccination in the first place! Why expose yourself to the nocebo effect, when you can simply free-ride off the immunity of others? They say that confusing correlation and causation leads to autism, you know!

    25. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by karmarep · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/vaccination/pregnant_qa.htm

      "Does the 2009 H1N1 flu shot have an adjuvant or squalene in it?"
      "Adjuvants are agents that are sometimes added to a vaccine to make it more effective. There are no adjuvants (such as squalene) in either the 2009 H1N1 or seasonal flu shot used in the United States."

    26. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      counterpoint is that traditionally Flu Vaccine has been purely voluntary, to the point that most insurance for most people not in narrowly defined risk groups won't pay for it. For the vast majority of people seasonal flu is a "nuisance" in that it takes a few days out of your life that you probably should have been resting anyway. Medical professionals have discouraged regular folks from rushing out or even worrying about flu vaccines for years.

      It's only in the 9-11/HPV/Bird Flu/Swine Flu world that every body suddenly thinks they need to be "safe" from something that comes around every year. Unless there's something really nasty coming round they're not telling us about this sudden push for Flu Vaccines is more political than medical. Even the Swine Flu isn't that nasty, and to date most of the critical cases have been in countries with very poor health performance...and those vaccines aren't even available for the general public (and again 6 months ago we were told "don't worry about it")

    27. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      counterpoint is that traditionally Flu Vaccine has been purely voluntary, to the point that most insurance for most people not in narrowly defined risk groups won't pay for it.

      I've had precisely the opposite experience. Over 20 years with six different employers and probably ten health plans every insurance company has covered my annual flu shot. Every one. Even the one I got this year. Aetna, U.S. Healthcare, BCBS, every single insurance company covered it. In fact at some places, the insurance company brought doctors and nurses to the jobsite to administer the vaccinations.

      It's my understanding that sometimes it's not up to the insurance company to decide if it's covered, it's up to what the company you work for is willing to pay for. I guess the companies I've always worked for have thought it would be better to have its employees vaccinated and healthy to work and your companies have felt they'd rather roll the dice and let you burn sick days.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    28. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You've seen how vaccines are produced? How? Does your next-door neighbor have a magic vaccine machine in his garage?

      You're an ignorant fool. 50 cents wouldn't even cover the cost of packaging.

    29. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you've apparently not been educated in immunology, or contagion. If a disease is moderately virulent (like the common cold, or the flue), but the vaccine is prevalent (such as 90% or better of school children, who are incredibly susceptible), outbreaks are very small and likely not to spread. If the vaccine is rare, the disease can still spread as a serious contagion: a plague, if the disease is dangerous enough.

      AIDS is a fascinating example. It takes serious work to get AIDS: blood-to-blood transfer is unusual. But the idiots who first got it spread it _virulently_ through the susceptible group, so broadly that it's entered the general population in places like South Africa. And a hospital is a festering ground for infection: the sick people go there, otherwise healthy people get the disease and spread it to other patients unless their clean procedures are ver, very good, and the same staff person may see many other patients or clean many other rooms or handle many other cafeteria trays and spread the disease wildly among otherwise weakened people. They _should_ be vaccinated, for the safety of the patients.

    30. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Where do you get this claim about "most infected before you get a single symptom"? The virus grows exponentially until it reaches a limit, one of immune response or other effects (such as destruction of your cells!!!!) causes enough damage that you can't support the infection. Given this, the amount of flu virus will continue growing while the immune response begins, even the effective immune response, _until_ the immune response is large enough to overwhelm that exponential growth.

      So where are you getting this claim?

    31. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      In order for vaccination to "work" - from a public health standpoint - a majority of the population needs to be vaccinated. (I think the number's 75%.)

      You're referring to herd immunity. The threshold is more like 80-90% (except for mumps).

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

    32. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vaccines do not protect everyone they are given to (the vaccine merely trains immune systems, after all, which differ from person to person).

      You're correct that vaccines don't protect everyone, but it's not because they "just train" the person's immune system. It's all about whether or not the strain of a particular disease you catch is the one you were vaccinated for.

      Every year, before flu season, some medical people get together and make a list of what they feel will be the most common strains of flu that year, then they pick one to mass produce a vaccine for. It's essentially nothing more than an educated guess. Hopefully they're right, but whether they are or not is only matters slightly; you can still catch the other strains, either because of bad luck or maybe they simply picked wrong.

      One way to make yourself safe from a disease is to make yourself immune, so you can't get the disease.

      Well, you do actually get the disease.

      If I remember my biology correctly, you don't actually catch the same disease twice, you catch a different strain. IE, a mutated version. The vaccination actually gives you a version of the disease, usually in an inert form so you don't actually develop symptoms. Your body still creates antibodies for it though. Again, if I'm realling it correctly, anti-bodies essentially are puzzle pieces: They fit up against the particular bacteria and destroy it. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't work.

      Once you've created the anti-bodies, they stay with you a long time (forever?). Meaning you may actually be exposed to the same thing again, but it's quickly destroyed. To use a military example, it's the difference between happening to have a standing army where you're attacked and having to create one and transport it where it's needed. The bacteria (or virus) never has a chance to get a foothold.

      The rest of your post is pretty much spot on, though I would suggest "ZOMG POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS!" is a bigger reason that people don't get vaccinated than "meh, enough other people will do it to protect me." I think the latter is giving the average person too much credit for actually understanding what's going on.

    33. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      You've seen how vaccines are produced? How? Does your next-door neighbor have a magic vaccine machine in his garage?

      Nonsense. Documentaries!

      Not the best source, but it sure beats wild guesses.

      You're an ignorant fool. 50 cents wouldn't even cover the cost of packaging.

      When you need to push out hundreds of millions of vaccines in a single year, your cost per unit drops to incredibly small amounts. I may be wrong about the 50 cents, but it seems likely that I'm not the ignorant fool you claim.

      As someone above pointed out, the real costs are likely in R&D and distribution.

    34. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      You have flu shots every year for 20 years ? WHY ?

      I've never had a flu shot, ever. Last time I got vaccinated was at school with the BCG shot. I have had a couple of tetanus boosters after injuries since then but never a flu shot. The only people who get flu shots here are the elderly and children. Basically, vulnerable people. And people wonder why these viruses keep evolving ...

    35. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Not exactly.

      The vaccination can come in all sorts of forms - it can be a live, related virus (that would be cowpox protecting against smallpox); it can be a live, attenuated virus (that would be the oral polio vaccine), it can be an inactivated viral protein (for example, injected polio vaccine), or a chemically treated protein (like tetanus toxoid). Only the first two give you an actual disease, although the latter two can make you feel pretty bad as your immune system ramps up.

      Antibodies do bind to proteins (and other biological molecules), but they usually trigger the immune response rather than do all the work themselves. The antibodies themselves do not last all that long, but the memory B cells created as a consequence of activation will remain with you for a long time, sampling antigens to which you are exposed and setting up a massive replication factory as soon as a familiar one is detected.

      So yes, you do need to be vaccinated against specific strains for some viruses that mutate quickly, but GP was entirely correct when he said that they do nothing but train immune systems.

    36. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You sound like someone who's never had the flu. It's godawful. Tiny jab, pretty good reduction in the risk of getting something that lays you out flat for a week - why not get it?

    37. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by RightsWhore · · Score: 2, Informative

      You obviously have no idea how much it costs in money and in time to do science. Before the vaccine even gets produced, there are development costs, which are astronomical. You have to pay dozens or hundreds of people (depending on the organization) for months/years of work, and you have to buy supplies which are very expensive. You would be shocked if you looked in a biological supply catalog. I work in an academic lab, and even with the deep discounts we get, we spend over $1M/year on supplies, easy, probably more. Oh, and don't forget animal care costs. You've got to show that the vaccine does SOMETHING and that it is not harmful at least in mice. ANYWAY, I don't want to support drug companies any more than I have to, but they do deserve something for their efforts. They make a profit thanks to government intervention, but thank goodness they do. I like my vaccines!

    38. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by RightsWhore · · Score: 1

      You have flu shots every year for 20 years ? WHY ?.

      Apparently we've been doing it so you don't get the flu, asshole. Read about herd immunity and what happens when a significant number of people star refusing vaccines.

    39. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but I'd say it's reasonable to sue the person who forced you to have the vaccine, if you're an adult and it was mandated. If someone's required to have it, then you'd better damn well make sure you provide for them if they suffer ill health as a result of your actions.

    40. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Unless you're a medical worker, apparently.

    41. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are only immune from liability if they do it right. If, for example, they mess up somewhere in their production line then they may still be held liable.

    42. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here! Why has no one thought of administering an AIDS vaccine before? That's genius!

    43. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by clandonald · · Score: 0

      Let me explain it to you another way. Microsoft makes the X-Box which it sells a a loss (when are vaccines sold at a loss) then Microsoft makes an assload of money selling games for the X-Box. At the end of the year Microsoft has a huge profit. Now by your logic the government should take money from taxpayers to give to Microsoft so they don't lose money on producing the X-Box hardware. The huge profits the company makes is irrelevant and why not go all the way and mandate that all Americans must buy an X-Box.

      --
      The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    44. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by maxume · · Score: 1

      You aren't explaining anything. The companies that manufacture vaccines are not selling them as loss leaders, so your whole analogy is nonsensical. Also, selling X-Boxes does not expose Microsoft to outsize liability claims that would make selling the X-Box at all an unattractive proposition.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    45. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by clandonald · · Score: 0

      Well an X-Box can't kill you but a vaccine can so maybe if the pharmaceuticals shouldn't make a product that they can't stand behind. I just read on the CDC website that mercury isn't harmful in vaccines well that is an outright lie mercury is very dangerous. Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism.[11] It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease). Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin. So can you tell me why the CDC says pregnant women need the vaccine and not to worry about the mercury it won't hurt them or the baby. With outright lies like that it's no wonder why they won't take responsibility for their product.

      --
      The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    46. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by maxume · · Score: 1

      You are getting there. It is true that the vaccine can kill a person, but it is also true that mass administering the vaccine will result in fewer deaths than simply letting the disease run its course, so public health officials prefer to administer the vaccine. Since no sane business would stand behind a vaccine that might be deadly, the government limits their liability in order to make the vaccine available, resulting in the saving of many lives.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    47. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Does the 2009 H1N1 flu shot have an adjuvant or squalene in it?"
      "Adjuvants are agents that are sometimes added to a vaccine to make it more effective. There are no adjuvants (such as squalene) in either the 2009 H1N1 or seasonal flu shot used in the United States."

      http://www.fluscam.com/Vaccine_Package_Inserts_files/Novartis_A-H1N1_2009_Monvalent_VaccinePackageInsert_BasedOn1980Approvalfor%20Fluvirin_UCM182242.pdf

      Read about the inserts that show that the vaccine DOES contain Squaline. You are being lied to by the CDC.

      It also has Mercury in the form of thimerosal.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=mercury+affect+brain&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    48. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      So you stare at the tube for 30 minutes, and that qualifies you to talk about the economics of drug production?

      I'll give you points for knowing what economy of scale is (most Slashdotters don't seem to), but your understanding of the concept is very poor. It is not a law of nature that manufacturing cost is inversely proportional to the units produced. Any process faces limits past which it can't scale up cheaply.

      In the case of flu vaccine, the bottleneck is eggs: they have to inoculate millions of fertilized eggs in order to grow the antibodies. These are not your standard store eggs, they're laid by specially bred chickens under controlled conditions. The inoculated eggs are incubated for about a month, again under controlled conditions. (There was a big shortage a few years ago when one big drug company lost certification on their factory over concerns that they weren't doing enough to prevent contamination.)

      Even if the manufacturing process were cheap, there's R&D, clinical trials, distribution....

      Not the best source, but it sure beats wild guesses.

      Dude, extrapolating from vague information you got while watching TV to a moral certainty about costs is the very definition of "wild guess".

    49. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      extrapolating from vague information you got while watching TV to a moral certainty about costs

      ->

      I have trouble believing

      I'm betting the profit is higher than $6

      Does that sound like certainty to you? Not to me.

      I was just commenting that based on what I saw, I doubt it's as low margin as the drug companies claim. I can only speculate as to what their costs are, and I know my speculation won't be accurate, which I stated in another post.

      But you seem very certain vaccines are very low margin. It's rather ironic that that's what you're accusing me of - unfounded certainty.

    50. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Where I come from "I have trouble believing" expresses skepticism about assertions that conflict with strongly-held beliefs. I suppose that shows how culturally deprived I am. I gather that it's conventional on radio talk shows and cable news programs for pundits to use "I have trouble believing" and "I'm betting that" as shorthand for "I'm totally ignorant on the subject but here's my opinion." Alas, I have no patience for these venues. Forgive me with failing to keep up with popular culture.

      It was somebody else who claimed that vaccines are low-margin products — I honestly have no opinion one way or the other. I just saw a really stupid argument that they can't be, and shot it down. You can keep telling me that it's pining for the fjords, but I think I got a nice clean shot and it's really, truly dead.

    51. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Do you guarantee your work fully against every possible thing that could damage it?

    52. Re:Why is it you can't sue. by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      ...the people who didnt would only be harming themselves.

      Not so with healthcare workers. If a nurse or physician becomes infected, he/she would be a vector for the virus -- infecting other people.

  3. First Flu? by statusbar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First Flu Shot?

    I wonder what happens if a worker has an existing health immune system based condition that can be adversely affected by a flu shot?

    --jeffk++

    --
    ipv6 is my vpn
    1. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you've got a compromised immune system, then working at a hosipital is the last thing that you want to do. Getting fired would probably save your life.

    2. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then they shouldn't be working in position where they can easily pick up and transmit communicable diseases such as the flu... ie, they should be in another line of work because those diseases will probably kill them.

    3. Re:First Flu? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      That person probably shouldn't be working around sick people anyway.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    4. Re:First Flu? by Korin43 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a difference between having a weak immune system and being allergic to a vaccine. For example, I've never had Whooping Cough (Pertussis), but if you give me the Pertussis vaccine I'll get extremely sick or die.

    5. Re:First Flu? by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not just hospital workers (although that's what TFA is about.) Plenty of people are required to get a flu shot that you wouldn't expect need it.

      The one that surprised me are local refinery workers. There is one refinery in our region that produces virtually all of the petroleum based fuel consumed locally. If the flu were to incapacitate 50% of the employees, the refinery would have to shut down. These are trained people needed to produce a critical product, and the refinery wouldn't have the time to train temps to take over for them. Pipelines don't exist to bring in refined products from elsewhere, and the rest of the nation's refining capacity would be strained to meet the demand.

      Refinery workers are exposed to a lot of things you probably wouldn't want to be exposed to, but viruses aren't commonly among them. It'd probably be a great place to work if you wanted to avoid contact with other people.

      --
      John
    6. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since you've never gotten it, what would happen if we gave you Whooping Cough instead?

    7. Re:First Flu? by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sounds like he's allergic to horse serum. Whooping cough doesn't have anything to do with that, so it would probably a much lesser risk. (Still, he shouldn't be in a line of work where he would be likely to act as a vector.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:First Flu? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      IF they are terminated for not taking the vaccine because of an existing problem, then they might be covered by the Americans with disability act depending on their specific problems/illness.

      There are people saying that if they have a compromise immune system, they shouldn't be working in places like a hospital. However, there are quite a few jobs in a hospital in which they wouldn't be exposed to any risks. Preparing meals for patients for instance wouldn't ever expose workers to illnesses unless one of the other workers got ill on their own. Certain custodian and janitorial jobs would be free from exposure to illnesses too. For instance, a janitor who cleans the imaging department would never be exposed to ill patients, he comes in before and after patients are present and uses gloves, disinfectants and so on in order to clean the rooms-equipment and so on.

    9. Re:First Flu? by DarkNinja75 · · Score: 1

      I'm no hospital worker, but I just voluntarily received my first flu shot. My arm was sore the next day. That was the only side effect. (This was a little over a week ago).

    10. Re:First Flu? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      You have a funny idea of jobs in a hospital.

      The meal preparation people staff the cafeteria. Patients sometimes visit the cafeteria.

      When someone pukes in Radiology, the janitor often gets called to mop up.

      There is no telling who they are going to run into the hallway going to the bathroom, entering or leaving. Might be better if it didn't work that way, but I have worked in hospital IT and you would be amazed at who you might be sharing an elevator with. And the IT department was in a different building but the data center was in the main building.

    11. Re:First Flu? by RedSteve · · Score: 1

      The hospitals I am familiar with have exceptions for people who cannot take the vaccine because of health reasons like egg allergies or compromised immune systems. They are required to provide appropriate documentation from their personal physician.

    12. Re:First Flu? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't be working there, that's what that means. And what happens is that they are fired and replaced by a more fitting individual that is appropriate for the conditions of the job.

    13. Re:First Flu? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the cafeteria is not the same food establishment that prepared meals for patients. They are generally close together but separate with separate staffing because the food for the patients need to meet strict dietary requirements where cafeteria food doesn't. Most hospital cafeterias are not large enough to feed all the patients in the hospital.

      As for radiology, well, I already said the janitors are wearing sanitary protections and using disinfectants. They also do not go in while the patients are there. It's called privacy and there are some HIPPA concerns too. A hospital is not like your grade school.

      As for the hallways, in the areas I mentioned, they are controlled and access is limited for the most part. This is to control drug seekers and thieves as well as someone wanting to interfere with diagnostic results for insurance fraud or something.

      I've worked in a hospital too. In fact, I actually worked in 5 different hospitals owned by the same parent company. We all had to use the service elevators which was controlled access by key card, there were service entrances we were required to enter and exit from, and for the most part, I wouldn't ever see any patients at all. There was two notable exceptions where a guy who was on the crazy floor got permission to smoke and the order lost control of him on the way back up. He was hiding in an access closet. The other time was when a patient learned he was being charged with something by the cops, managed to escape monitoring and wondered through the building with a key card he took from an administrative assistant looking for an exit that wasn't monitored. There are provisions in place for both of those scenarios and it isn't likely that it would happen again unless hospitals have changed somewhat in the last 5 years or so.

      Of course my experience is within one chain of hospitals, it doesn't mean all of them are like that but I'm not sure why they wouldn't be. Maintenance and IT simple are not around patients or there is no need for them to be though.

    14. Re:First Flu? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't look anything like this , do you?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    15. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the flu shots are more to protect the patients than to protect the workers.

    16. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have MS- not a compromised immune system, but if I were to piss off my immune system with the vaccine, it could cause an exacerbation.

    17. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccination is a fraud. There is no such thing as 'vaccination'.

      http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

      I won't wait for a logical, factual response from any Slashdotters... we can't have you questioning what the T.V. told you!

    18. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Maher buys into every piece of medical pseudo-science nonsense that comes his way. He has been involved in projects like Religulous that make him appear to be a rational, skeptical person, but when you probe further it's clear that he is nothing more than an ideologue. I would take everything he says with more than a few grains of salt.

    19. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some people who have overactive immune systems and can develop serious auto immune diseases from certain vaccines. This does not make the person more likely to get a disease in general. There are also people who can be allergic to certain ingredients in vaccines.

    20. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does the flu shot do?

      Stop you catching the flu? - No.
      Reduce the average duration of the symptoms by 1 day? - Yes.
      Cause nasty complications possibly worse than the flu itself - Yes, but very very rarely.

      Compulsion only aids the profits of the flu shot manufacturers and politicians etc who are seen 'to be doing something'.

    21. Re:First Flu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how do you protect the patients unless you protect the workers? Remember, the workers are vectors too.

    22. Re:First Flu? by Macgrrl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I currently work for an electricity transmission and distribution company. The company policy regarding swine flu is to track anyone who has been exposed because their acquiried immunity may be critical in keeping services operating in the event of the second wave of infections. We have documented procedures based on keeping operator shifts separate to minimise cross infections between teams of operators in key positions.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  4. Forced Medication of Citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the Free indeed. Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

    1. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't new; if anything, mandatory vaccination laws have become much more lenient in the United States than they used to be. In the early 20th century, 11 states had fully mandatory vaccination laws, not just "must get vaccinated as a condition of attending public schools" or "must be vaccinated as a condition of working in certain occupations" sorts of things. Rather, it was a requirement for living in the jurisdiction that you must be vaccinated. Massachusetts's mandatory smallpox vaccination law was upheld by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1905, which is still the main precedent on the subject.

    2. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're not free unless you can endanger the lives of others, right?

    3. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take an extremely minor infringement of my freedom that only mattered to nutjobs and idiots* to begin with over smallpox polio and measles any day of the week.
      *And no, the immuno-suppressed, allergic, and other people with legitimate medical reasons don't need to get them, that's why the rest of us should do our part for herd immunity, quit bringing up strawmen.

    4. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speaking of Mass. They are passing a bill now allowing for forced Immunization and quarantine.

      Giving police the ability to bust into a place without warrant, just with the suspicion of non immunization.

      yes yes in a state of emergency. Last state of emergency? The empty senate seat, the one 5 years ago had the law changed do the governor (then Republican) to not be able to pick an interum senator. but wait for a special election. So they bypassed it by declaring a state of emergency.

    5. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by Toonol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ashland, Oregon, is a small town full of nutjobs near where I live. It's a college town, and I recently read that nearly 30% of the town has taken the religious exemption from vaccinating their kids. (Trust me, it's not because they're fundamentalist christians. It's because they're crystal-licking new age whacks. Probably a very high average level of education, just not sanity.)

      30%. That's crazy, and kids will end up dying from whooping cough because of it. I have a libertarian worldview, and don't like the idea of the government mandating vaccinations. But on the other hand, when people are skipping frigging POLIO shots because of their DEMONSTRABLY WRONG beliefs, they are putting entire communities at risk. I'm torn. Now, about the H1N1 vaccine, I'm not; it should be voluntary, and I'm voluntarily not getting it, nor are my kids. The risk is overblown, and getting the disease would only be a mild inconvenience, same as any flu.

    6. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct in that forced vaccinations is nothing new. However, look at the type of diseases that were being vaccinated against. For example the most common form of Smallpox has a greater than 30% mortality rate. Clearly H1N1 and seasonal flu combined does not fit into this category.

      What is different here is that H1N1 does not have a high morbidity/mortality rate, no higher than seasonal flu. Second, mandating flu vaccination for health care workers will not reduce the spread of flu. While it is true the virus is aerosolized, its common form of transmission is through skin contact. For example, an infected person sneezes or coughs into their fist, placing the virus in their hand. Their hand opens a door and places the virus on the door knob. You now open the same door, and the virus is now on your hand. If you rub your eyes, yawn, etc. the virus enters your system (through mucous membranes or respiratory tract) and you are now infected. That is why hand washing is so important, but most people (including health care workers) don't do it enough. So you see the vaccine does nothing to stop the spread of the virus from the healthy health care provider to at risk patient. It may only stop the provider from becoming sick, but does not stop the provider from transmitting the disease to others, especially if that person is compromised to begin with.

      One last thing to think about. There are two vaccines this year - seasonal and H1N1. A study out of Canada last week shows that those who take the seasonal flu shot are twice as likely to contract H1N1.

      Save the vaccine for those who need it. The high risk groups - those with underlying medical conditions (especially respiratory problems such as COPD and asthma) as well as pregnant females. Health care workers are not considered to be in a high risk groups. Vaccinating health care workers instead of the high risk groups is counterproductive and in my opinion, unethical.

    7. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      30%. That's crazy, and kids will end up dying from whooping cough because of it.

      Unlikely. Look-up "herd immunity". Smallpox was eradicated with less than 70% of the affected populations (in Africa mostly) vaccinated against it.

      Still, if it gets much higher, there could be a major outbreak.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by bakes · · Score: 1

      I find it incredible that in a country such as the US where everyone goes on all the time about their rights, that they can force mandatory vaccination and you do not have the right to choose not to be vaccinated.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    9. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      But surely you've noticed that you give up all your rights when you go to work?

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    10. Re:Forced Medication of Citizens? by canadian_right · · Score: 2, Informative

      But most disease requires immunization rates of about 85% to confer herd immunity.

      There are well documented cases of small religious communities not vaccinating there kids then having perfectly predictable numbers of kids dying of measles and other preventable disease.
      Measles in Wales
      Outbreak of measles in Religious communties

      Not vaccinating your kids is a terrible decision that puts them at risk of permanent crippling injury and death.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  5. Dr Google is pointless by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With the degree of hype H1N1 is getting, people are going to be searching all over at the first signs of anything - even if they don't have ANY kind of flu!

    So it's a great chart to show you the regions of greatest hypochondria, but little else at this point (in other times I'm sure it's a good indicator).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Dr Google is pointless by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      They claim they calibrated the model against historical data, so the searchprevalence relationship at least has some validity. The relationship between searches and prevalence of infection might be different in the current situation than in previous years, of course, but they didn't just make a base assumption that searches=prevalence, but rather estimated the relationship from data.

    2. Re:Dr Google is pointless by hazem · · Score: 1

      It's also important to remember that, "All models are wrong. Some are useful."

      It's impossible to build a "model of everything" that will capture every aspect of reality - short of constructing a new universe and running it to completion. So, when you build any model, there is a lot of simplification, assumption, extrapolation, and "best guessing" that has to happen. This doesn't mean that a model is invalid or useless. Rather, a model that works well over a certain domain (even over many iterations and permutations of inputs) may still not reflect what actually ends up happening.

      You do the best you can and try not to simplify away or assume away critical elements of the system you're modeling.

      Thankfully (in a human suffering sense), we haven't had many serious pandemics where we've captured a wealth of data. However, from a modeling point of view, that leaves only a limited amount of data you have to work with. So you verify the model works the best you can based on your understanding of the real-world system, then validate it against as much real data as you can, and then you hope that it accurately predicts what will happen as the new potential pandemic unfolds.

      The model will not be perfectly accurate, but hopefully it will help guide policies better than "gut feel" and "blind guessing".

      Another favorite quote: Making predictions is a tricky business, especially when it's about the future.

    3. Re:Dr Google is pointless by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wait until someone creates overlays for IQ, how religious people are, what they vote for, and how big their hypochondria is. My guess is statistically undeniable correlation. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  6. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aggressive vaccinations are a good thing. Think we could have practically wiped out polio or smallpox in this country if we just kicked back and waited to see what happened? Of course the flu isn't the same, and I know it's not going anywhere. But if you think for a second that every healthcare worker shouldn't get the flu shot, you don't know a lot about healthcare. This sort of thing isn't to protect the workers, it's to protect the immunocompromised people in the hospital. They need our healthy immune systems to protect them, too.

    1. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Aggressive vaccinations are a good thing

      Aggressive vaccinations result in higher incidence of auto-immune diseases over the long term. That's why you shouldn't give your dog annual rabies shots if you want to reduce the risk of arthritis (plus, the shot is good for 10 years, and even the vets will admit that anything over every 3 years is pushing it).

      ANY time you introduce foreign proteins into a host, you're going to provoke an immune response, and the more often you do, the more likely you are to have "your number come up" wrt provoking the wrong type of immune response - one where your body fails to differentiate between the foreign protein, and your own.

      Wash your hands, don't pick your nose, stay away from people who show symptoms, don't share your keyboard, mouse, cell phone, or cup, get plenty of fresh air and exercise, eat right, have adequate ventilation, stay away from smokers, have a glass of something alcoholic every day or two, and you'll be fine, and you'll lower your chances of rheumetoid arthritis in your old age.

    2. Re:Good by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WTF? Again cheers for handwashing - as long as you aren't doing it 1000 times a day. But cites on your extraordinary claims please. And links to articles from Tijuana College of Naturopathy, Voodoo and Assorted Bullshit don't count.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why /. must be understood as strictly entertainment-only. Our exhibit today is some tediously repetitive and too frequently posting geek with no medical experience riding his two hobby horses:

      - "Vaccinations give you arthritis";
      - OCD: "Wash your hands, don't pick your nose, stay away from people who show symptoms, don't share your keyboard, mouse, cell phone, or cup, get plenty of fresh air and exercise, eat right, have adequate ventilation, stay away from smokers, have a glass of something alcoholic every day or two, and you'll be fine" - which can be condensed into "if I clean myself sufficiently often and don't share anything of mine, I'll get no disease, so I need no vaccination".

      And, while modded (+3, Informative), his house of cards falls down when he displays an inability to even spell "rheumatoid". In medicine, son, the difference between A and E (see, doctors have a sense of humour too!) can be the difference between life and death. Someone who lacks the attention to detail to learn to correctly spell the condition he believes he can talk authoritatively on is someone who is likely to make a slip-up which results in the wrong dosage being given, the wrong vessel being cut in surgery, or any number of other oopsies. And then you, the patient, die.

      Except you don't, because we have exams and training and supervision and textbooks and journals and all sorts of things to stop us from coming out with random bullshit based on extrapolating from "what my vet told me one time" in one specific situation.

      tl;dr lurk moar

    4. Re:Good by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Wash your hands, don't pick your nose, stay away from people who show symptoms, don't share your keyboard, mouse, cell phone, or cup, get plenty of fresh air and exercise, eat right, have adequate ventilation, stay away from smokers, have a glass of something alcoholic every day or two, and you'll be fine, and you'll lower your chances of rheumetoid arthritis in your old age."

      No you won't be fine, flu is an airborne disease. Besides I'd much rather have a jab and a hypothetical chance of aches and pains in old age than going full OCD for the rest of my life.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Aggressive vaccinations are a good thing

      Aggressive vaccinations result in higher incidence of auto-immune diseases over the long term. That's why you shouldn't give your dog annual rabies shots if you want to reduce the risk of arthritis (plus, the shot is good for 10 years, and even the vets will admit that anything over every 3 years is pushing it).

      Citation needed.

      ANY time you introduce foreign proteins into a host, you're going to provoke an immune response, and the more often you do, the more likely you are to have "your number come up" wrt provoking the wrong type of immune response - one where your body fails to differentiate between the foreign protein, and your own.

      Yup, gonna need a citation on that one as well...

      Wash your hands, don't pick your nose, stay away from people who show symptoms, don't share your keyboard, mouse, cell phone, or cup, get plenty of fresh air and exercise, eat right, have adequate ventilation, stay away from smokers, have a glass of something alcoholic every day or two, and you'll be fine, and you'll lower your chances of rheumetoid arthritis in your old age.

      Agreed on this part, but a lot of it can be an unavoidable issue if you share a computer at work.

    6. Re:Good by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      If you don't have any counterguments just don't reply hahaha.... why detail that simple fact with so much blah-di-blah?

      If there's something wrong with what the poster said, point it out.

    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lrn2read. tomhudson incorrectly applied induction, viz.: extrapolating from "what my vet told me one time" in one specific situation.

      Fallacy needs no "counterguments".

    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds strangely like some personal research. Care to back it up with some studies? Not in dogs?

    9. Re:Good by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to consider arguments for certain objections...but it sounds like a good general rule to me. I.e., people who shouldn't get a flu shot are also people who shouldn't be doing health care work ... unless you can't find ANY replacements.

      When I say that I'd be willing to consider arguments for objections, this doesn't imply that I can think of any cases where an exception is reasonable. So far I haven't. It's just that I can't think of a proof that no such cases exist.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, you will be fine. Why do you think I specified adequate ventilation? Infected people are virus shedders - you don't want to be breathing in concentrated contaminated air.

      And washing your hands is just bsic hygiene, not OCD.

      You also probably don't have to worry if you were around before 1957 - since you then have immunity to H1N1, since you were exposed to a similar live flu virus that gave broader immunity than todays' crappy vaccines do.

      Speaking of vaccines - The WHO admits that mutated polio vaccine is the source of the polio epidemic in Nigeria.

      So you can take your flu vaccine and stick it up your ... well, I guess they jab it in the arm nowadays :-) I'd warn people to be especially wary of coming into contact with anyone who is using the nasal dose - it's live (well, about as much as you can classify ANY virus as actually being a living thing - they're not, not really. They don't consume food, they can't reproduce on their own, they don't grow over time, they're just a double helix in a thin protein coat that happens to be shaped just right to disrupt cells), and it CAN mutate (it's what the flu does - mutate, mutate, mutate).

      Seriously, I've had the flu ONCE. It taught me the importance of getting enough sleep during flu season.

    11. Re:Good by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Fallacy needs no "counterguments".

      Then it surely needs false counterarguments even less.

      If what he interpolated is wrong and that bugs you so much, just point it out.

    12. Re:Good by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The flue isn't really airborne.

      Now I understand that droplet spreading is quite a but like airborne but it can be effectivly managed by washing hands, people sneezing and coughing into their sleeve and if you was a around someone who sneezed or coughed washing or using sanitizer is still somewhat effective.

    13. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Actually no, I'm the one who did the research and then told my vet off. Any my sister, who's also a dog fan.

      But as for vaccines and auto-immune diseases, since you're too f'ing lazy to do your own research, is The Lancet a good enough peer-reviewd medical journal for you?

      Here are examples in humans: the first deals specifically with swine flu vaccines

      For example, a form of Guillain-Barré syndrome (polyradiculoneuritis) was associated with the 1976-77 vaccination campaign against swine influenza, using the A/New Jersey/8/76 swine-flu vaccine.

      The estimated attributable risk of vaccine- related Guillain-Barré syndrome in the adult population was just less than one case per 100 000 vaccinations, and the period of increased risk in swine-flu vaccinated versus non-vaccinated individuals was concentrated primarily within the 5 weeks after vaccination (relative risk 760)

      and measles vaccines:

      Another example of confirmed autoimmune adverse effects after vaccination is idiopathic thrombocytopenia, which might arise after administration of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccination

      and

      Which autoimmune diseases, if any, have been proven to be due to vaccines?

      A form of rabies vaccine produced from infected rabbit CNS tissue induced an acute disseminated encephalomyelitis in 01% of vaccinees.

      In 1976, cases of Guillain-Barré neuritis arose after vaccination with swine influenza virus, albeit still a rare event. Autoimmune thrombocytopenia has been described after measles vaccination, but with a much lower frequency than that seen after wild measles virus infection (one in 30 000 vs one in 5000)

      Hepatitis B vaccine and MS

      Hepatitis B and multiple sclerosis The possibility of an association between the hepatitis B vaccination and development of multiple sclerosis was first raised in France, after a report of 35 cases of primary demyelinating events occurring at a hospital in Paris between 1991 and 1997, within 8 weeks of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine injection. 57,58 The neurological manifestations were similar to those observed in multiple sclerosis. There were inflammatory changes in the cerebrospinal fluid and lesions were noted in the cerebral white matter on T2-weighted MR images. Clinically definite multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in half of the patients, after a mean follow-up of 3 years. These

      and anti-cancer vaccines

      Additionally, cancer vaccines based on dendritic cells pulsed with tumour antigens carry a substantial risk of autoimmunity.

    14. Re:Good by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck keeps modding up this moron? I mean seriously, slashdot, this is just non-sense, the guy is spreading BS. Next thing he'll say is that the vaccines have microchips in them.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    15. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a decent amount of what the GP says seems like bullshit at first glance, he does have a point about vaccination programs and autoimmune disorders. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/guillain-barre-syndrome/DS00413/DSECTION=risk-factors

    16. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Troll
      Look through the thread, and you'll see I've documented all my claims with reliable sources.

      For auto-immune diseases and vaccines - The Lancet - a premiere peer-reviewed medical journal

      For polio vaccine mutating and causing polio in Africa - the World Health Organization - the same people pushing the "OMG vaccinate everyone or we'll all die!"

      For most people not needing the vaccine - see the MANY posts that outline who is at risk - the fat slobs, kids between 6 months and 5 years, pregnant women, and those in bad health. For the fat slobs, I even posted one of the original reports (Reuters, quoting the CDC, several doctors, etc), which has since been pulled off the net because it's "politically incorrect" to say that fat slobs are their own worst enemies, should suck it up, or be prepared to pay the price.

      Why do you seem to think that this version of the flu is special? That it won't succumb to the same basic hygiene precautions that more virulent versions of the flu do? It's weaker than many flus. Immunity to flu is supposed to fade with time because of the mutation of the little bugger, and yet those who were born prior to 1957, exposed to a different variant of swine flu, are STILL pretty resistant - to the point that they are better off than someone who was exposed to H1N1 last year. Guess H1N1 doesn't provoke that good an immune response ...

      If you're not in a high-risk group, you don't NEED the vaccine. It's optional. and it may not work. The virus can mutate, you know. As a matter of fact, it's expected to mutate to a weaker version, and you'll hear everyone going "good thing I got my flu shot!" when the shot had nothing to do with it (but the drug companies will never tell you otherwise).

      So stop accusing me of being a moron when I document what you call "non-sense" with some of the very medical authorities who are doing the current scare-mongering.

    17. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I even posted one of the original reports (Reuters, quoting the CDC, several doctors, etc), which has since been pulled off the net because it's "politically incorrect" to say that fat slobs are their own worst enemies, should suck it up, or be prepared to pay the price.

      Its that kind of speculation which you clearly have absolutely no way of confirming but still present as fact that causes people to doubt you.
      There are a million reasons why such a report may have been pulled - that you attribute it to excessive political correctness without any evidence just says you are unable to distinguish between your own off-the-scale bias and reality. If you want people to take you seriously - and presumably you do else you wouldn't bother to post - then you need to develop a little more self-awareness.

    18. Re:Good by SocratesJedi · · Score: 1

      Aggressive vaccinations result in higher incidence of auto-immune diseases

      Perhaps this is a case of citation needed? I think it has been established that there are acute autoimmune reactions to vaccine (e.g. Guillain-Barre Syndrome/AIPD), but I've had some difficulty verifying that there is a consensus that vaccines are a long term autoimmune disease risk factor. You do make a good plausibility argument (consistent with the molecular mimicry model), so I would be willing to believe if it there were some studies done.

    19. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How about taking this seriously.

      Remember how everyone was panicking about the 151 deaths from swine flu when it first started? Everyone trumpeted that number. You don't hear them being equally loud about admitting that the number was totally bogus, that the actual death toll was 7! Gee, I wonder why? Oh, maybe because it would make them look stupid and ruin their credibility the next time they tried to pull some more numbers out their rectums?

      A member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has dismissed claims that more than 150 people have died from swine flu, saying it has officially recorded only seven deaths around the world.

      Vivienne Allan, from WHO's patient safety program, said the body had confirmed that worldwide there had been just seven deaths - all in Mexico - and 79 confirmed cases of the disease.

      "Unfortunately that [150-plus deaths] is incorrect information and it does happen, but that's not information that's come from the World Health Organisation," Ms Allan told ABC Radio today.

      All the numbers since then have been equally unreliable. For example, its been admitted that in many subsequent "H1N1" cases, no test was done to verify if the patient actually had swine flu, because of the cost and time involved. This isn't just in the developing world, either - the US has stopped counting.

      Also, there's no indication that H1N1 is any more fatal than any other flu - indeed, the worst estimate puts it the same as any other flu, and that may be over-hyped because many people may get a mild case of H1N1 and recover on their own, further lowering the death rate. It's extremely unlikely (to the point of flat-out impossible) that every person who got it went to a hospital and was tested. Tose most at risk - the fat slobs, the morbidly obese who are already most at risk, and will probably die of something else if H1N1 doesn't finish them off, but the true cause of their demise isn't H1N1 - it's that extra 13 meals a day.

      Of course, it's been all hype right from the beginning, as others have pointed out, to deaf ears: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Stirring up "swine flu" hysteria http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/laura-h-kahn/stirring-swine-flu-hysteria

      People simply don't want to know the truth, because it doesn't give them that frison of fear - this "epidemic" isn't any worse than a regular flu outbreak, and it's certainly not either swine or avian flu, based on its' genetic code, so really, let's all take a chill pill, follow the money to see who's benefiting from the hype, and kick them in the nuts.

    20. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I posted links to the Lancet article elsewhere in the thread, which brings up not just Guillain-Barre, but also MS, as well as the problems with hepatitis and cancer vaccines. There's also tons of stuff out there on animals (too-frequent rabies vaccines and arthritis)

      but even a quick search turns up stuff like this vis. type 1 diabetes (an auto-immune disorder) and several vaccines:

      Childhood Vaccinations and Juvenile-Onset (Type-1) Diabetes
      by Harris Coulter, Ph.D.

      [snip]

      1. The Pertussis Vaccine The vaccine for pertussis, or whooping cough, is part of the DPT shot (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) given to all children. The pertussis vaccine includes "pertussis toxin," a toxin secreted by the microbe which causes whooping cough (the Bordetella pertussis). This toxin, which has been described as one of the most virulent poisons known to science, has several names and has a variety of effects on the body. Pertussis Toxin Affects Pancreas - One of the names for pertussis toxin has traditionally been "islet-activating protein," signifying that this substance acts specifically and directly on the "islets of Langerhans," which are the insulin-secreting parts of the pancreas. (9) At least since the 1970s, pertussis vaccine has been known in animal experiments to stimulate over-production of insulin by the pancreas followed by exhaustion and destruction of the "islets" with consequent under-production of insulin; in the first case the outcome is hypoglycemia, and in the latter it is diabetes. (10) Physicians as early as 1949 called attention to low blood glucose in children who had severe reactions to the pertussis vaccine. (11) In 1970, Margaret Pittman wrote: "the infant whose blood sugar level is influenced by food intake may be especially vulnerable to vaccine-induced hypglycemia...the vaccine induces hypoglycemia in mice and rabbits." Gordon Stewart wrote in 1977: "more than any other vaccine in common use, pertussis vaccine is known pharmacologically to provoke...hypoglycemia due to increase production of insulin." Two Dutch researchers, Hannik and Cohen, observed in 1978: "infants who show serious reactions following pertussis vaccination suffer from a failure to maintain glucose homeostasis." And two German researchers, Hennessen and Quast, found in 1979 that 59 out of 149 children who manifested adverse reactions to the pertussis vaccine developed symptoms of hypoglycemia. (12) The next logical step - deciding that the whooping cough vaccine could be responsible for the presently observed increase in the incidence of hypoglycemia and diabetes - has been inhibited by the federal government's pro-vaccination policy, but enough researchers have spoken out in favor of a diabetes connection to suggest that this is a very real possibility deserving of further investigation.

      II. The Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine The MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, especially its mumps and rubella components, has been especially implicated in the causation of Type-I diabetes.

      A. Rubella and the Rubella Vaccine Of the three vaccines making up the MMR shot, the rubella component is the major suspect because rubella (German measles) itself, like mumps, is known to be a cause of diabetes and the action of the vaccine resembles that of the disease. If the disease can cause diabetes, so can the vaccine. Let us first look at the disease.

      Rubella Virus Causes Diabetes - In 1978 Margaret Menser wrote: "Since 1968 there has been increasing interest in the possibility that viral infection may play a part in the etiology of diabetes mellitus in man...[but] only one virus consistently produces diabetes in man - the congenitally acquired rubella virus." (13) "Congenital rubella syndrome" is the name given to the group of impairments and disabilities often seen in babies whose mothers become infected with rubella during pregnancy. These impairments include: heart disease, mental retardation, deafness, and blindness.

      E.J. R

    21. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stay away from smokers

      Yeah, sure. Pour fuel on the rotting brains of the anti-smokers. Chances are if somebody's smoking, you're in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. That's safer than Jane Doe who's at the mall swapping air with hundreds of other plague vectors.

      Those wonderful medical students from college I knew will someday blossom into full-on retards with abundant advice like this, being that it's more common than common-sense.

      have a glass of something alcoholic every day or two

      Pure and absolute BS. Alcohol has no effect on viruses, it's antibacterial at best. Besides, if this was effective then Mexico would be completely immune to the swine flu. However, unmixed alcoholic beverages would be safer to drink in Mexico than the water.

      On a side note, where in the heck is the OP? I can't find where the original quoted paragraph came from.

    22. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about taking this seriously.

      No.

      Your lack of self-awareness is debilitating.

      You display obvious irrationality in what can trivially tested, thus no one is going even bother to look at what you have to say regarding things that are not so easily tested. Its called the crying wolf syndrome - when you make up obvious bullshit no one is going to look twice at anything else you've got to say.

    23. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Posted like a true AC. Ignore the facts, such as that this strain is weaker than average, and the actual death rate lower, that its' been over-hyped from the beginning, is expected to further weaken, just like every other flu virus, and that many of us - hundreds of millions - are already immune and don't need no stinking flu shot.

      Enjoy your flu shot. Me, I've never gotten one, never plan to get one, and I'm immune to this strain so it would be a total waste as well as an unnecessary risk.

    24. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polio vaccine is not causing polio in Africa.
      Most cases are caused by wild viruses. But yes there has been an epidemic of vaccine derived virus recently in Nigeria. However, in Nigeria the polio world eradication program use OPV (oral polio vaccine), while developped countries use IPV (intraveinous polio vaccine). IPV cannot cause vaccine derived virus because it doesn't contain the whole virus. If you get a polio vaccine shot, it's IPV and you're not at risk of contracting a vaccine derived virus.

      Second, it was expected and they knew about the risks. It's still better than the surge of case that happened in Kano (Nigeria) when the imams
      there decided that vaccination was a part of a western conspiracy to sterilze Muslim children.
      Results, only 40% of children were vaccinated and there was a surge of (wild virus) polio who was on the verge of eradication in Africa.

      Third, why didn't you talk about the polio eradication program who using vaccines succesfully reduced in 20 years, the number of worldwide polio cases from millions to less than two thousand a year.

      Vaccine derived virus were expected. They knew about the risks of using OPV. They still decided it was better to use OPV because IPV only prevent you from being sick not from contaminating others.

      For details: http://www.polioeradication.org/
      It's an official WHO site.

    25. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe that getting fresh air, exercising and eating right will make you immune to diseases such as the flu then you should realize you are a moron. If you make a point to try to spew all that voodoo idiocy onto others then you are not only a moron but also a dangerous moron who is endangering the lives of others.

    26. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the flu is not an airborne disease. It is a droplet disease that is typically only capable of spreading about three feet beyond an infected individual. Further spread is then done by people touching objects covered in droplets (the virus can survive for quite a few hours as I recall). How do I know this? Because I work in a NYS Hospital and just completed some training on flu. Reality is, if you wash your hands a few times a day and don't touch your face, the odds are greatly in your favor. Doesn't guarantee anything, but dramatically improves your odds. For your reference, an airborne disease is TB, where you sneeze and it stays aerosolized for hours rather than just dropping to a local surface.

      With regards to people who are contraindicated for the vaccine, we have been told that minimally you will have to wear a mask and in some situations your access to certain areas and patients will be limited. In other words, if you are working with general population you may just wear a mask but you might not be allowed near pulmonary patients anymore.

    27. Re:Good by MargauxX · · Score: 1

      Hand washing is the first line of defense against diseases, but how effective does the protection it gives compared to getting a flu shot?

    28. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Simple - because too many idiots assume that vaccines are totally benign wonder drugs. They're not - they're foreign substances, and some of them can have long-term side effects. It should be up to the individual to decide - that's what informed consent is all about.

      Or are you now going to claim that informed consent isn't for black people?

      On another point, people who were around during the 1957 flu epidemic don't need the H1N1 vaccine, so it would be stupid to say "take this vaccine or we're going to fire you."

    29. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Getting fresh air and insuring adequate ventilation helps you avoid the high concentrations of the virus in enclosed environments, you idiot! It also lessens the amount of time other people are coughing on you. Why do you think they change the air in the OR up to 30 times a MINUTE?

      Eating right and staying fit would have made a HUGE difference in the 1918 pandemic. People were dying because they were in the middle of a world war. Lots of pools of hunger, bad diets, etc., that made them prone to the pneumonia that killed them (most didn't die of the flu).

      As for immunity, there are hundreds of millions who are immune, simply because they were exposed to a predecessor virus during the 1957 epidemic, and for them, the shot has zero upside.

      So, stay away from infected people, get lots of sleep, eat right, exercise, make sure that there's good ventilation and plenty of fresh air, wash your hands to help avoid transmission from phones, keyboards, etc., that may be contaminated with sputum, same as you would for any other respiratory virus.

      And stop being a moron, you moron. Oh, wait, maybe you're one of those fat slobs who are at high risk? Doesn't matter, like the docs said in one report, if the flu hadn't gotten them, they'd probably be dead in 6 months anyway.

    30. Re:Good by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we could possibly quantify that. There are several issues at stake considering the flu shots do not protect against all forms of the flu and people can and will still get the flue after the flu shots.

      However, just as there are people who get the flu after having a flu shot, there are people who do not get the flu at all. I can only imagine that good hygiene is behind it. I have only gotten the flu twice in my 38 years of life and I have never taken the flu shot. Once was from kissing a girl the day before her symptoms came about, the other was when I was a kid and didn't know any better.

      I have even watched people around me get the flu without catching it. Of course when others get sick, I am overly conscious about washing my hands and face and not standing in front of someone who looks like they are about to sneeze. Most the people I am around are also concious about sneezing and coughing into their sleeves or a handkerchief of something so that helps too. I don't buy into the hand sanitizers or anti bacterial soaps, just regular bathing soap like they had 20 years ago is all I purposely go after (now if it's somewhere where I'm at, I'll use it, I just do not buy it).

      Now, I may end up with some minor exposure to the flu which might have the same effect as the vaccine, I couldn't tell for sure. However, there are lots of moms who treat their children or husbands who never seem to get the flu either. It may be the same for them where the body builds immunities faster then the minor exposure can cause symptoms. But if that's the case, then I wouldn't need the shot to begin with.

    31. Re:Good by noprunesmoothie · · Score: 1

      I am a healthcare worker and I have no direct patient contact, yet I am being forced to get a series of 3 shots (1 for seasonal flu, 2 for H1N1). I have no problem with shots for things that you will have continued immunity for (ex. Hepatitis B, Tetanus), but this virus could mutate next week, making these vaccines completely useless. Add to that the fact that this has been rushed to production, and I am doubly hesitant. I would rather you stuck a swab with H1N1 up my nose, at least then I would know what I was getting. What about every visitor to the hospitals, should they be forced to be vaccinated? What about delivery personnel? What about vendors? Should we also be forced to be vaccinated for SARS, Hunta virus, avian flu, or any other virus du jour that the media is hyping?

    32. Re:Good by wwwillem · · Score: 1

      > I am a healthcare worker ....

      Good for speaking up!! I've never read on /. so much crap as tonight, by reading from people that are nicely "standing on the side" and are 100% convinced that it's OK if people are fired from their job if they don't give in to a media hype.

      My wife is working in the largest hospital in town and is afraid of facing the same decision. She won't take the shots, no matter the consequences, just because she is too careful with her health. She didn't have the flu in the last 20 years, so she doesn't want to get it from some unproven shot.

      If you compare the number of people dying from H1N1 (each and every one of them makes headlines in the papers) with the number dying per year from normal flu (just in the USA 36,000 per year, that's an avg. of 100 people per day), it is ridiculous that this gets such an attention.

      This being /., maybe health care is served better when we start firing programmers that don't donate their liter of blood once a month. That would be the same kind of BS.

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    33. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or are you now going to claim that informed consent isn't for black people?

      Nice straw men. However, it raises an important question. How can a consent be informed when there are so many ignorant people spoutering gibberish about subjects they know nothing about ?
      I talked about Kano to show what happens when you stop vaccinating against polio in places where the wild virus circulates. And to show you were wrong when you stated: polio vaccine is the cause of polio in Africa.

      Why should we believe you on anything ? You obviously didn't even understand the difference between deactivated virus vaccine and weakened virus vaccine. Even going on with rethoric such as there is no difference because a virus does not meet the most common definition of life and therefor is always dead. You have stated that polio vaccine was the cause of polio in Africa when vaccine derived virus accounts for a minority of the polio cases in Africa and when before the eradication programs, the number of polio case numbered in the millions. You either didn't know the difference between IPV and OPV or you willfully chose not to talk about it to induce fear among the readers of this blog. Judging by the demographic of this site, most will get IPV not OPV so they have no reasons to fear getting polio from the vaccine.

      Worse, when confronted with your mistakes, you react with a straw man. Almost everything you spouted on polio was half truth. You have no credibility left and you are an unreliable source of information.

    34. Re:Good by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      My son fell down and hit his head on the pavement. We took him to the ER (he turned out fine), but a few days later my wife came down with the flu. Should we have not taken our son to the ER so as to avoid sick people (despite a possible head injury)? In this case, exposure to the flu was near-inevitable.

      In addition, the flu doesn't manifest right away. You can be infected by someone who seems perfectly healthy. They might have just coughed in their hands and touched something. You touch it too and, guess what, you've got flu! The flu vaccine, however, can reduce the chances that you'll actually come down with the flu and can prevent you from retransmitting the flu to others. This is especially true of the H1N1 vaccine which is just like the normal flu vaccine except that it targets a known wide-spread flu variant.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    35. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good? The research done on these shots is surprisingly sparse. Based on the numbers in the studies I have seen in recent weeks, this year's regular flu shots decrease a person's resistance to the swine flu, thereby increasing their risk of a fatal outcome. So based on that, while the swine flu shots might be fine (again, what studies have been done were "fast tracked"), the side effects of some of these flu shots could be fatal. I have no problem with people buying into the hysteria if they choose...everyone should make their own informed decision. But forcing something that could in reality worsen the outbreak instead of keeping people healthy without sufficient study is irresponsible, unfair and dangerous.

    36. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      And to show you were wrong when you stated: polio vaccine is the cause of polio in Africa.

      Except I didn't say that - I quoted the World Health Organization, who said that the majority of the cases of polio are caused by a mutated virus that originated in the polio vaccine.

      If you have a complaint, bitch to the WHO - they're the source of the story. Also, it's directly relevant because of the widespread use of "live" flu virus in the nasal flu vaccine now being distributed (though there's no such thing as a "live" virus. virii don't eat, don't grow, don't divide. They're all dead, Jim).

    37. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      So what's the big deal? Nobody died. This flu is opportunistic - its' victims have underlying problems. For example, of the under 100 infants in the US who have died from it, almost all had serious known problems - MS, cerebral palsy, etc. And look at the cohort of 10 adults who died in one hospital - all had one thing in common - they were all morbidly obese, and, as the doctors said, if the flu hadn't gotten them, something else probably would have in the next 6 months.

      This flu isn't something to go ape-shit over unless you've got a serious underlying health problem. Like if you're already immuno-suppressed, in which case, your best bet is to keep away from the sick, and make sure that people you come into contact hash their hands, etc. (and you wash yours).

      If you're reasonably healthy and you get it, so what? You're sick for a few days. There's now evidence that flu vaccines make you MORE, not less, likely to get the flu in the future, so wtf would I want to get a shot.

      It's not like smallpox, where it's just one variant.

      and can prevent you from retransmitting the flu to others.

      Not true. You pick up something that is contaminated by someone else, and give it to a 3rd person, it hasn't gotten magically "decontaminated" because you touched it. Even if you were alive in 1957 and have antibodies to this variant, you still should practice preventative hygiene to help keep transmission rates down.

    38. Re:Good by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Nobody's died from H1N1 without underlying conditions? Tell that the the family of the Los Alamos woman who died from H1N1 without any underlying conditions: http://dailyme.com/story/2009091700002759/state-los-alamos-h1n1-victim-underlying.html

      In fact, if you search Google for "h1n1 no underlying problems" (no quotes), you'll come up with a series of articles about deaths from H1N1 from otherwise healthy individuals.

      As for keeping away from the sick, did you read my story? We had to go to the ER because my son hit his head on concrete. He had a huge lump right above his eye and we weren't sure if he was having trouble staying awake. If you were in that situation, would you opt not to go to the ER because you might run into someone who is sick? Or would you go to the ER to get your son looked at and treated if necessary? We went to the ER and were exposed to H1N1 while there.

      As for the "evidence" that the flu vaccine makes you more likely to get a flu, that's from one Canadian study that hasn't been peer reviewed yet. (As far as I know, it hasn't even been released yet, but I could have missed it being released.)

      What I meant by "keeps you from transmitting the flu to others" is that, when you have the flu (even before you show symptoms or after your fever goes away), you can spread it to others. Let's say you go to the store and somehow come in contact with H1N1. Your symptoms might not start for 2 days. However, 24 hours later, when you go to work, you might be spreading H1N1 around to everyone in your office. With the vaccine, though, your chances of spreading the virus diminish as your immune system fights off the flu virus much quicker.

      The flu vaccine in general has been administered for years without any major ill effects. The H1N1 vaccine is just a normal flu vaccine except that it is targeted to a particular strain. I see no reason not to get it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    39. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      3 people is statistically the same as none. More people dies getting hit by lightning with "no underlying conditions." Also, they don't consider obesity an underlying condition unless you're morbidly obese, but we know that this bug has a predilection for people who are overweight, and being significantly overweight, but not morbidly obese, should be counted as an underlying condition.

      The Canadian study is in the process of peer review, but so far the data looks good. It's significant because of the completeness of the numbers in the sampling population - pretty much the whole population in several provinces, so not much chance of "sampling bias".

      The H1N1 vaccine is just a normal flu vaccine except that it is targeted to a particular strain. I see no reason not to get it.

      ... and I see no reason to get it. My immune system works fine, I'm immune to this particular strain, I've only had the flu once in my life (and that's pretty much been the experience of everyone I've talked to who refuses to get flu shots. "How many times have you had the flu?" "I *might* have had it once, I think." or "Once, I was sick as a dog for a week, and that's been it". Sure, one data point is anecdotal, but when it's pretty much everyone I know, it's strains mere coincidence.

      Also, how do you think those so-called "live vaccines*" that are al the rage nowadays work? You get a mild case of the flu. So you're still shedding viral particles. Why do you think they say not to give it to people who are immuno-compromised? It'll give them a full-blown case of the flu, and make them more easy prey to pneumonia, etc.

      Also, transmission is mitigated by simple hygiene. Unfortunately, people still cough into their hands, then touch things; they still pick their noeses, then touch things, they still don't wash their hands after touching doorknobs, other people's phones, etc., and then they wonder why they get colds and flus. They go to work hacking up a lung because they don't want to "waste a sick day". They smoke ... and the tar and particulates makes it more likely that the virus particles will "stick around", not just in smokers, but in anyone exposed to second-hand smoke. Smoking around children is child abuse.

    40. Re:Good by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Just to correct one fact of yours about live virus vaccines. The H1N1 flu shot does not use a live virus. The live virus version is in the nasal spray version. So if you get the shot (like my family and I will be getting), you aren't exposed to any live viruses and won't come down with the flu from the shot.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    41. Re:Good by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If you read what I wrote, I never said that the shot used the so-called "live virus".

      However, even with the so-called "killed virus" (so-called, because viruses are not living things. They do not eat, grow, divide, etc. There's nothing going on inside that protein coating), you may experience the symptoms of an infection, since your body WILL be marshalling its' defenses.

      The CDC lists the following side-effects for the shot: Soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given, fever (low grade), aches, rare but severe allergic reactions.

      For the nasal vaccine: runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, cough - in other words, the flu. Also, transmission of the virus to people around you is possible, same as the flu. Because it gives you the flu (though hopefully just a mild case).

    42. Re:Good by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      Why mod as troll?

      --
      She made the willows dance
  7. Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by SoVeryTired · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary is a little sensationalistic. It says 2/3 of parents are avoiding 'flu shots, whereas the article quotes 22% as the figure, with the remainder saying they would definitely vaccinate, or that they would try to vaccinate.

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    1. Re:Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by Spad · · Score: 2, Funny

      But 57 percent of parents were still concerned about their child getting sick with swine flu.

      See, that number is almost 2/3 and it's right there on the same page as the bit about parents refusing to vaccinate their children. It makes perfect sense!

    2. Re:Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by SierraPete94 · · Score: 1

      Right there with 2/3's of all statistics being made up on the spot.

      --
      Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in morse code.
    3. Re:Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My question is why paranoid parents opinions of their children is considered more valid than a head of medicine's. They are biased first off, and ignorant on the subject matter. Seems pretty silly, especially with the "Dr." jab.

    4. Re:Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can 2/3 of parents be avoiding the flu shots? In the majority of the country the damn shots are not available yet.
      My company will not be doing flu shots this year -- because they can't find a vendor that has them available (regular flu).

      Parents can't avoid something that is not even available yet. As for health care workers they are the first ones to get them - before they become available to the general public, and in most areas they are just getting them now.

      And who more than a health worker would know about the effects of vaccine? Who could make a more informed decision? A politician or a medical doctor? This is so stupid, and a blown up bull.

    5. Re:Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My question is why paranoid parents opinions of their children

      Pretty sure this is based on their opinion of health care professionals, who with the aid of insurance companies have been fucking the public over at every turn since the AMA gained its stranglehold on health care here. I don't trust health care professionals, and as a group they have done nothing to gain that trust.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the one size fits all theory. My kid is _known_ to be allergic to egg proteins. We took him to an allergist and had him tested. He tests positive, and not just a little. Yet the FDA says that he should still get flu shots. Flu shots contain egg. The FDA says too bad, they should get it anyways. Yeah, there's a reason we parents trust the government less and less these days...

    7. Re:Where is the summary getting two thirds from? by hether · · Score: 1

      It is our responsibility as parents to look after our children, not the medical establishment or the state. The responsibility of officials, doctors, etc. is to look after public health as a whole. They realize that there will be collateral damage and that some number of adverse events is guaranteed to happen as the number of people inoculated grows, but they believe it's worth it for the public good. It may be a selfish perspective, but in this case I am solely looking at what's best for my child.

      It's up to the parent to weigh the risk vs. benefit and make a decision for the child until they are old enough to do that for themselves, same way as you make that call for yourself. In this case, I have looked at the risk of getting the nasal spray/shot for my son and in his age group 4.2% were hospitalized from the vaccine. Also in his age group, 4.5% have been hospitalized from the flu, with the majority of those being children with underlying conditions. Looking at those statistics, along with other collective information about what's in the shots, adverse effects reported, etc. as well as current information on how prevalent flu is in our area, reports on cause of death, etc. I have decided that at this point the risk does not outweigh the benefit he would receive. (This is all based on information from the CDC and the manufacturers of the vaccines, not from any site like whale.to.) Now, this decision is not set in stone and could change at any time, as the situation evolves every day! I am not patently anti-vaccine; a different decision is made for each one available.

      As to bias, the medical professionals have an obvious bias too and many of them are similarly ignorant on the subject matter. They may know that statistically vaccines are a net positive, but know little of this particular shot. Because they are busy with the day to day work, they don't have time to read up on the latest information available (or even read the package insert) and are pressured by outside influence such as their employers, the government, media, etc.

      IMO health care professionals as a group often think that they know what's best and don't remember that they are in a service position. Some people see them as God, but they are really just trained professionals like those in other areas of the economy. Just as you would with other advice you are given, you get to determine whether you want to follow it.

      Now granted, this may not be why most people are avoiding the shots for their kids...

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  8. Sounds like a healthy policy by Teun · · Score: 1
    I know about the discussions about possible side effects of the flu jabs.

    But I will accept the common wisdom that you can vaccinate against flu, this added to the for me credible reports this flu is nastier than usual I understand the rule given by this hospital.

    Because when this breaks out in earnest they'll need all their personnel and some.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Sounds like a healthy policy by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, there's a bit of confusion. The H1N1 swine flu that they're vaccinating against (as soon as the vaccines are prepared) isn't that much worse than the ordinary seasonal flu. It's the H5N1 that's the reputed killer. And that one isn't spreading widely. (Doesn't seem to be spreading widely?) So this seems to mean that we currently have 3 flu strains in circulation.

      The problem is that if someone gets multiple flus at the same time, the genes are likely to do some swapping. This could easily result in a flu that spreads as easily as the seasonal flu and is as deadly as H5N1 (bird flu). So this year it's especially important to keep the level of flu in the population as low as possible.

      Well, at least that's how I understand it. If someone connected with the health profession could correct any errors, it would probably be beneficial.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Sounds like a healthy policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is correct, our herd immunity as a society is just as important as individual immunity.

      If there are enough individuals in a group not vaccinated it provides a transmission vector, a place for the virus to take hold in that population and giving it a chance to mutate to overcome the rest of the groups immunities.

      People who refuse to vaccinate aren't just harming themselves, they are harming everyone around them by providing extra transmission vectors.

      Its a sad state of affairs when vaccinations have to be mandated for health care workers. Anybody who wasn't already planning on picking up a vaccination before hand should be fired immediately.

    3. Re:Sounds like a healthy policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that worst case we're going to have another couple of dead birds, like the pandemic (that's apparently another word for panic) we had a couple of years ago.

  9. Hmmmm by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's see; people who have a very good chance of coming into direct contact with those infected with H1N1 flu on a daily basis and then subsequently coming into contact with others who may be in high-risk groups for said virus being required to get vaccinated against it? Madness, I say. This is what happens when you let government have control over health care. Socialism. Communists. Sky...falling etc.

    Now termination may be a bit harsh, but removal from front-line duties for those who refuse the vaccination seems more than reasonable to me. H1N1 may not be the epic disaster that was predicted, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it entirely.

    1. Re:Hmmmm by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... or they could install sinks and hand-washing stations in every room.

      More people pick up infections in the hospital than anywhere else, and one of the reasons is that basic sanitary procedures are lacking. Simple things, like doctors washing their hands after contact with a patient (and those clipboards holding charts have a LOT of nasty bugs floating on them).

      Simply having doctors washing their hands between patients reduced infections by 20% in one study.

      Then again, we have grown adults who still insist on picking their nose and eating their boogers at traffic lights. Ask any cop who's done time in a patrol car.

    2. Re:Hmmmm by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is coming out of your nose and going into a vat of acid, it probably isn't going to make you any more sick than if it just stays in your nose.

      (I don't eat boogers, but your complaint is remarkably inane)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Hmmmm by RanCossack · · Score: 1

      ... or they could install sinks and hand-washing stations in every room.

      This sounds very reasonable. I would like to join in those insisting hospital workers wash their hands instead of getting vaccines.

      Sigh. If only the two were not mutually exclusive, it might be possible to do both.

    4. Re:Hmmmm by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      I don't think hand washing is going to magic away the germs a patient coughs out and you breath in. Handwashing (again) is a fine thing.

    5. Re:Hmmmm by bay43270 · · Score: 1

      When did doctors stop washing their hands? My son has some health issues that cause us to see doctors at least once a week. I don't recall ever seeing a doctor or nurse enter a room without first taking a handful of alcohol foam and cleaning their hands well with it. Hand washing isn't a very effective means to prevent spreading the flu:
      http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279963
      http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/24/hand.washing.helpful/index.html

    6. Re:Hmmmm by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      That's fine, I bet vaccinations does a better job than 20%. Every hospital I've been too has been very clean, and does have sinks and gloves everywhere. People get a lot of infections at hospitals, the people there are at the highest risk. And high risk situations are when vaccines make the most sense. I won't comment on the enforcement but the vaccine for these people makes really good sense.

    7. Re:Hmmmm by niko9 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's kinda obvious that you have never worked in health care. Let me 'splain Lucy:

      Aside from actually getting health care providers to _actually_ wash their hands, sinks and hand washing don't do much against aerosolized particles especially when someone is coughing in your immediate vicinity.

      You can also spread nasties in all sort of interesting ways, like say, EKG leads, which have been proven to be a vector for MRSA. That reusable blood pressure cuff in the emergency room triage that has been used on all sorts of patients? Think it gets "disinfected" after every patient by the triage nurse? Ha!

    8. Re:Hmmmm by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      "Then again, we have grown adults who still insist on picking their nose and eating their boogers at traffic lights. Ask any cop who's done time in a patrol car."

      So the grown adult is ingesting, for the most part, bacteria and viruses from his own body. Not terribly dangerous in my opinion. Don't want to shake hands with though.

      Of course if he hasn't washed his hands for a while he may be infecting himself by introducing bad things into his nose.

      --
      Nate
    9. Re:Hmmmm by arekusu_ou · · Score: 1

      Many schools across the nation have been closing due to the swine flu taking out people. It can be an epic disaster if not treated right, with how it's more contagious than a regular flu, more deadly.

      It's a good thing the health governing is taking steps to keep it from becoming a nation crippling disaster.

    10. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now termination may be a bit harsh, but removal from front-line duties for those who refuse the vaccination seems more than reasonable to me. H1N1 may not be the epic disaster that was predicted, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it entirely.

      Than I think you should reconsider your position, because termination is the punishment not removal from line duties. If they went to school knowing there would be mandatory vaccinations, if they took the job knowing there would be mandatory vaccinations, that's one thing. But to change the rules midstream seems like a violation of their contract and the social contract, if not due process and equal protection.

      I am all for voluntary vaccination but mandatory vaccination at this stage of the game? Sorry, I have to fall back on: "keep the government off our bodies."

      I'm not an epidemiologist or doctor, but as a citizen, I think the health risk needs to be much worse than it currently is to mandate vaccinations. And I say that knowing that in 2-3 weeks I'll be having open heart surgery in a hospital and I would LOVE for all the workers there to be vaccinated.

    11. Re:Hmmmm by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Nope - the nose hairs and mucus are there to filter out the air-borne pathogens and dirt from the environment. You can't "infect yourself" - you're either already infected or you're not.

      Also, on the topic of vaccinations, the WHO admits that vaccines HAVE mutated and caused diseases . Tthe latest polio outbreak in Africa was CAUSED by the polio vaccine:

      Polio surge in Nigeria after vaccine virus mutates

      LONDON (AP) -- Polio, a dreaded paralyzing disease stamped out in the industrialized world, is spreading in Nigeria despite efforts to stamp it out. And health officials say in some cases, it's caused by the vaccine used to fight it.

      In July, the World Health Organization issued a warning that this vaccine-spread virus might extend beyond Africa. So far, 124 Nigerian children have been paralyzed this year -- about twice those afflicted in 2008.

      Experts have long believed epidemics unleashed by a vaccine's mutated virus wouldn't last since the vaccine only contains a weakened virus strain -- but that assumption is coming under pressure. Some experts now say that once viruses from vaccines start circulating they can become just as dangerous as wild viruses.

      "The only difference is that this virus was originally in a vaccine vial," said Olen Kew, a virologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      Kew said genetic analysis proves mutated viruses from the vaccine have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria.

      So, I won't be bothering to infect myself with the flu.

    12. Re:Hmmmm by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      People born before 1957 are already immune to H1N1. They acquired it from exposure to similar live virus back in the 50's. So, no need for a vaccine for THEM - which is strange, because the current H1N1 vaccine doesn't impart long-term immunity. Guess there's nothing like the "real thing."

      People at risk are the obese, those with severe chronic health problems, pregnant women, and kids between 6 months and 5 years. Pretty much everyone else is "low-risk" if they just take a few common-sense precautions - the same ones you'd take in the presence of any infectious disease.

    13. Re:Hmmmm by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      Now termination may be a bit harsh, but removal from front-line duties for those who refuse the vaccination seems more than reasonable to me.

      Of course, nobody considers the risks to the health of those receiving the shot. It's contraindicated for certain people. Should they lose their jobs because they have a medical condition that makes getting the shot risky? People assume vaccines have no side effects. They do. Every medical procedure does.

      But... "my body, my choice" apparently doesn't matter much anymore. We have police running around with syringes and if they find you in a motor vehicle they can forcibly stab you with it and take your body fluids -- because you could be drunk. Jobs and other priviledges of our society are now being withheld not only for what they can take out of you, but now -- what they can put into you.

      Your body is the only thing you truly own in this world. Would you really give control of it up... for money?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    14. Re:Hmmmm by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      I think that viruses, bacteria, and fungal spores are too small to be effectively removed by nose hairs and nose mucus. Respiratory diseases are often spread by coughing and sneezing and the pathogens enter the body via the respiratory system. Is it only mouth breathers that become infected from airborne pathogens then?

      It's difficult to understand how a killed vaccine can mutate. Influenza vaccines are killed vaccines, BTW.

      --
      Nate
    15. Re:Hmmmm by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Holy Richard Dawkins... you sir are a disgrace to the geek label, please shut up before people get the impression we are all retards. There are 1000s of posts up there asking you for actual citations of all the wild claims you are making. And none answered. No, washing hands is not going to help as much as a vaccine.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    16. Re:Hmmmm by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Now termination may be a bit harsh

      Honestly, if these health workers begin coming up with their fears about the vaccination having chips on it or being a conspiracy to kill us all, then they are definitely under-qualified for the job.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    17. Re:Hmmmm by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Don't be lazy - look through the thread - I've provided the citations:
      1. links to the Lancet on vaccine-induced auto-immune diseases
      2. Links to a study showing that people who have received previous flu vaccines are twice as likely to contracth H1N1
      3. Links to show who the at-risk groups are - the fat slobs, those between 6 months and 5 years, pregnant women and the chronically ill, and how everyone else doesn't need to do more than practice normal hygeine
      4. Links to show that those born before 1957 have a naturally-acquired immunity to H1N1 that is superior to actual exposure to the H1N1 virus, due to their being exposed to a related strain back in the '50s - which explains why older people aren't at risk
      5. Links to the WHO admitting that polio in Nigeria is currently being caused by a mutated polio vaccine - but here, since I still have a link to my journal open in another tab, I'll save you the effort of scrolling

      The vaccine is pretty much useless for those in the 50+ group - they won't get H1N1 unless they're fat obese slobs, or otherwise chronically ill. So why should they bother?

      Most of the rest of the population is at low risk of catching the disease, and even lower risk of dying. So why bother with a vaccine that gives limited protection - especially in light of the very strong possibiity that the disease will mutate to a much less virulent strain (and one that the vaccine won't provide much protection against, since it IS yet another mutation) in November? Especially since the same precautions that help against other flus and viruses (basic hygiene, not hanging around the sick, etc) will work. Or do you believe that this comparatively weak flu virus is actually somehow special in its' ability to infect people through some supernatural force?

      And yes, had washing will help, because it'll also help you keep rhinovirus and other buggies at bay.

    18. Re:Hmmmm by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much the MO for most flu, except for being harsher on overweight/out of shape people that would normally just "thin out" from a few days of being sick.

      To be blunt, in 36 years of being alive and having kids in their teens this is the second flu season where anybody gave a damn about flu shots for anybody in my target age groups... even doctors in previous years would specifically say that the vaccine was "wasted" on me or my kids against "nuisance" illness, not life threatening, that was merely inconvenient.

      They're doing a good job of stirring up hype this year, but not a good job of explaining why. At this point people getting "flu" shot aren't even getting the vaccines for Bird or Swine flu because those aren't widely available yet... what's the point of the hype outside medical circles?

    19. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I pick my nose because otherwise it would be clogged with sawdust all day, you insensitive clod!

    20. Re:Hmmmm by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's been mostly hype and misinformation from the beginning.

      One of my daughters was in Mexico during the initial outbreak. She came back, and a week later, she thought she had it. I told her not to be stupid. "But 151 people died from it!" "No, the number's wrong. They now admit it was 6 people. And no, you don't have it."

      It's the same with the numbers all over - any case that can't be classified as something else is just added to the H1N1 numbers ("we don't actually do a test to see if it's H1N1 - that would be too time-consuming and expensive."). Then the whole "x number of new cases of H1N1" - BFD. Tell me how many DIED, not how many people got it. Oh, the number of dead isn't any worse than any other year? Then fuck off! Of course, that doesn't make headlines, get you a budget, or give you 15 minutes of fame.

      The reason they have to force medical personnel to get the shot is because otherwise, they won't - because they don't trust it!

      And then you see the people going "We need to get everyone immunized - what if this virus mutates into something worse?"

      Well, sunshine, if it DOES mutate into something worse, your shot won't protect you - it wasn't made for the mutation. Better hope you were born before 1957 and that your previous exposure to swine flu is good enough (it appears to be - older people are relatively unaffected, even though it's NOT the exact same strain).

      But seriously, if the medical personnel are so unconvinced that you have to threaten to fire them, there's a reason for such strong resistance. I've never had a shot in the past, and interestingly enough, when the topic came up at the clinic, what I got back was an under-the-breath "I don't blame you. I don't either" - and that was years ago, before all this hype.

      When I was a kid, anyone in the neighborhood got sick, our mothers would get us to all play together so we'd all get it and get over it at the same time. Measles, mumps (which I never did manage to catch), chickenpox ... get it, then get over it. Nowadays, it's "but my little precious is SUFFERING! Can't you see they're SICK! I want some PILLS!" What it really is, is a generation that hasn't got the patience to stay with a sick kid for a day and listen to them being miserable. As a substitute, they'll feed them 4 heaping helpings at every meal, then say "you're not fat, you're big-boned". Yeah, right, kid. Just like their Michelin-Man dad and 2-Ton-Tess mom.

    21. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but recent research (No, I don't feel like looking for the link) shows that the H1N1 strain doesn't survive very long on the hand. As you said, the major risk is in aerosol particles. So people, please sneeze into the crook of your arm and stay home when sick. Simple enough.

    22. Re:Hmmmm by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1
      I'm pretty much right with you. Even before the vaccine was available where I am I decided I wasn't going to get it. Before it was available my son(2) got the flu, gave it to me(31) and my daughter(1), then my wife(27). We're all still quite alive.

      I was also part of this: http://www.thenhf.com/vaccinations_03.htm and I did actually get injected back then. Now I won't take anything until it's been tested on a few million other people, and even then only if it's mandated. I'd prefer not to end up like http://www.apfn.org/apfn/anthrax.htm

    23. Re:Hmmmm by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I remember that case. I hope you stay healthy. That whole mess is just not right.

      On- topic - Turns out that this flu (which isn't swine flu, btw) has a death rate lower than regular flu. They came up with a death rate equal to that of regular flu by dividing those diagnosed by those who died, conveniently ignoring that other people contract it and recover without seeking treatment, so that the REAL death rate is lower.

      It's been over-hyped since day one.

    24. Re:Hmmmm by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I think that viruses, bacteria, and fungal spores are too small to be effectively removed by nose hairs and nose mucus.

      You think wrong. Same as an oil-bath filter in an old car engine, damp hairs and mucus are great at filtering.

      Respiratory diseases are often spread by coughing and sneezing and the pathogens enter the body via the respiratory system.

      Or people touching a surface that's been sprayed with pathogens by some ignorant cougher, and then touch their eye, or pick their nose ...

      Is it only mouth breathers that become infected from airborne pathogens then?

      They are more likely than people who breathe through their noses.

      It's difficult to understand how a killed vaccine can mutate. Influenza vaccines are killed vaccines, BTW.

      Viruses aren't alive, so the idea of a "killed" virus is a misnomer. A virus is some dna or rna surrounded by protein. It doesn't eat, it doesn't grow, it can't even reproduce. It's just a wrench that happens to fit into the cellular machinery and gunk it up, in the process disrupting it enough so that the same mechanism that duplicated the cell's dna now duplicates the virus instead.

      It's because the virus isn't alive that it's hard to deal with.

      It doesn't eat, so cutting off its' food supply isn't an option. It doesn't grow or divide, so something that interferes with the growth cycle isn't going to work either. And since it doesn't reproduce (it's the infected cell that mistakenly reproduces it) you can't even go after its' reproductive cycle all that effectively.

      All you can do is find something that either denatures its' proteins, or provokes the host to attack and either physically damage the virus particle, or physically remove it from the host.

      So, how does it mutate? Simple - it's fragile, so its quite easy for it to mutate. A little piece broken off here, another piece added there, the host cell, already fuxored, making mistakes when duplicating it ...

      Picture of Influenza A virus - that's not a cell you see. Just some genetic info in a protective coating that happens to have just the right surface proteins to penetrate the cell wall.

    25. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? Well about 60% of doctors and health care workers in frikkin Norway are refusing to take the vaccine! Maybe time to get a clue and understand that there are reasons why educated people do not want to risk it. The vaccines simply aren't properly tested for new issues and are known to have plenty of old issues seen in other vaccines, go ask a doctor who doesn't want to take it. However the fucking fascists in government don't care and just want to force people to march lockstep. NO FREE CHOICE? FUCK THE FASCIST!.

    26. Re:Hmmmm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's only one way you go from "you don't need the shot if you're young" to "everyone must get the shot". SOMETHING is rotten in Denmark. Either they were lying to us before, or they're lying to us now. Since H1N1 has a lower mortality rate than other, similar viruses, it should be less important for us to get this vaccination. Regardless, it's clear that they cannot be trusted.

      A lot of people have posted comments suggesting that we shut up and trust our doctors, but there's obvious reasons why that is stupid. For example, it is a huge mistake to trust a mechanic; I got into doing auto repairs myself because every time I went to a shop they found a way to fuck me over, either doing unnecessary work or not fixing the actual problem and charging me anyway. I don't see any reason why I would assume that doctors are going to be automatically more scrupulous.

      What it really is, is a generation that hasn't got the patience to stay with a sick kid for a day and listen to them being miserable.

      Our society is structured such that if you want to be a part of modern society and keep up with all the emptyheaded shit, and appearances, and all that other nonsense, both parents will probably have to work. People can't stay home with a sick kid in a lot of cases. So they ship them off to school and get everyone else's kids sick.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Hmmmm by ZosX · · Score: 1

      One day I cut the tip of my thumb off and it, of course, bled profusely. For three days. I was over at my mom's house and she made me go to the hospital because it wouldn't quit bleeding. I don't have insurance, and I really didn't want to go because I knew they couldn't do a whole lot for me at that point. Imagine my indignation when after looking at my still bleeding thumb, the doctor pointed to the sink and asked me if I could wash it out for him. I rinsed it off with some soap and they wrapped it in gauze and charged me $300. It still bled for a day after that. I don't trust or like the health system. It does not serve the interests of the patient anymore. I'm also sick of this post 9/11 fear mongering, with plans of the government using the H1N1 vaccine to round up people and put them in internment camps if they refuse the shot. I don't know how true it is, but there is a vast group of conspiracy nuts that think this is going to happen. I'm sick of the press for spreading total fucking FUD at the beginning and then refusing to tell people the real numbers as they are starting to come out. Thanks for helping the government throw everyone up in a panic and then do nothing to calm them. Anyone government that wants its populace to live in fear should be distrusted with extreme prejudice.

    28. Re:Hmmmm by sketchydave · · Score: 0

      Now termination may be a bit harsh, but removal from front-line duties for those who refuse the vaccination seems more than reasonable to me.

      So are you suggesting that doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, etc. not be in contact with patients? Kinda hard for them to do their jobs that way. The hospital that I work at is seeking 100% compliance for either flu shots or waivers on file for flu shots. So if you refuse the shot they have a record, not as a disciplinary measure but a way to quickly identify who hasn't been vaccinated, and if they are in direct patient contact. Then you have a smaller group of people who you can track and have on precautions such as masks at all times if a pandemic starts. The best thing to do is get vaccinated. If you have health reasons why you cannot get a vaccination (and there are many legitimate reasons) then you take precautions. If you do not believe in vaccinations you should not be working in health care.

    29. Re:Hmmmm by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      And, umm, exactly what kind of disease might a person get by sharing an infected blood pressure pump? Something that is so virulent, that it can leave one person's arm skin and enter mine (even through, sometimes, a shirt sleeve), is going to be way deadlier than anything I've ever heard of. Unless, THEY, you know who I'm talking about, are not telling, US, the general population, something we should know about.

    30. Re:Hmmmm by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's not the arm skin. It's what's leaking out of your arm and may leak into my bleeding or injured arm, or be tranferred on the gloved hand which handles the BP cuff and then handles your wound.

      Has anyone explained to you what the skin condition of street people, or a nursing home resident with bedsores, can be like? They _leak_. I'm old enough to have close relatives in nursing care, and the bad homes are _awful_ with infected bodily fluids. The better homes are expensive, but unless you can take care of a really infirm relative at home, they're worth every extra penny to take care of someone you love and want to live a while longer.

    31. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical, but I was in the exact same situation with a chopped thumb tip. There is a lot the hospital can do for you, and if they didn't, it's probably because you refused due to lack of health insurance, or some other facts you neglected to mention.

      When I cut the tip of my thumb off and it was still bleeding 3 hours later, I had my wife drive me to the hospital. The doctor had me hold pressure on it again for about 30 mins. Then he tried some skin glue to seal the cap back on. After neither worked (too much blood for the glue) he cauterized it chemically. Then bandaged it up, gave me instructions for helping it heal over, and sent me on my way.

      Your story is bullshit, there's no way the doctor just told you to wash your thumb in the sink and sent you away with a still-bleeding thumb and a bill for $300.

  10. I dont see the problem with the mandate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're working with patients vulnerable to a disease or where you could be exposed to a disease, it's frequently required that you get vaccinated against the disease. For example, if you work in a nursing home you're often required to get a TB vaccine. Normally the flu isn't that bad, but this year there seems to be an unusually dangerous strain out there. And the no vaccine people are no better than the antievolution crowd. Blinded by ignorance.

  11. And the big deal is??? by SierraPete94 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe my tin foil hat isn't adjusted right, but of all the vaccines out there, the flu shot (or mist as most people get it these days) is about as safest of them all. Incredibly low side effect rate, very effective, and a guarantee that you're going to get a mild version of the flu before everybody else does. Plus, if you are working in a medical care facility, you won't be an oxygen-burning flu contamination source, making it possible to keep the spread of these viruses down to a minimum.

    Yes, the Swine Vaccine in the 70's was very poorly executed and there were many problems. But holy cow folks, it's been over 30 years and medicine has come just a short distance since. For the last 18 years getting a flu shot has been a federally mandated condition of my employment and I don't even work in a health care related field--what the heck is the big deal with getting a flu shot?

    --
    Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in morse code.
    1. Re:And the big deal is??? by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see, this story is the perfect combination of 3 key fears of people lacking the facts (In the US, at least - most of the rest of the world doesn't care about point 1):
      1. Government control of health care
      2. Government using vaccinations to brainwash people (or something equally stupid)
      3. Flu vaccinations killed some people once at some point in history so therefore this one will kill you if you have it

    2. Re:And the big deal is??? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well I live under federally mandated, provincially funded health care. Let me just say, free flu shots are nice.
      If the government can brainwash people with vaccinations, awesome. I now have a plan to rule the world.
      The flu vaccine kills people every year, it is however less than those who die from the flu.

      So, let me continue on. Anti-vaxers on the other hand, are idiots. I've always believed that if they want to die, get deformed, or pick up something that I've already got an immunity to great on them. Just don't do me the favor and wipe humanity out on their way to the door. Yeah I realize, I'm asking a lot.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:And the big deal is??? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incredibly low side effect rate, very effective, and a guarantee that you're going to get a mild version of the flu before everybody else does.

      The reality is quite different.

      The flu vaccine has to be produced several months before flu season. So, if the experts pick the wrong strains, or even if they pick the right ones and the flu mutates in that time, you're no better off.

      In fact, you are worse off, as your immune system is likely to be worse off, trying to fight this new strain of the flu that is similar, but not exactly the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoskins_effect

      For the last 18 years getting a flu shot has been a federally mandated condition of my employment and I don't even work in a health care related field--what the heck is the big deal with getting a flu shot?

      Freedom to make one's own decisions about medical treatment is a big thing in the US, and people dislike when they are compelled against their will. I'm no exception.

      Just about all the improvements in public health over the past few centuries has been from an understanding of disease spread, and modern nutrition. Most people can and will like out the overwhelming majority of their lives without requiring any form of medical assistance. Being cognizant of the spread of the virus has a much higher success rate in preventing infection than does immunization.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:And the big deal is??? by sonnejw0 · · Score: 1

      And school children get vaccinations all the time. I work with animals, I have to be vaccinated against certain diseases so I don't pass them on to the animals. Healthcare workers are vaccinated against a lot of thing so they don't pass it on. If I were a nurse or doctor and had to examine 60 patients a day all with a cough, I would WANT the vaccine, who cares if it's mandatory?

    5. Re:And the big deal is??? by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      You might want the vaccine - but obviously some people are morons - and we need to protect the morons too.

    6. Re:And the big deal is??? by chill · · Score: 1

      Damn straight! How else would most Slashdotters get laid, if not for the morons and alcohol?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    7. Re:And the big deal is??? by HiThere · · Score: 0

      Vaccine refusers aren't idiots. Each person is safer if they aren't vaccinated, but everyone else is. So what vaccine refusers are isn't idiots, it's selfish bastards.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:And the big deal is??? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      it's been over 30 years and...

      ...most Slashdotters weren't even born when it happened.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:And the big deal is??? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      But when they come into contact with people that have not been vaccinated (such as small children) they pose a direct risk to other people's health.

      I'd say that goes a long way past just selfish.

    10. Re:And the big deal is??? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      3. Flu vaccinations killed some people once at some point in history so therefore this one will kill you if you have it

      There's a small percentage of the population for whom [almost anything] will cause an adverse reaction and possibly kill them.
      It isn't a matter of "more science" or "big pharma needs to try harder"
      Human physiology is just so variable that there is nothing to be done about it.
      Our best effort is to identify risk factors and keep those people away from [almost anything].

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:And the big deal is??? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      "For the last 18 years getting a flu shot has been a federally mandated condition of my employment and I don't even work in a health care related field--what the heck is the big deal with getting a flu shot?"

      If you're not at medical risk from the effects of the flu beyond it being a nuisance and needing a few days off work then it's unnecessary medicine. This idea that schools and workplaces can't close for a few days for a minor inconvenience is alarming even more than the medical reasons given. Being sick from a minor seasonal bug isn't a bad thing, it's natures way of thinning the herd during the winter when food is scarce. Something corporate gottta-fix-it-now types need to understand that not every bad thing can be fixed. Since 9/11 we've had way to much emphasis on preventing minor problems.. yet let whole cities flood because we won't spend a few bucks on dam repair.

    12. Re:And the big deal is??? by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Freedom to make one's own decisions about medical treatment is a big thing in the US, and people dislike when they are compelled against their will. I'm no exception.

      See, though-- there are some things you just can't control. Boo-hoo, it's raining. No, you can't park your car there. No, you can't keep dumping industrial pollutants out your back door.

      Vaccination is often all or nothing. Call it tyranny of the majority if you like-- most of us want to live. Deal with it.

      Being cognizant of the spread of the virus has a much higher success rate in preventing infection than does immunization.

      I call bullshit. Citation, please.

    13. Re:And the big deal is??? by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your statement that the vaccines are better than not having them, but I would also like point out (and sorry, I don't have source for this as I'm lazy, but it came from the mouth of a "medical professional") that there is an interesting trend that people who a) don't get vaccinated and b) don't get the flu, year after year, are more likely to suffer side-effects and have a weakened immune system when exposed to the flu vaccine. Of course, if they had hook worms, this wouldn't be an issue.

    14. Re:And the big deal is??? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Vaccination is often all or nothing. Call it tyranny of the majority if you like-- most of us want to live. Deal with it.

      Vaccination is NEVER "all or nothing".

      If the vaccination works, you won't get sick, no matter what the rest of the world does. So why do you believe forcing it on everyone is a good idea?

      I call bullshit. Citation, please.

      It's easy to "call bullshit" when you're completely ignorant of a subject, and just insist on enforcing your dogma on everyone else...

      On the off chance that you do actually want an opportunity to edify yourself:

      Do flu shots for the elderly save lives? Just washing hands works better, says study.

      http://blog.nj.com/njv_thurman_hart/2007/12/a_useless_vaccine_mandated.html

      http://www.globalhandwashing.org/health_impact.htm

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:And the big deal is??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about trypanophobia? Especially vaso-vagal version?

    16. Re:And the big deal is??? by Lars512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vaccination is often all or nothing. Call it tyranny of the majority if you like-- most of us want to live. Deal with it.

      Vaccination is NEVER "all or nothing".

      If the vaccination works, you won't get sick, no matter what the rest of the world does. So why do you believe forcing it on everyone is a good idea?

      You misunderstand vaccination's main benefit as protecting the vaccinated individual, when it is instead protecting those who would otherwise have been made sick by the now vaccinated individual. If most people get the appropriate vaccinations, all of society is better off, since even if non-vaccinated individuals get sick the illness will have a more difficult time propagating. In other words, vaccination as a society-wide strategy is only effective if a high-enough proportion of people get vaccinated. That's why, if we're vaccinating at all, it's fair enough to force it on everybody who would reasonably find it effective. If you want to be the exception, then you're putting not just yourself but also other people at risk.

    17. Re:And the big deal is??? by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the vaccination works, you won't get sick, no matter what the rest of the world does.

      Incorrect. With a sufficient number of vaccinated individuals in a population, an effect call heard immunity comes into play. This protects people who cannot get the vaccine (people allergic to it, etc.) or who the vaccine does not work on.

      There has been a 4 year study done in Ontario on this with respect to seasonal flu vaccines and found favorable results.

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/july-dec08/fluvaccine_10-31.html

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    18. Re:And the big deal is??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vaccination is often all or nothing. Call it tyranny of the majority if you like-- most of us want to live. Deal with it."

      And I bet you're wondering why everyone is so up in arms about the prospect of government-run health care.

      For the record, I am for it, but this type of thinking is why the government is always dangerous. Some idiot gets in his mind that the only way to save humanity is to remove your free will. Get enough of these people, and it starts to get on the topic list for pundits, and before you know it, the senate is voting on mandatory flu vaccination.

      Perhaps you should re-read the part where it says "give me liberty, or give me death," because this is why we can't have nice things.

    19. Re:And the big deal is??? by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

      On the other hand... H1N1 appears to be neither more virulent nor more deadly than the typical seasonal flu yet there is rarely a vast governmental push for MANDATED vaccination against the seasonal flu. There is also, at least, the appearance that H1N1 is severely overhyped, so that government wants to appear to be doing something. Personally, I dislike political theater. I really dislike being forced to participate in political theater. And I am not alone in my dislikes. Had there been less hype, there'd probably be far less resistance to vaccination programs. Remember Paranoid Ohm's Law: HYPE = PARANOIA * PARANOIA * RESISTANCE (ref http://xkcd.com/643/). Regarding your list: 1. I live under government-controlled health care. It has good points and bad points. 2. I know no-one who believes that vaccinations are used to brainwash people (the only time I hear that statement is when someone is trying to bash those who oppose mandated vaccinations). 3. The whole health care system (including the government, which is deeply involved even if it is not a one-payer system), contains a variety of people with vested interests (and who, being human, do occasionally err or yield to their own vested interests). As a result, the system does, on occasion, do things that are NOT in our best interests. Situations with a great deal of hype and pressure tend to raise red flags.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    20. Re:And the big deal is??? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Vaccination is often all or nothing. Call it tyranny of the majority if you like-- most of us want to live. Deal with it.

      Most of us will die of something. Deal with it. This year it is the flu. You can not protect everybody. If _I_ want to take the risk of dying of the flue (or more realistic, be sick for a few days) then that is MY option.

      You take YOUR precautions, I will take mine.

      My manager already had the swine flu, he was sick for 3 days and much less then with a 'normal' flu. So what is so special about this flu compared to other flu's that happen every year?
      The difference is the media attention.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    21. Re:And the big deal is??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Freedom to make one's own decisions about medical treatment is a big thing in the US, and people dislike when they are compelled against their will. I'm no exception."

      That's fine. But if you are saying that as a worker, you have freedom to not choose, than in all fairness that right extends directly to your employer as to who works for them, where the employer should also be able to say "you don't phrackin work here anymore."

      If the worker is incompetent and doesn't take care to protect himself, I don't want him in my employ. He is free to get a new job, free to start a new business, but he won't work here. Some scared staffer of vaccines or righteous ass "it's my body" has no business in a health care setting

      Similarly, this is a health CARE setting. It's a service industry. First, they are the first wave of defense; it's a responsibility and professionalism issue. If you want to work in health care, provide care, and be a first responder or employee providing care, you have an obligation not to spread the disease and to be AVAILABLE to provide care as a condition of your employee. If people didn't get vaccinated, a quarter of the hospital staff gets nailed, and the local area starts to flood in, your obligation to provide care is seriously undermined if you are understaffed. So much so, I would say that if you CHOOSE to not get vaccinated and are unavailable when your job requires it, that's negligance since the outcome and consequences are forseeable.

      The patient futher has a right to know who is treating him, who has been immunized, and the environment of his care. Just as MRSA should be fully disclosed, so should flu spread and who has been vaccinated. If I expect the local burger joint cook to wash his hands by the regs, I sure as hell expect not to pick up the flu (that can put me out 2 weeks or potentially kill me) from the staffer who treated my broken arm.

      Employment is not only not mandatory but voluntary. You do not have to work in a free society. You do not have a right to a job. You do not have a right to a particular job. You can choose your job. You don't have the right to a particular employment of a particular job. You can choose where you work and who employees you. These are good things. In turn, employers have a right to choose as well.

      The institution you work at is usually under guidelines to be fair, but they are not obligation to guarantee your job. Nor should they be. You are free to move to another state for employment if you don't like it in NY. They are free to hire competent people. You don't get a flu shot, you are not a competent staffer or health care worker. You have a right to get fired or moved or displaced.

      Frankly, if you are a hospital provider or staffer and don't care to get immunized, you don't have the right to get provide HEALTH CARE treatment. We don't need a flu Mary nurse working in a hospital.

      If a hospital staffer doesn't like the institutions or NY's regs, they are free to move to another state and institution that doesn't have them. They are even free to set up shop in that locality. They are even free, gasp, to move out of the country for their employment.

    22. Re:And the big deal is??? by evilviper · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Incorrect.

      No. In fact NOTHING you've said contradicts my statement IN ANY WAY.

      With a sufficient number of vaccinated individuals in a population, an effect call heard immunity comes into play. This protects people who cannot get the vaccine (people allergic to it, etc.) or who the vaccine does not work on.

      This is bull. There are a MINUSCULE number of people in the world which would chose to get vaccinated, but CAN'T for various reasons. So for the sake of the 0.01% of the population, you believe we should compel EVERYONE ELSE to get vaccinated, and thereby CAUSE many MORE health issues? It's idiotic.

      There has been a 4 year study done in Ontario on this with respect to seasonal flu vaccines and found favorable results.

      That article is missing the huge disclaimer on that study: "The authors point out that one of the major drawbacks of the study was random variation which limits the abilities of small vaccine trials to assess the real relationship between vaccination and influenza."

      I find most interesting this combination of quotes:

      "the researchers found that the mortality decreases in Ontario compared with the other provinces were statistically significant only in those aged 85 or older." http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct2908ontario.html
      &
      "The results also indicated that increasing immunization rates were not as clearly associated with a reduction in mortality and health care need in older people, especially older than 75 years, in comparison with younger people." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/126891.php

      And TWO of the 3 links I posted include studies in Alberta and Ontario, explaining why the vaccine is scarcely effective, and why many flu studies greatly exaggerate results...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:And the big deal is??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incredibly low side effect rate, very effective, and a guarantee that you're going to get a mild version of the flu before everybody else does.

      The reality is quite different.

      The flu vaccine has to be produced several months before flu season. So, if the experts pick the wrong strains, or even if they pick the right ones and the flu mutates in that time, you're no better off.

      In fact, you are worse off, as your immune system is likely to be worse off, trying to fight this new strain of the flu that is similar, but not exactly the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoskins_effect

      For the last 18 years getting a flu shot has been a federally mandated condition of my employment and I don't even work in a health care related field--what the heck is the big deal with getting a flu shot?

      Freedom to make one's own decisions about medical treatment is a big thing in the US, and people dislike when they are compelled against their will. I'm no exception.

      Just about all the improvements in public health over the past few centuries has been from an understanding of disease spread, and modern nutrition. Most people can and will like out the overwhelming majority of their lives without requiring any form of medical assistance. Being cognizant of the spread of the virus has a much higher success rate in preventing infection than does immunization.

      Freedom to make your own health choices is great. Just be sure you're able to foot the bill and not rely on the rest of us to pay for it.

    24. Re:And the big deal is??? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand vaccination's main benefit as protecting the vaccinated individual

      No, but in the case of the flu, there has never, anywhere, been high enough vaccination figures to come close to offering herd immunity for a population.

      If most people get the appropriate vaccinations, all of society is better off, since even if non-vaccinated individuals get sick the illness will have a more difficult time propagating.

      You're assuming the flu vaccine is effective in the first place. The links I've posted firmly indicate it is not. In fact you may have a more difficult time fighting the flu because you've been vaccinated.

      So, does being vaccinated make you responsible for "putting not just yourself but also other people at risk"?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    25. Re:And the big deal is??? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      That's fine. But if you are saying that as a worker, you have freedom to not choose, than in all fairness that right extends directly to your employer as to who works for them,

      You can't use that argument until you've explicitly defined the extent and limits of an employer's rights to 1) Know about all their employee's private affairs, and 2) Discriminate against individuals based on that information.

      Your sexual activities would also be highly relevant to your employer in a health care environment... Do you think that should mean your boss gets to fire all the Homos, and/or all the unmarried, and/or the antisocial asexual eunuchs?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    26. Re:And the big deal is??? by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      Maybe, I don't like getting shots and spending money on something that on average works in less than 1/2 of the people who get it. If you consider a 0-50% (see CDC statistics) success rate very effective, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your standards. Sure in "matching years" flu vaccines are fairly effective (70-80% per CDC statistics), except no one seems to notice that there haven't been very many "matching" years. Since the flu viruses seem to have a very quick mutation rate, about twice a year on average, getting a matching year is a lot like shooting craps. It takes about six months to come up with a vaccine, by which time the virus has already mutated a bit, and there's no guarantee you're going to even see the same "type" or family of flu virus. I'd rather spend my money on the roulette wheel. At least I have a 50-50 chance of choosing the right color.

      I must be one of those two-thirds parents. I see no reason to subject my child to a needless flu shot. She has an immune system, it's there to fight off diseases. I paid good money for that immune system, and I seek to utilize it and allow it to function. When she comes down with something that her system can't handle on it's own we'll augment it with drugs. If there is something out there they have a real cure for, she'll get that vaccine. Please stop spouting this "flu vaccine" as anything more than ad-speak. It's no vaccine. Something that is developed once (not every six months) that is 90% effective from year to year is a vaccine, anything less and touted as a vaccine is just a load of bovine solid waste product.

    27. Re:And the big deal is??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe my tin foil hat isn't adjusted right, but of all the vaccines out there, the flu shot (or mist as most people get it these days) is about as safest of them all.

      Suddenly I understand people who refuse to have their children vaccinated.

      We got offered free flu shots at work. About half accepted it, the rest of us ignored it. A couple of days later, that same half was home sick... with... the flu. Apparently not a one time coincidence, it's been up in the news around here, and there was talk about restricting the free flu shots the government gives out to old people for the same reasons.

      If that's the safest of them all, I wouldn't want my children vaccinated either.

    28. Re:And the big deal is??? by nbacon · · Score: 1

      The PBS link points to a study that is totally unrelated to your statement. The article in the link states that there is a positive affect on your well being if those around you have had the vaccination (and you haven't).

  12. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    remind me again, what are your medical qualifications?

  13. Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matter.. by rcolbert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maher's a funny guy, and I like a lot of what he stands for. However, his stances on things like medicine and nutrition are total whack-job, and that's putting it kindly. I saw the Maher interview with Frist the other night. All I can say is that if even one person is influenced to NOT take the H1N1 vaccine based on Bill's foolish, uninformed, hippie opinion on the matter, and subsequently that person gets infected and dies, then IMO Bill is culpable. All available data strongly supports the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. Not vaccinating based on superstition is grossly irresponsible.

  14. Re:Captain TwatObvious by clandonald · · Score: 0, Insightful

    aren't doctors taught to endorse the drug of the day or does each doctor personally do his own research on th drug and they all came to the same conclusion?

    --
    The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
  15. Gargle by NoYob · · Score: 1
    Constantly gargle with 80 proof spirits.

    Ise presfer Jim beeem meself!

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    1. Re:Gargle by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Actually, those mouthwash commercials are bogus. Gargling with crap like Listerine (active ingredient - 27% booze) actually strips the mouth and throat of a protective layer of mucous, and can contribute not only to you catching diseases, but also to a higher risk of throat cancer.

      Booze is for drinking, not spitting out.

      If you have to gargle, use a salt-water solution. It's cheaper, safer, and also environmentally friendlier than mouth wash.

    2. Re:Gargle by NoYob · · Score: 1

      Whosh aid anything about spitting out!

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    3. Re:Gargle by digitig · · Score: 1

      Replying to undo accidental mod.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:Gargle by xmundt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently someone else has been into the Jim Beam mouthwash.

      *smile*

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
  16. If you listen really carefully by JohnHegarty · · Score: 1

    If you listen really carefully that noise you hear is a 1000 lawyers licking their lips.

  17. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

    Have you stopped killing hookers yet?

  18. It's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust nobody who's opinion is biased by monetary gain, unless that monetary gain is directly and/or mainly related to the well being of your health. This is rather fundamental in a capitalisic world, and this is why people are calling out the bullshit regarding the swine flu. Generation Y is informed and critical, and generation Y doesn't listen to you just because you're a doctor. Generation Y will only listen to you if you provide proof.

    1. Re:It's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the virtues of our generation. The Jackass generation.

  19. Extend this policy to websites by ewg · · Score: 1

    I know I would feel safer reading Slashdot knowing its employees were properly vaccinated.

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  20. Alternative health advise by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I only know Maher from youtube clips, he is a smart and funny guy but every now and then he demonstrates he hasn't quite got the hang of the critical thinking thing and comes out with "alternative" health advise that makes me groan. I once heard him repeat the 1990's greenpeace meme that putting clorine in the water to kill bugs was a BadThing(TM), never mind that it is probably the single biggest public health improvement of the 20th century in terms of lives saved.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Alternative health advise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dude, Bill Maher is not a smart guy at all. He's a fucking idiot, on this and many other issues on which he holds opinions that are utterly uninformed and totally wrong, yet quite firm. And he uses his celebrity to spread this manure. He was rather funny as a comedian; as a talk-show host pretending to be informative, he's a self-aggrandizing bloviating disaster--and grating and not funny.

      And by the way, chlorine in water is not just the single biggest public health improvement of the 20th century. It is by far the biggest health improvement in the entire history of the human species--it doesn't take a whole lot of intellectual power to grasp that, but this guy you called "smart" can't get it through his thick skull into his pin-sized brain.

    2. Re:Alternative health advise by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And by the way, chlorine in water is not just the single biggest public health improvement of the 20th century. It is by far the biggest health improvement in the entire history of the human species

      I'd put down "handwashing" as the biggest. Or just general hygene after learning about microbes. The number one killer of women up until the early 1900s wasn't bad water, it was childbirth. And one of the reasons being that they'd bleed, and they'd have people touching them in places with open wounds. Gunshots used to be nearly 100% fatal. Nick a small toe? Death. Why? infection. It wasn't water killing people, it was infections. The statistics are hard to make out, but it seems that doctors were more likely to kill you than cure your for a large portion of history. They were dirty and did things like attach leaches. And water had nothing to do with that.

    3. Re:Alternative health advise by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually chlorine in drinking water probably is a bad thing. That's why so many places have switched over to oxygen. Chlorine is just better than not doing anything ... but lots of chlorine residues are damaging. Not at damaging as, say, cholera, but still damaging in a minor way over the long term. Oxygen seems to be much safer.

      (I didn't hear his rant, so I have no idea whether he was being reasonable or not. My guess is not. But just because he was being stupid and unreasonable doesn't mean that there wasn't a valid argument under there.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Alternative health advise by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "And by the way, chlorine in water is not just the single biggest public health improvement of the 20th century. It is by far the biggest health improvement in the entire history of the human species"

      Same thing really, but I would argue the 19th century sewer works and the germ theory that inspired the use of chlorine were just as important.

      No dude, Bill Maher is not a smart guy at all....He was rather funny as a comedian

      Critical thinking is a skill, intelligence is inate. Successful stand up comedians are ALL "smart", if you doubt that then try earning a buck making people laugh.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Alternative health advise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without chlorinated water, all water will be infectious. It doesn't matter if you wash your hands if you're using dirty water.

      Sanitary sewer systems probably ought to be up there above hand washing and chlorinated water, though. With large feces particles in the water even chlorine wouldn't do a great deal of good.

    6. Re:Alternative health advise by raddan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The statistics are hard to make out, but it seems that doctors were more likely to kill you than cure your for a large portion of history

      You might enjoy reading Trick or Treatment-- they cover this topic in some detail. You right, statistics are hard to come by, mainly because no one was keeping statistics at the time. Florence Nightengale changed that.

      And water had nothing to do with that.

      Clean water and disease/infection are two sides of the same coin. In fact, Florence Nightengale herself worked over the course of her life to show that things like water quality, open sewers, air pollution, and nutrition had dramatic effects of the health of a population.

    7. Re:Alternative health advise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Without chlorinated water, all water will be infectious. It doesn't matter if you wash your hands if you're using dirty water.

      It doesn't matter if drinking water is dirty if you wash with alcohol.

    8. Re:Alternative health advise by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Chlorine is shitty and doesn't work well anyway; People who live close to the point of introduction get overchlorinated, while people at the far ends of the water system get underchlorinated, with the chlorine having broken down into chloramines by the time it gets to their tap; less effective at killing stuff in water, more harmful to you. There are other options, and we should probably be using them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Alternative health advise by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      Your post is correct about a lot of stuff (as far as history and discovery channel have taught me anyway :P) but as I understand it leeches are coming back into medical science as an effective means for filtering blood-borne diseases, so they obviously do have some kind of medicinal effect in at least a few cases.

  21. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "then IMO Bill is culpable"
    Why? If someone is stupid enough to take medical advice from a comedian/political satirist then any negative outcome of that is just natural selection. It's not like he's pretending to be a licensed doctor.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  22. Standard safety equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On construction sites: hard hat, steel-toed boots, and when appropriate, gloves and safety glasses

    At hospitals and other health-care facilities: immunization for the kinds of diseases that are likely to come through the door, especially those with the potential for arrival en masse.

    Of course it is within your rights to refuse. But no safety equipment? No, you aren't allowed on-site in the areas where the relevant hazards exist. If that precludes you working, tough.

    Seems reasonable to me. It's still a choice, even if it is a harsh one. But anyone who chose to work in health care should have realized years ago what might sometimes be necessary to do the job.

    1. Re:Standard safety equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On construction sites: hard hat, steel-toed boots, and when appropriate, gloves and safety glasses

      At hospitals and other health-care facilities: immunization for the kinds of diseases that are likely to come through the door, especially those with the potential for arrival en masse.

      Telling someone they have to wear a helmet (or surgical mask, gas mask, hazmat suit) is wholly different than telling them they must be injected with something.
      At the very least, you can take the helmet off at the end of the day.

    2. Re:Standard safety equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard hat, steel-toed boots, gloves and safety glasses can all be removed at the end of the shift. A vaccine is permanent.

    3. Re:Standard safety equipment by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, hard hats and steel toed boots etc. have never had unfortunate lasting side effects and not even a single report of making other injuries more likely.

    4. Re:Standard safety equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On construction sites: hard hat, steel-toed boots, and when appropriate, gloves and safety glasses

      At hospitals and other health-care facilities: immunization for the kinds of diseases that are likely to come through the door, especially those with the potential for arrival en masse.

      Of course it is within your rights to refuse. But no safety equipment? No, you aren't allowed on-site in the areas where the relevant hazards exist. If that precludes you working, tough.

      Seems reasonable to me. It's still a choice, even if it is a harsh one. But anyone who chose to work in health care should have realized years ago what might sometimes be necessary to do the job.

      what are the long term health effects of hard hats, steel-toed boots, gloves and safety glasses?
      There are documented possible short and long term side-effects with the flu vaccine as with any medical proceedure and treatment. Not that 'm saying not to get the flu vaccine, just that its a little more complicated than this makes it seem. I think it is and should remain an individual decision. Obviously those who work in healthcare will have a higher exposure/transmission risk, and this should be considered in the decision, but I don't believe that any medical treatment should be made mandatory against the threat of termination.

    5. Re:Standard safety equipment by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Much like modern flu vaccines.

    6. Re:Standard safety equipment by Guru+Jim · · Score: 1

      Wearing a hard hat is not going to increase your chances of getting hit on the head. One of the hospitals I worked in 'offered' flu shots and by offered I mean strongly offered. I said no, because I didn't think it would do any good. I was meant to have a meeting with the charge nurse the next shift I was in about it, except he ending up sick with 3 days off with "flu like symptoms" after the flu shot. Needless to say the meeting never happened. Immunization is very important in some circumstances, annual flu is probably one that can be skipped for some of us.

    7. Re:Standard safety equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can take the safety equipment off when you leave the construction site. Unfortunately, immunization does not work that way.

    8. Re:Standard safety equipment by lag10 · · Score: 1

      Actually, steel-toed boots can be a liability if something really heavy happens to fall on your foot. I don't recall the exact weight required, but the steel can either significantly warp or snap and potentially sever your toes.

      On the other hand, you'd just have severely smashed feet if you were not wearing such boots.

    9. Re:Standard safety equipment by sjames · · Score: 1

      That is a much more contentious point. While it is clearly an improvement over the vaccines of the past, there is a novel element to it each year (otherwise why get another one, vaccines last longer than a year) and so while it is similar to a vaccine with a track record for safety, the actual vaccine you get has zero track record itself.

      There have, in fact, been reports of flu vaccine leaving you more vulnerable to other strains. I have never heard of a hardhat attracting heavy objects to your chest.

      Hard hats and steel toed boots have decades of safety record and a much less complex set of interactions that unexpected results could come from. None of those interactions happen simply from wearing them, only from situations that would have been a problem anyway.

    10. Re:Standard safety equipment by sjames · · Score: 1

      Arguably the degree of smashed at that weight would likely cause you to need your toes amputated anyway or leave them in a less than useful condition.

      Of course, none of that happens at all if your toes don't encounter a heavy object. Bad effects from a flu shot can happen even if you never encounter the flu.

  23. What you don't know by iCantSpell · · Score: 0, Troll

    The following is a list of some of the very nasty side effects that the vaccine package insert admits to.....

    *Local injection site reactions (including pain, pain limiting limb movement, redness, swelling, warmth, ecchymosis, induration)
    *Hot flashes/flushes
    *Chills
    *Fever
    *Malaise
    *Shivering
    *Fatigue
    *Asthenia
    *Facial edema.
    *Immune system disorders
    *Hypersensitivity reactions (including throat and/or mouth edema)
    *In rare cases, hypersensitivity reactions have lead to anaphylactic shock and death
    *Cardiovascular disorders
    *Vasculitis (in rare cases with transient renal involvement)
    *Syncope shortly after vaccination
    *Digestive disorders
    *Diarrhea
    *Nausea
    *Vomiting
    *Abdominal pain.
    *Blood and lymphatic disorders
    *Local lymphadenopathy
    *Transient thrombocytopenia.
    *Metabolic and nutritional disorders
    *Loss of appetite.
    *Arthralgia
    *Myalgia
    *Myasthenia
    *Nervous system disorders
    *Headache
    *Dizziness
    *Neuralgia
    *Paraesthesia
    *Febrile convulsions
    *Guillain-Barré Syndrome
    *Myelitis (including encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis)
    *Neuropathy (including neuritis)
    *Paralysis (including Bell's Palsy)
    *Respiratory disorders
    *Dyspnea
    *Chest pain
    *Cough
    *Pharyngitis
    *Rhinitis
    *Stevens-Johnson syndrome
    *Pruritus
    *Urticaria
    *Rash (including non-specific, maculopapular, and vesiculobulbous).

    - http://www.fluscam.com/Vaccine_Package_Inserts_files/Novartis_A-H1N1_2009_Monvalent_VaccinePackageInsert_BasedOn1980Approvalfor%20Fluvirin_UCM182242.pdf

    http://www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2009_news/09-154.htm - "Mercury limits suspended for H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine to improve access" (bullshit, but ok)

    FYI, squalene, mercury, adjuvants(look it up), cancer virus cell base = your H1N1 Vaccine

    Die slow, and a happy new year to all.

    1. Re:What you don't know by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      Most of those don't actually sound half as bad as a good case of the flu. And you hand out enough doses over enough time and there will be a few weird associations that pop up by chance. One question: "cancer virus cell base = your H1N1 Vaccine" -- What the fuck are you talking about?

    2. Re:What you don't know by iCantSpell · · Score: 1

      Cancer in vaccine http://rabbitholenews.blogspot.com/2008/05/merck-admits-cancer-virus-in-vaccines.html

      And to I honestly don't think you thought about what you just posted. How is being paralyzed, and brain damage better than the flu?

    3. Re:What you don't know by iCantSpell · · Score: 1

      Clearly you didn't read the bitch. http://www.liveleak.com/e/327_1195303011

    4. Re:What you don't know by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Clearly you didn't read the part where I said that I don't accept the citation of bullshit blogs as evidence. You appear to subscribe to the theory that if it's written on the Internet it must be true. Moron.

    5. Re:What you don't know by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 2

      cancer virus

      Virus - meaning of "agent that causes infectious disease"
      Cancer is not infectious, ergo cancer is not a virus

      This just in, tin foil hats cause the following:

      * Stupid inane comments
      * Uninformed decisions
      * Leaping to conclusions
      * Paranoia
      * Annoia
      * Repetitive posting in the hope that it won't be marked as a troll eventually
      * Trolling
      * A sub 50 IQ
      * The inability to reason

      You do realise that the source that you have cited is a website called "Fluscam" right? When making a reasoned and informed decision on anything you must, I repeat MUST, consult an unbiased source. Visiting "fluscam" for any information regarding influenza vaccines would be akin to asking a creationist how old the world is - you are not going to get an informed, intelligent answer.

      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
    6. Re:What you don't know by RedSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice try, but squalene and other adjuvants are forbidden in U.S. vaccines by the FDA. With regards to the mercury, if it's that big of a concern to you, I hope you are on a tuna-free diet because there is more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in the thiomersal of any vaccine available in the U.S..

      As for your scary-sounding list, yes, it's a list of possible adverse effects that a person may experience - but it is not an indication of likelihood. No medication is without risk, but in general, people take the medication because the benefits outweigh the risks by a significant margin.

      To put it in a grossly exaggerated, probably flawed slashdot-style analogy, the documented possible side effects of flying in a plane are motion sickness, legionnaire's disease, food poisoning, lice infestation, mental anguish, deep vein thrombosis, alcohol abuse, insomnia, halitosis, delayed departure, poverty, or becoming part of a suicide mission that turns your plane into a bomb. But more likely than any of those you'll get to your destination with very little lasting impact on your personal health or safety - as long as you remember that stupid 4-1-1 rule.

    7. Re:What you don't know by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Some cancers are transmitted by viruses. Feline leukemia for instance. And HPV raises the chance of many types of cancers.

      The rest of your post is spot on though.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:What you don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cancer is not infectious"

      At the current time this is what most medical experts believe, but you seem to believe it will always be true, and that's
      not necessarily the case.

      Medical experts used to believe malaria was caused by "bad air". We now know it is caused by one of several possible
      parasites, the best-known being plasmodium falciparum.

      So much for the certainty of "medical science".

    9. Re:What you don't know by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      if it's that big of a concern to you, I hope you are on a tuna-free diet because there is more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in the thiomersal of any vaccine available in the U.S..

      This is a stupid argument because:

      1. Nobody is forcing you to eat tuna.
      2. Tuna isn't being injected directly into your bloodstream.

      As for your scary-sounding list, yes, it's a list of possible adverse effects that a person may experience - but it is not an indication of likelihood.

      They can't give you an indication of likelihood that you will get H1N1, or how likely it is to kill you, or how likely you are to demonstrate any or all available symptoms, either.

      No medication is without risk, but in general, people take the medication because the benefits outweigh the risks by a significant margin.

      Big Pharma does its best to prevent us from finding out about the scope of possible risks, downplaying them at every possible turn, so it is very difficult to get any good information on this type of issue.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:What you don't know by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When making a reasoned and informed decision on anything you must, I repeat MUST, consult an unbiased source.

      There is no unbiased source available. Our only option is to play multiple differently-biased sources against one another. Remember when Elsevier got caught publishing whole bogus journals for Merck? It happened this year. You can NOT trust the "peer-reviewed" literature unless you personally know the peers reviewing it, and know that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy. I've been lied to and fucked around by medical professionals too many times to just accept that since there's an MD or a PHD on the front of a paper that it must be true.

      Show me an "unbiased" source, and I'll show you a reason not to trust them. Seriously! Let's try it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:What you don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but squalene and other adjuvants are forbidden in U.S. vaccines by the FDA.

      Yes, but they are not in Europe. It is still a concern.

      With regards to the mercury, if it's that big of a concern to you, I hope you are on a tuna-free diet because there is more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in the thiomersal of any vaccine available in the U.S..

      Sure about that? First of it's a ridiculous argument, indeed the level of mercury in tuna are alarmingly high, it doesn't make it right. And regardless, you would have to eat a heck of a lot of tuna to equal even one flu shot. Let me demonstrate and I will give references. The Flu vaccine contains 25mcg of mercury (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/dosage.htm) this is the seasonal flu link, the h1n1 contains the same amount. Oh sure , you can request the single dose without the mercury, but unless you do, your probably getting the multi-dose. The safe level of mercury is 0.1 mcg per kg body weight, (http://www.gotmercury.org/article.php?id=1169) So a 68kg (~150lb) person safe limit is 6.8mcg per day. So you just shot almost 4 times the safe limit for an average adult directly into your blood stream. Worse the age group for fluzone is 6months or older... a large 6-7m infant might be 10kg as a high avg, that 1mcg safe limit... great you just shot up your infant with 25 times the safe levels. This is on top most people already being near or above the safe daily limits taken in from water and foods. Looking at (http://www.csgnetwork.com/hgqtycalc.html) , eating a can of tuna for the same 150lb person a week is just slightly higher than what is considered safe levels. Don't forget children are to get 3 shots, 1 seasonal and 2 h1n1... I'm not even going to get into what effects that kind of dosage could have on a fetus, and pregnant women are first in line for the h1n1 vac. But it's perfectly safe they say... even though they are not required to do any sort of long term testing, so I guess it's perfectly fine that you can't remember you own name anymore some years down the line. I suppose at that point, it will never even cross your mind about all the mercury you shot into your system with all those seasonal flu shots... because you mind will be gone by then... But it was worth not having to deal with the sniffles for a few days right?

    12. Re:What you don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't inject tuna into my son's blood stream. In fact, I don't even feed him tuna yet, and he's almost 4. Why would the CDC tell me to inject more mercury DIRECTLY INTO HIS BLOODSTREAM than the FDA says he should consume?

    13. Re:What you don't know by RedSteve · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice try, but squalene and other adjuvants are forbidden in U.S. vaccines by the FDA.

      Yes, but they are not in Europe. It is still a concern.

      Given that the article was about a U.S. hospital, and the bulk of the concerns in the comments were about U.S. vaccination policy, the fact that adjuvants are allowed in Europe really didn't warrant comment. Those vaccines aren't coming here unless the pandemic worsens significantly and there is no way to manufacture additional adjuvant-free vaccine.

      With regards to the mercury, if it's that big of a concern to you, I hope you are on a tuna-free diet because there is more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in the thiomersal of any vaccine available in the U.S..

      Sure about that? First of it's a ridiculous argument, indeed the level of mercury in tuna are alarmingly high, it doesn't make it right. And regardless, you would have to eat a heck of a lot of tuna to equal even one flu shot.

      The FDA lists the mean methylmercury content of canned albacore tuna to be .353ppm. That means 6 ounces (170g) of tuna contains approximately 59.5mcg of methylmercury, or slightly more than a 1mg dose of flu vaccine.

      The point IS salient becuase despite that level, the FDA has indicated that tuna is safe for children to eat up to 6 ounces per week.

      Let me demonstrate and I will give references. The Flu vaccine contains 25mcg of mercury (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/dosage.htm) this is the seasonal flu link, the h1n1 contains the same amount. Oh sure , you can request the single dose without the mercury, but unless you do, your probably getting the multi-dose. The safe level of mercury is 0.1 mcg per kg body weight, (http://www.gotmercury.org/article.php?id=1169) So a 68kg (~150lb) person safe limit is 6.8mcg per day.

      Kind of. What you're quoting is a reference dose, and it's a rate with a time component, not just a simple level. The RfD that you're quoting is the EPA's reference dose, and yes, it's .01mcg/kg body weight per day. So on one day, your 68kg person would ingest a higher than recommended amount, but if the person avoid tuna melts for the next week, his reference dose is back within the EPA's recommendation.

      It's also worth noting that there are several reference doses issued by different agencies; the EPA's is the most conservative. The World Health Organization has the highest reference dose of 1.6mcg/kg/week of body weight.

      So you just shot almost 4 times the safe limit for an average adult directly into your blood stream.

      As a point of clarification, vaccines are injected into the muscle, not directly into the blood stream.

      Worse the age group for fluzone is 6months or older... a large 6-7m infant might be 10kg as a high avg, that 1mcg safe limit... great you just shot up your infant with 25 times the safe levels.

      Of course, that concern is why they also make the vaccine available in preservative-free doses. It's also why pediatricians will discuss the risks and benefits with parents.

      This is on top most people already being near or above the safe daily limits taken in from water and foods. Looking at (http://www.csgnetwork.com/hgqtycalc.html) , eating a can of tuna for the same 150lb person a week is just slightly higher than what is considered safe levels. Don't forget children are to get 3 shots, 1 seasonal and 2 h1n1...

      With the exception of broken lightbulbs, thermometers, and dental fillings, you've just outlined the major vectors f

  24. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sterility from a cheap shot? Sign me up! It would save me the cash from that I'm paying to get the snipped on the 30th.

  25. Dumbass by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing wrong with hand washing. But... it sounds like you're a germ-o-phobic dumbass. Where's you're evidence that flu shots compromise your immune system? Links to the weekly world news don't count.

    1. Re:Dumbass by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do your research - repeated injections of foreign proteins (which is what flu shots are) are implicated in several auto-immune diseases, both in animals and humans.

      Some vaccines make sense. A vaccine for a rapidly-mutating, fragile/unstable virus like the flu just doesn't make sense when we have other methods that would improve health, not just against flu, but against the common cold and other problems.

      Foremost - teach kids (and adults) to stop picking their noses and either eating it or wiping it somewhere, and to wash their hands.

      You people stopped at the red light, digging for nose gold, then looking ahead while your finger migrates to your mouth seemingly of its' own accord - I hope your airbag goes off and shoves your finger through your nasal septum and out your eyeball - from the inside. You're adults - start acting like adults.

    2. Re:Dumbass by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do your research

      No - you made the random claim, you convince me.

      Foremost - teach kids (and adults) to stop picking their noses and either eating it or wiping it somewhere, and to wash their hands.

      Again with the nose picking. I think you are suffering from a neurosis.

      You people stopped at the red light, digging for nose gold, then looking ahead while your finger migrates to your mouth seemingly of its' own accord - I hope your airbag goes off and shoves your finger through your nasal septum and out your eyeball - from the inside. You're adults - start acting like adults.

      I'd see a therapist about your unhealthy obsession with other people picking their noses. It isn't healthy.

    3. Re:Dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing wrong with hand washing. But... it sounds like you're a germ-o-phobic dumbass. Where's you're evidence that flu shots compromise your immune system? Links to the weekly world news don't count.

      Sounds like you're an idiot who doesn't know how to google.

    4. Re:Dumbass by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't have time to google bullshit. You make the stupid claim, you carry the burden of proof.

    5. Re:Dumbass by tomhudson · · Score: 0

      Well, seeing as I'm in the group who already has life-long immunity to all known H1N1 variants because of earlier exposure to similar live strains way back when, I really don't give a shit what you think. No shot for ME :-)

      And seeing as I've only had the flu ONCE (and that was because I knew I was surrounded by carriers, and didn't get enough sleep, etc), and I survived, no big deal, get plenty of rest, drink, eat, relax, read, I'm not really all that worried about either H1N1 or any other flu, for that matter.

      Add to that WHO admits mutated polio vaccine causes polio, and I'd recommend most people stick with tried-and-true vaccines for smallpox, measles, and rubella, but for the flu virus, which is too fragile, mutating too fast, if you're not in the highest-risk group (eg: fat slobs, kids 6 months to 5 years, pregnant women) skip the shot, and use ordinary preventative precautions that work, since you're not in a high-risk group anyway.

    6. Re:Dumbass by evilviper · · Score: 1

      No - you made the random claim, you convince me.

      He made a statement. It's no more a "claim" than your assumption that flu vaccinations DON'T cause any harm... And you certainly can't back-up your claim either.

      I wouldn't waste my time googling something so straight-forward for you to find, either. I will, however, point you to my previous post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1400169&threshold=3&commentsort=1&mode=nested&cid=29707043

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Dumbass by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing with sophistical teenagers.

  26. Re:Why is it you can't sue. - are you serious? by iCantSpell · · Score: 1, Interesting
  27. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by Kohath · · Score: 1

    It's been too cold and rainy to go out at night lately.

  28. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! Let's live in a country where speaking your mind can get you sued and or incarcerated. Way to land of the Free.

  29. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    But you think people should pay attention to Bill Frist, noted video diagnostic specialist and cat torturer, the guy who thought it would be OK to interfere with the Terry Shiavo case without 1) examining the patient or 2) even being a neurologist? In my view anybody who listens to either of these idiots on matters of medicine is a fool.

  30. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

    Your not paranoid man. They really are out to get you!

    You know, THEM. Thats right, THOSE PEOPLE.

    And dude, that book does not say what that web page claims it says. Don't be suckered by irresponsible conservative politicians using conspiracy theories to stir up the whackjobs against public health.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  31. Or they could lie about it and keep their jobs. by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    Sociopaths could keep their jobs by falsifying their vaccination records and spreading the flu to all of the people that are supposedly protected by the shots. This is always a possibility if jobs are threatened. With tens of millions of vaccines, seems like an awful lot to accurately keep track of, especially without a health plan...perhaps we should combine the effort with the US Census as well as stimulus to the unemployed. That should be extra fun.

  32. Seasonal vs pandemic = two different strategies by uassholes · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The most vulnerable need seasonal flu inoculations. The strategy for a pandemic is still under debate.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that when the H1N1 flu vaccine is ready, the first people to get it should be children and young adults between age 6 months and 24 years. That strategy is expected to result in 59 million swine flu cases, 139,000 deaths and cost $67 billion. But there is a better way, according to researchers from Yale and Clemson universities. Flushot If vaccine doses were first distributed to children between age 5 and 19 and to adults age 30 to 39, there would be 15 million fewer infections and 31,000 fewer deaths, write mathematician Jan Medlock and epidemiologist Alison Galvani in Friday's edition of the journal Science. Their strategy would also save $14 billion, they calculate.

  33. Incorrect TomHudson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have had only two seasonal flu shots.

    Flu Shots work by introducing a dead flu virus or small amount of flu virus to your system. The immune system then counters this threat by developing its own anti-virus immunity.

    This immunity can be temporary or can last a while.

    Although one can was their hands multiple times a day and use sanitizing solutions Ill take the sickness now and know my body is stronger for it. Enjoy living a life of fear and wasting money on stupid crap.

  34. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a healthy skeptic. In both senses of the word. Never had a flu shot, because I don't buy into the hype - I do my research when something doesn't make sense, and this whole H1N1 crap has been exaggerated from the beginning.

    "151 dead from Swine Flu in Mexico", on recounting, turned out to be 6.

    turns out that a lot of the numbers from around the world were similarly inflated. Also, people "coming down with H1N1" isn't the same as people dying from it. Millions die from the flu every year. Why the big panic for a flu that is no worse than average? Money!!!

    Get people panicking, and you can profit from it. Ask DHS, Blackwater, etc.

    I'll stick with preventative measures, as opposed to a shot that may or may not be effective this season

  35. Then, why FluMist? by megamerican · · Score: 1

    The insert on FluMist, which is being given to all healthcare workers states:

    FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days.

    Why would it say that? Since it is not a killed virus, it can stay in the nasal passage for 3 weeks and easily shed and infect others. Health care workers spend a lot of their time with people who have compromised immune systems. I thought the point of vaccination was to not spread it, yet they'll be doing that by using this vaccine. Many hospitals around the country have recognized this and won't be giving FluMist to their workers.

    Not only that, but it is completely pointless to vaccinate now. Most predict the flu season to peak soon, much earlier than normal. It takes close to a month for a vaccine to give you immunity. During that time you can easily catch and spread the flu.

    --
    If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    1. Re:Then, why FluMist? by carld · · Score: 1

      Citation please.

    2. Re:Then, why FluMist? by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      Cite please. It sounds like you're full of shite.

    3. Re:Then, why FluMist? by RedSteve · · Score: 1

      It is true that the flu mist is an attenuated vaccine. But it is also NOT given to all healthcare workers.

      The major medical center with which I am most familiar is giving flu vaccine injections (NOT flu mist) to caregivers who work in the clinics with severely immuno-compromised patients - hematology/oncology, bone marrow transplant, critical care, etc. Flu mist is given to those who either have little patient contact (IT employees, maintenance, lab researchers, etc.) or who work with otherwise healthy patients (psychiatry, community clinics, etc.)

      I also understand that this is the standard procedure for most medical facilities, from small private practices to major medical centers.

    4. Re:Then, why FluMist? by hether · · Score: 1

      For the regular FluMist:
      http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm123743.pdf
      "FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days."

      For the new H1N1 mist, here is the insert:
      http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182406.pdf

      The odds of transmitting the virus after receiving the nasal spray are about 2.5 percent.

      I totally agree that if you're planning to get vaccinated that waiting a week or two for the shot is a better option. From what I've read most hospitals are having their staff vaccinated against the seasonal flu now, and they have a few more weeks to get the H1N1 vax, so most if not all should be able to wait and avoid the mist.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  36. Re:Captain TwatObvious by sonnejw0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What do medical qualifications have to do with the fact that the seasonal flu vaccine is produced according to a prediction about epitopes that may or may not be present on the newly mutated form of the virus? A flu shot does not mean you won't get the flu, it means your body will react to certain antigens it encounters due to previous exposure. That's no guarantee that the flu virus will mutate as predicted. These predictions are made a year in advance. Try predicting the weather a year in advance, maybe no one would get rained on?

  37. Mods by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If everyone had the flu shot, there would be no more flu.
    If more people have the flu shot, there will be less flu than there is now.
    Absolutely not true.

    How did the GP get +5 informative?

    Sure an ounce prevention is worth a pound of cure but the GP does not seem to recognise vaccines as prevention. My guess is the GP is a fit and arrogant man who is way too young to remeber polio or smallpox. I'm sure he will change his opinions after he wakes up one morning and experiences his first bout of pneumonia.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Mods by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      He doesn't remember it because we ENDED polio. Good job proving his point. Polio cases are a small SMALL percentage of what they used to be and restricted to only poor countries.

    2. Re:Mods by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Oh man I failed reading comprehension, missed the last line GP said which made your argument look insane. @_@ GJ proving your own point. And not being insane. I rightly expect to be modded into oblivion now.

    3. Re:Mods by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      First, there's this study - flu vaccines may make you twice as likely to contract swine flu. A sample size of 13 million people is nothing to sneeze at. It's raised enough red flags that provinces are changing their recommendations.

      Some vaccines make sense. Sure, smallpox and polio. They're proven. But not swine flu, and especially if you're not in an at-risk group (and most people who aren't fat slobs aren't). It doesn't make sense to have people who are at low risk get a shot.

      Those at risk are the obese, and those under 65 with other chronic health care problems that severely impair their lives, kids 6 months to 5 years, and pregnant women. Pretty much everyone else is low-risk.

      To show just how ineffective the swine flu vaccine can be expected to be, if you have already had H1N1, that's no guarantee you won't get it again. Exposure doesn't confer immunity. Different viruses mean different results. We were able to deal with smallpox effectively through vaccines - flu is a different beast. Rapidly mutating and fragile, unlike smallpox, which is basically unchanged over the decades.

      Anyway, if you're not obese, don't have a severe health problem that compromises your day-to-day living, aren't pregnant or between 6 months and 5 years of age, why buy into the panic?

    4. Re:Mods by bsane · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rapidly mutating

      This is _exactly_ why we need to all get some immunity to H1N1 now- the vast majority of the population has no previous exposure to H1N1. Luckily whats currently circulating isn't that bad. If it mutated to a more deadly variety- and there was _no_ natural immunity and _no_ artificial immunity (via the vaccination) then things would be bad.

      Only in danger if you're a 'fat slob'? Then you're a fucking idiot.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

      'Most of its victims were healthy young adults'

      'global mortality rate from the 1918/1919 pandemic is not known, but it is estimated that 10% to 20%'

      I'm not panicking, but I'm going to take my 1 in a million chance of negative side effects and get the shot- not just for myself, but in the hope the world never sees 1918 again. We have the means to prevent it, its cheap, its simple, and it'd be a fucking travesty if morons like you were the vector for another occurrence.

    5. Re:Mods by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since it's rapidly mutating, you CAN'T be guaranteed to "get immunity" to it from a targeted vaccine, duh! and the natural progression is to mutate from more to less lethal, not the other way around.

      'global mortality rate from the 1918/1919 pandemic is not known, but it is estimated that 10% to 20%'

      What a bullshit way to purposefully mis-quote: You left out the most important part:

      but it is estimated that 10% to 20% of those who were infected died.

      And even that isn't backed up further in the article, when it gives a much lower "lower bound" even among the infected:

      the unusually severe disease killed between 2 and 20% of those infected

      The fact that the numbers are so uncertain shows that they're totally unreliable.

      Also, flu didn't directly kill most of those who died

      The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection

      We have these neat things called antibiotics, so most of the deaths would have been avoided today. We also have better living standards than the people in war-torn Europe.

      Also, if H1N1 follows the path of the 1918 pandemic, it should mutate to a much less virulent strain in November. Of course, the drug cos will claim responsibility, but it's just the nature of the beast.

      Most people aren't at any more risk from H1N1 than from any other flu. The at-risk are fat slobs, those between 6 months and 5 years, pregnant women, and those with chronic debilitating diseases. Pretty much everyone else is low-risk.

      So yes, if you're a fat swine, fear the aptly-named swine flu.

      And no, the current vaccine is not guaranteed to confer complete immunity. It imparts a partial immunity, over a short term, because it's not that great a vaccine. Even if you had H1N1 last year, you're not necessarily safe. However, if you were around prior to 1957, you've probably got a better natural immunity because you've already been exposed to a similar but more virulent, real live flu virus. (and lets face it H1N1 isn't all that virulent. The numbers have been exaggerated from the beginning. Starting with the 151 "deaths" in Mexico turned out to be 6. Most people who get H1N1 won't die, same as any other flu. Even governments have admitted that they don't test cases as being H1N1 before reporting them as H1N1, they just report anything suspicious as H1N1. Fucking retarded, but it means bigger budgets).

      So get off your indignant moral high horse - you're fear-mongering, and the drug companies are using you. Or you're a fat slob ... (and yes, the connection between mortality and obesity is easy enough to find). the original is now gone (probably removed by some fat slob), but here's google's cached copy

      Reuters Health
      Saturday, July 11, 2009

      Obesity emerges as risk factor in severe flu
      By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People who are obese but otherwise healthy may be at special risk of severe complications and death from the new H1N1 swine flu virus, U.S. researchers reported on Friday.

      They described the cases of 10 patients at a Michigan hospital who were so ill they had to be put on ventilators. Three died. Nine of the 10 were obese, seven were severely obese, including two of the three who died.

      The study, published in advance in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's weekly report on death and disease, also suggests doctors can safely double the usual dose of oseltamivir, Roche AG's antiviral drug sold under the Tamiflu brand name.

      "What this suggests is that there can be severe complications associated with this virus infection, especially in severely obese patients," said CDC virus expert Dr. Tim Uyeki.

      "And five of these patients had ... evidence of blood clots in the lungs

    6. Re:Mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not totally insane since he quoted multiple people in one quote and said GP.

    7. Re:Mods by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not panicking, but I'm going to take my 1 in a million chance of negative side effects and get the shot- not just for myself, but in the hope the world never sees 1918 again.

      The odds of complications are much more than 1 in a million, and so far less than 1 in a million people on the planet has died. If this thing were as deadly as they want us to believe it is, then lots more people would be dead already given the increased transmission rate. You are panicking. If it mutates to a more deadly strain, the vaccine may or may not even be effective against it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Mods by yabos · · Score: 1

      A majority of the people who died in the 1918 flu did not die from the flu. They died from secondary pneumonia which was bacterial. Today we have such things as antibiotics which work for 99% of pneumonia cases. If we had antibiotics back then, it's arguable that the death toll would not have been any worse than it is with the flu now.

    9. Re:Mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it mutated to a more deadly variety- and there was _no_ natural immunity and _no_ artificial immunity (via the vaccination) then things would be bad.

      ....and the regular seasonal flu could mutate into a flying dragon too.

      'Most of its victims were healthy young adults'

      Yes, lets only quote select parts of the article:

      The influenza strain was unusual in that this pandemic killed many young adults and otherwise healthy victims; typical influenzas kill mostly weak individuals, such as infants (aged 0–2 years), the elderly, and the immunocompromised. Older adults may have had some immunity from the earlier Russian flu pandemic of 1889.

    10. Re:Mods by slew · · Score: 1

      If it mutated to a more deadly variety- and there was _no_ natural immunity and _no_ artificial immunity (via the vaccination) then things would be bad.

      ....and the regular seasonal flu could mutate into a flying dragon too.

      Or, perhaps the regular seasonal flu could mutate into a pandemic flu. Perhaps you aren't aware, but there is really nothing different between a "regular" flu and a "pandemic" flu other than the fact that it mutated into a particularly virulant strain. Just in case you need a clarification, virulent means rapidly spreading. The current novel H1N1 is observed to be virulant because it seems to have out-competed the normal crop of flus out there and also seems to have survived the normally dormant summer season.

      On the other hand other, any flu (seasonal or pandemic) can mutate through antigenic drift/shift in a form that is is more or less virulent, cause illness of longer or shorter duration (because of the difficulty of the immune system of counteracting it either because of its novelty the health of the host, or the specific genetic makeup of the virus), or more or less compromising of the respritory system of the host (similar reasons as the duration).

      Perhaps everyone is exercising an overabundance of caution (or paranoia), however, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you or that it's impossible or improbable ;^)

      Many people thought it was improbably that the current economic meltdown would happen. But it did. Some people organized their investment portfolios against this scenario buying euros and oil futures, some people just thought the market was going up forever and leveraged themselves in real-estate, some people took a position in the middle that hedged against some risk, but exposed them to some upside as well. I think that is an appropriate analogy. I'm not stockpiling food and gold and moving into Montana/Idaho to wait out the envitable collapse of civilation due to the H1N1 pandemic, however, I don't have my head in the sand either and being a pandemic-denier. I'll probably just get a shot because it's prudent and not overreacting and the risk seems low. Seems like a good idea to me.

    11. Re:Mods by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      now- the vast majority of the population has no previous exposure to H1N1.

      Really? You mean the vast majority of the world's population has been born in the past 33 years!? Wow! That'd be an amazing fact. If only it were true.

    12. Re:Mods by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      BTW, you might want to check out the latest stats (search for them yourself - you'll be able to sift through more info that way and make your own independent conclusions) - almost everyone who's died from H1N1 had underlying health problems, many that involved the immune system.

      In other words, it's just culling the sick and weak. If you're healthy, just follow the common-sense advice on washing your hands, etc., as described here and elsewhere.

      Two interesting points to ponder:

      1. those who have had flu shots in previous years are twice as likely to get H1N1. It appears previous flu shots allowed people to generate antibodies that aren't all that effective, as compared to older people who were exposed to the '57 flu.
      2. the higher-risk-of-death group includes both the morbidly obese and the just plain obese. While it's funny that that the swine flu is attacking people who eat like pigs, this brings up another question: did excess HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) in the diet help compromise immune systems in some unknown way, because non-morbid obesity shouldn't have this result (we expected it of the super-sized, but not the plain ordinary extra-large or double-serving sized)?
  38. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by Kohath · · Score: 1

    What politicians? There are no politicians involved. I just want John Holdren fired because he's not worthy of being in a non-totalitarian government. If he were fired, it would be a sign that the Obama government isn't irredeemably despotic.

    The book clearly does say what that web site quotes it as saying.

  39. Re:Why is it you can't sue. - are you serious? by iCantSpell · · Score: 0

    How the fuck is the parent considered flaimbait? Clearly someone didn't read or their on someones payroll.

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1400169&cid=29706953

  40. Re:Captain TwatObvious by masshuu · · Score: 0

    according to my mom, who is an RN and damn good at her job, is that drug company's help fund and write the medical text books schools use.

    --
    O.o
  41. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    aren't doctors taught to endorse the drug of the day or does each doctor personally do his own research on the drug and they all came to the same conclusion?

    I notice you got modded troll, but in fact you're right. Big Pharma and the insurance industry dictate terms and standards of care to doctors. People are too stupid/brainwashed to see it, and then they get angry when someone points out the truth. So in effect most people are actually self-righteous about their ignorance. Graduating from medical school in the U.S. primarily just qualifies a person to be a good salesman for Big Pharma.

  42. Re:Why is it you can't sue. - are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, you know, you're just an idiot.

  43. We're talking about a hospital, by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    A place where sick people kind of _have_ to hang around, many with immune systems that are depressed by illness or suppressed by medications. Decreasing the likelihood that staff, who are there most of the week, will transmit virulent illnesses to at-risk patients is a good thing.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
    1. Re:We're talking about a hospital, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A place where sick people kind of _have_ to hang around, many with immune systems that are depressed by illness or suppressed by medications. Decreasing the likelihood that staff, who are there most of the week, will transmit virulent illnesses to at-risk patients is a good thing.

      Here is a better idea.. stop Obama from implementing healthcare reform and allow the health insurance companies to exclude all diseases (or all policy beneficiaries from becoming patients). Suddenly the risk of picking up a disease in Hospital will recede to near the same as most other places!!!

  44. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by rcolbert · · Score: 1

    I suppose all this goes to show is that you can torture cats and still have the correct stance on vaccination. I'm not pro-Frist by any stretch. I'm pro-vaccination.

  45. supply demand by clandonald · · Score: 0

    Add to that the fact that vaccines are a low margin product - per the supply/demand curve. Really? Didn't the government award contracts to the makers of the swine flu virus worth billions? How is there a low profit margin? Especially when drug companies have no liability for their product? How many other industries are exempt from liability by the government?

    --
    The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    1. Re:supply demand by iCantSpell · · Score: 1

      There's 300 million people in the US. The government orderd 600 million vaccines at $20 a pop.

    2. Re:supply demand by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Didn't the government award contracts to the makers of the swine flu virus worth billions? How is there a low profit margin?

      You're not giving me enough information to agree with you. Billions doesn't sound like much when you're trying to develop a vaccine on short order for tens or hundreds of millions of people.

    3. Re:supply demand by DentInYourHead · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to the source showing that the US really ordered 600,000 vaccines?

  46. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That was essentially Maher's ploy.

    By interviewing Frist, a former Senator who was the Senate Republican leader during part of his time in office, instead of some other well-known physician, Maher interposed wholly unrelated politics into the discussion about whether or not to get an H1N1 vaccination. The end result is to convince some people who disagree with Frist on other issues to accept what is essentially a "reductio ad Hitlerum" argument: that if Bill Frist believes you should get a flu shot, then clearly, that's reason enough not to.

  47. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by rcolbert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that is just natural selection.

    True enough on the natural selection point. However, if there's a Tsunami heading to town and someone on the radio sarcastically suggests that today is a good day to surf, there's still an element of responsibility. Contributing to the death of stupid people is funny in theory, but tragic in practice.

  48. Why the hate for entertainers? by toejam13 · · Score: 1

    43,903,230 people thought enough of Ronald Regan the entertainer to vote him as president. He did such a good job that 11 million more people voted for him the second time around. 54% of California voters chose Schwarzenegger as governor. A majority of voters also elected Sonny Bono to the US House.

    Just to show that it isn't just limited to California Republicans drinking the tainted Kool Aid, might I point out Representative Al Franken...

    Point being made is that just because you're an entertainer, it doesn't mean you're a bumbling idiot that is completely untrustworthy. Anyone can read the same reports that doctors do in the newspaper about the rates of infection of swine flu versus more traditional influenza strains. After all, even after medical school, doctors have to get their updates from somewhere. Luckily, that somewhere isn't just limited to doctors.

    1. Re:Why the hate for entertainers? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You *LIKE* the US patent system??? It wasn't anything great before Reagan, but Reagan is the one who decided to make it a profit center by increasing the rate of patent grants.

      You *LIKE* the extended copyright terms? Sonny Bono didn't do it himself, but the extension of copyrights before the DMCA was dedicated to Sonny Bono.

      And Schwarzenegger??

      Being an entertainer gives you an idea of how to be popular. It doesn't mean that you're a bumbling idiot, but it does mean that you're completely untrustworthy on policy decisions. Entertainers work on and with image. Substance is something that they don't even consider important.

      If you were being sarcastic, then I apologize.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  49. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by rcolbert · · Score: 1

    Great! Let's live in a country where speaking your mind can get you sued and or incarcerated. Way to land of the Free.

    You're reading way too much into the word 'culpable'. I'm strictly speaking of personal accountability.

  50. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by iCantSpell · · Score: 0, Troll

    Open your eyes, read the facts, and follow the links => http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1400169&cid=29706953

  51. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh noes, the troll mods are all over this discussion... just repeating this because it's true:

    Millions die from the flu every year. Why the big panic for a flu that is no worse than average? Money!!!

    Case. Fucking. Closed.

  52. We're all getting them by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Informative

    On our volunteer fire department. Particularly the EMS people. We see a lot of people with chronic respiratory diseases, COPD, and the elderly and people with weakened immune systems. The flu could kill them. Since they spend most of their time shut in, first responders are a possible vector.

    So, yeah, we're getting flu shots and so are the ambulance and hospital people. If you're in the military, they vaccinate you against shit I've never even heard of.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:We're all getting them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you're in the military, they vaccinate you against shit I've never even heard of.

      The list of vaccinations against includes: Adenovirus, Influenza, Measles, Meningococcal, Mumps, Polio, Rubella, Tetanus-diptheria, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis A, Typhoid, Japanese B Encephalitis, Cholera, Rabies, Varicella, Antrhrax, Small Pox.

      I've heard of all of these except JE vaccine, and Varicella. There's probably others that weren't listed, but I wouldn't be surprised if people referred to them by brand name or abbreviations. That'd be confusing.

      All the ones I listed came from:
      http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blvaccinations.htm

    2. Re:We're all getting them by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, yeah, we're getting flu shots and so are the ambulance and hospital people. If you're in the military, they vaccinate you against shit I've never even heard of.

      If you're in the military, you waive your right to even know what they're injecting you with. NO THANKS. I am not a number, I am getting the fuck out of here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:We're all getting them by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      If you're in the military, you waive your right to even know what they're injecting you with. NO THANKS. I am not a number, I am getting the fuck out of here.

      Source?

    4. Re:We're all getting them by ppanon · · Score: 2, Informative

      You probably know varicella as chickenpox.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  53. YUO = weakest link by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    There is NOTHING more idiotic than an anonymous coward making an ad-hominem argument because they can't make an actual one.

    1. Re:YUO = weakest link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is NOTHING more idiotic than an anonymous coward making an ad-hominem argument because they can't make an actual one."

      I think there IS something even more idiotic, and you've so kindly provided us with an example of your own
      work :

      Someone who has logged in using their Slashdot ID and is proceeding to waste space bitching about such
      trivial bs.

    2. Re:YUO = weakest link by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Awww...

      and hey, logging out / ticking the coward box would require extra effort, so *blrpbmbpbpbr* to you ^^

    3. Re:YUO = weakest link by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      And by the way, logic and arguments are by no means trivial. If I had my way, there would be some kind of "open your mouth" license and repeat offenders would be shot... I think a mere post is a good compromise, no?

  54. It's a plot by Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To turn you all into Muslim zombies!

    We know those Muslim motherfuckers are all braindead and want to take over the world. Obama is going to give them the kind of power they need to do it.

  55. Re:Once again... by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 3

    cancer virus cell base = your H1N1 Vaccine
    And once again you're incoherent. Go away and die.

  56. heard the same thing here by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    I heard the same thing from an employee at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, FL

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  57. Get over fighting "the Man" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hospital where I'm doing my clinical rotation mandates that students get the seasonal flu shot or wear a surgical mask for the whole 12 hours. The amount of bitching the students raise is just ridiculous. The only reason someone should not get the shot is if they are allergic to it, which is a valid concern. Other than that, I've seen zero convincing, scientifically-backed evidence that claims you are better off without the shot. You can NOT get the flu from the shot. The pain is minimal, as long as a half-competent nurse does it.

    People need to grow up and stop fighting every single thing they are told to do just because they did not come up with the idea.

    1. Re:Get over fighting "the Man" by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      for MOST people that don't work in health care or around sick people, the flu shot is wasted on them. The resources required to vaccinate that many people are better spent other places versus fight what for the vast majority of people is a nuisance. In the past "qualified medial personnel" have specifically told healthy children and adults that the flu shots were resource intensive and getting the flu wasn't bad for normal healthy people. I've said before, I'm 36 and always been told the flu shot "wasn't for me"... why the fuss now?

      The question is what's changed now? Personally, I think the issue is entirely political. The last year of Bush's presidency was a clusterfuck and there was big media noise that enough "old people" weren't going to get their shots... then of course there was a run on doctor offices for said shots... creating panic where there was a minor problem. I'm sure it was on the agenda for the "new powers" to fix that problem from last year and the media is right there gobbling up the hype they created last year. I don't see the big push because the vaccine for the dangerous stuff like Swine Flu isn't available to the general public or even outside medically necessary groups yet.. meaning all those people pushed thru line have to do it all over again! That's a colossal waste of resources.

  58. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, nice fallacious attack though. I think he's say instead of listening to a comedian you should listen to a doctor or a head of medicine. Or hell listen to the data.

  59. Tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are too uneducated to get a vaccine that has been tested and proven to be safe, through numerous studies....then you shouldn't be anywhere near sick patients. I for one wouldn't want to goto a hospital with ignorant people running around...even if they are just changing the sheets on my bed.

    Maybe think of non-vaccination as a good thing...takes the ignorant out of the gene pool when they get sick and die.

    1. Re:Tough by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      I agree however I have read (this does't make it true) that the testing was abbrevieated.

      That said, I got my shot.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  60. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I know it's your god given right to wear a tinfoil hat and shun modern medicine but please keep out of the way while the rest of us excersise our right to be duped into involontary sterilization.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  61. Re:Captain TwatObvious by RedSteve · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm glad to know your mom went through medical school and saw this influence first-hand and not just through drug rep lunches at the office.

    Oh wait, she didn't? Sorry. My bad.

  62. They did it to the Japanese. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any truth to the rumor that the federal government has a secret plan to round up people and MAKE them get vaccinated whither they want to or not? And before anyone says constitutional violation, think emergency powers and epidemic.

    1. Re:They did it to the Japanese. by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      Is there any truth to the rumor that you like to be pissed on by large, hairy men?

  63. This is an outrage! by Punto · · Score: 4, Funny

    next thing you know, they'll be forcing construction workers to wear hard hat and astronauts to wear space suits. It's a slippery slope people!

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:This is an outrage! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure they already do those things so I don't know what kind of slippery slope you are talking about.

  64. My pediatrician said to wait ... by pigwiggle · · Score: 1

    and see how things play out when the vaccine has been out for a bit. My wife's opinion too - she's also a physician. They're worried the vaccine was rushed and there could be potential problems. So we are waiting, and really hoping our daughter doesn't get that flu.

    --
    46 & 2
    1. Re:My pediatrician said to wait ... by alcourt · · Score: 1

      It seems Microsoft FUD doctors have been contracted out to the medical profession these days.

      --
      "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
  65. Are they safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the questions voiced by some of the hospital staff is are they safe? If they are safe then why have the companies producing the vaccine done a very nice CYA move and made sure there is no way for them to be held liable for ANY side effects whatsoever? The other concern is for the multidose version (vials that more than one dose) use a higher level of mercury as a preservative in them. Studies have already proven that to be hazardous to health.

    What happens if H1N1 mutates as flu strains do? Then isn't this a lot of heartache for nothing since, depending on the mutation, chances are the flu shot will not protect against it at all anyway?

    This is the typical knee-jerk reaction our government is known for and doesn't ever work out well in the end.

  66. Bill Frist Thought Brain Dead Woman Was Alive by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    Bill Frist was a heart surgeon who later became a Republican Senator. He turned out to have sold his medical beliefs for political gain. During the Teri Schiavo controversy, Frist watched some videotape, then offered his medical belief as a doctor that Teri had brain function. After Schiavo died, an autopsy revealed that her brain had shrunk to the size of a fist, and that there was no chance for higher brain function.

    In other words, Frist was dead wrong. But it wasn't because he was stupid. He was blinded by his politics.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    1. Re:Bill Frist Thought Brain Dead Woman Was Alive by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but he thinks that condoms have a 15% failure rate when in reality it's closer to 2%. He also seems to disagree with the scientific consensus that HIV is not transmissible through tears and sweat.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  67. Re:Once again... by Teckla · · Score: 4, Funny

    I got all those side effects just from reading your idiotic post!

  68. Picking nose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't pick your nose, wouldn't you get a massive accumulation of boogers until they were hanging out?

    1. Re:Picking nose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. Just close your mouth, hold on one nostril with your finger, and exhale as hard as you can...

  69. Where is the News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Working in public health, to even GET most jobs I need to turn in my vaccination records, get tested for TB every-so-often, and generally ya know, stay healthy! Most people working in hospitals at least have the education to know that, duh- this is probably the best solution... most likely unless there is an egg allergy issue, if the vaccine will kill you, the swine flu will. And, well working with a ridiculously contagious version of the flu and expecting not to get it is just, silly.

  70. Removal from front lines.. by niteHawk337 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those of us that work in IT, and never got to the hospitals proper (my guys work in an office building away from the hospital and patient care areas), arer still required to take the seasonal flu. H1N1, is actually not required as of yet (there are several nurses unions fighting it). The reason we are required, is that in no way can you predict who will be in contact with patients.. for example half of my guys never leave the building.. several (including me) have to have meetings sometimes on the hospital campus... if I get exposed, then I, in turn expose my guys... Bottom line - I hate the flu shot... never took it until this year when it was made mandatory, and frankly the only reason I did that is I like my job. Tose in Healthcare that do not want to take the vac, are free to leave, and I think they should...

  71. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess all I'm really saying is that in the debate about vaccination -- and I don't even think there's enough evidence to support a reasonable anti-vaccination position -- a discussion between Bill Maher and Bill Frist adds nothing. You might as well have Cheech and Chong talking about it.

  72. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    if you find evidence that it is 100% money driven, then I'd love to hear about it with a link to the research you found.

    Why would I, when you yourself supplied it:

    Why the big panic for a flu that is no worse than average... the same reason why we should panic over everything else. It is because fear sells well, and drives ratings on news sites

    So if I'm "repeating a lie", why are you repeating it, too? ^^

    find out how much money is being made on vaccines

    Why would I, when I never said it's the vaccines making the big chunks of money?

    As a totally random example, I just recently saw an ad for Sagrotan, saying "kills 99.9% of all bacteria and the H1N1 virus"...

  73. As a healthcare professional by Erythros · · Score: 0

    The previous inane comments with a hint of sarcasm are using the wrong analogy.
    Construction workers WEARING hardhats and Astronauts WEARING spacesuits is akin to a nurse or doctor using UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS, which includes proper hand washing, WEARING gloves, masks, gown, and limiting the most infectious persons to a confined negative pressure space.

    As a health care professional many of us are appalled that we are being forced into becoming guinea pigs for the drug companies.

    In reality those most at risk are school children and anyone who takes public transportation or is in a confined space with others for an extended period of time. Cubical workers untrained in proper infection avoidance are more at risk than any hospital worker.

    While you see a greater percentage of sick persons within the confines of a hospital, hospital staff are actually trained on how to limit transmission of disease whereas out in public, and especially in schools or universities there is no such training.

    The biggest stories in the media are the number of CHILDREN who have succumb to the virus. So in reality all school aged children all the way up through graduate school should be the population receiving mandatory vaccinations.

    Previous rate of hospital acquired flu infection are so low that they often fly under the radar, whereas SCHOOL acquired flu transmission is extremely high. The most common hospital acquired infection is a skin staph infection.

    Most Health care professionals do not get the annual flu shot and even with this statistic there has not been any previous recent hospital acquired flu pandemic to warrant this mandatory vaccination program.

    When you become the guinea pig for all of the wrong reasons, then you will understand our frustration.

    1. Re:As a healthcare professional by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      "The biggest stories in the media are the number of CHILDREN who have succumb to the virus. So in reality all school aged children all the way up through graduate school should be the population receiving mandatory vaccinations."

      -Did you ever stop to think that stories about children will get FAR MORE attention than stories about the 90 year old senior citizen?

      "Previous rate of hospital acquired flu infection are so low that they often fly under the radar, whereas SCHOOL acquired flu transmission is extremely high. The most common hospital acquired infection is a skin staph infection."

      -Did you stop to think WHY the rate is so low? It's low in hospitals because of the PRECAUTIONS that are taken. The rate is higher in schools because the only precautions taken in schools are hand-washing. Do pneumonia patients spend their time outside getting scraped up in the dirt playing kickball? No. If a hospital worker were to get sick, they could still unknowingly transmit the virus to other patients before they realized it.

      With your obvious ignorance, and strong "drug-company" conspiracy undertone, I am at a loss on how on Earth you managed to become a "Health Service PROFESSIONAL". I'm guessing you work in the cafeteria.....

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    2. Re:As a healthcare professional by Erythros · · Score: 0

      You are correct to pouint out the fact that the 90 year senior citizen (redundant statement) is not likely ention as much but you have just mentioned 2 of the 3 most susceptible groups of people. The other group being those with respiratory ailments or disease such as COPD, asthma, etc. Of all of the cases of swine flu, tell me how many were acquired in the hospital. Also, tell me how many healthcare professionals acquired it. If you answer to this last question is no greater than the general population as a whole then you have no case.

      "If a hospital worker were to get sick, they could still unknowingly transmit the virus to other patients before they realized it."

      You are under the assumption that the flu shot totally prevents one from getting or transmitting the flu virus and you are dead wrong. You don;t even have to have the virus yourself to transmit it. Your own ignorance would give you a false sense of security.

      you sound like one of those ignoramus anuses who think that if everyone got vaccinated then the flu would be eliminated.

      "-Did you stop to think WHY the rate is so low? It's low in hospitals because of the PRECAUTIONS that are taken. The rate is higher in schools because the only precautions taken in schools are hand-washing."
      Thank you, I already made that point. Nice to see you had a good idea, oh wait, it was MY idea. You are also proving my point that maybe all school children should be forced to vaccinate or be expelled. I am sure many parents would reconsider the idea of forced vaccination of their children with an expedited release of a vaccine.

      Next time open your mouth and stop talking out of your ass.

  74. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    The problem is that people respond to public figures as authorities. Completley out of their field. So you have comedians giving medical advice and pastors giving biology lessons. The problem is that people take their authoritative position into account when assigning credibility.

    So Bill Maher comes off as a reliable expert on everything because he is on TV. Period. Don't blame me, it is the way "people" are wired.

    The end result is that if you have a public platform, people are going to listen. When the listen to stupid advice because you are some sort of public figure, I agree there should be some responsibility on the part of the public figure. They should know better. If they don't, they shouldn't be offering advice - note, not an opinion, real advice. I guess they would only be 50% responsible for stupid advice.

  75. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Be my guest.

    I'd probably get the flu shot if I thought I had a good chance at getting the flu. Risks from the shot are low and I have gotten the shots the last 5 years or so. It doesn't change Holdren's past though. Why do we have guys like that in our government? It's a really bad sign.

    I haven't heard any defense of Holdren, BTW.

  76. Same here by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

    I work at a health care facility in Wisconsin and it's either get the vaccine or leave. While I don't have any objections to getting the vaccine myself, with all the whining about shortages of the vaccine I hear every day I wonder why I get the vaccine instead of people at a higher risk of getting the flu. I think society in general would benefit more from the vaccine going to people more at risk to getting the flu--children, the elderly and the immune compromised. As a healthy adult I would prefer to take my chances and be inconvenienced for a few days at worst than have someone who is immune-compromised die of the flu because there was not enough vaccine to go around.

    --
    "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    1. Re:Same here by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Because we don't want another Typhoid Mary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon) or Paddy Chew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Chew). Typhoid Mary, in particular, never meant to infect anyone, but gave 53 people typhoid fever as a cook who was infected.

    2. Re:Same here by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      Comparing Novel Influenza today to Typhoid Fever in the early 1900's is ridiculous. The mortality rate of Typhoid Fever then is much higher than Novel Influenza's mortality rate will ever be.

      Let's say I don't get vaccinated and become the next Typhoid Mary. If that were to happen, something would have changed and the people most susceptible to the virus would have been vaccinated. Most people I would come in to contact with would either be vaccinated or less likely to catch the virus in the first place. Anybody who did would probably live and have immunity when all was said and done.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
  77. Hand washing + B@$ch slap the idiot who sneezed by upuv · · Score: 1

    Lots of people now understand that touching your face in general is a very common way to get infected. So cleaning your hands is now fairly common. Thank goodness.

    What I would like to see is a legal rite to b#$ch slap those dumb a$$es that sneeze and cough right into my face and think nothing of it. Common courtesy people, cover your bloody mouth and turn away. At least apologize if you can't do it in time. No amount of hand washing is going to stop me catching something if the infection vector is some inconsiderate moron coughing in my face.

    1. Re:Hand washing + B@$ch slap the idiot who sneezed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps you should say something. If someone does that shit to me, I tell them something rude, like "could you cover your fucking mouth next time?" The reason these assholes keep doing it is because people aren't telling them they're fuckheads all day. Perhaps if enough people make them depressed it will shut down their immune system and kill them. Then they can stay home.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Hand washing + B@$ch slap the idiot who sneezed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already is a legal rite. It is generally called a lawsuit. Success in your legal rites is another story altogether. It does exist, however.

      If you want a legal right, that is also another story.

      Language, its important.

  78. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RNs don't study from medical textbooks? News to me. What the fuck do you think nurses do?

  79. Re:Captain TwatObvious by raddan · · Score: 2, Informative
    Nonsense. My wife, a former lab researcher and now doctor, worked with many people involved in communicable diseases and public health (she worked on yersinia pestis). These people devote their lives to understanding these diseases, and take the job very seriously. Another good friend of mine studies brain diseases. If he's in it for the money... well, he's an idiot. You see the same kind of dedication in these people that you do with firefighters. They do it because they're helping people.

    Why is H1N1 a big deal? Since you're here at Slashdot, you probably have some computer background, so I suggest you read this. Money quote:

    Some of these mutations make no difference; others render the virus harmless; and quite possibly, some render the virus much more dangerous. Since viruses are replicated and distributed in astronomical quantities, the chance that this little hack could end up occurring naturally is in fact quite high. This is part of the reason, I think, why the health officials are so worried about H1N1: we have no resistance to it, and even though it’s not quite so deadly today, it’s probably just a couple mutations away from being a much bigger health problem.

    It's good to be a skeptic, but when you're too "skeptical" to accept what experts tell you (oh, wait, you're a biologist specializing in human disease?), you're willfully ignoring the obvious.

  80. Re:Captain TwatObvious by joocemann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just so you know, and not really related to 'swine flu'.

    I recently noticed how much more encumbered my years are now that I don't get regular flu shots. As a part of my work in the past, I got flu shots yearly and seemingly never got the flu. I never noticed how 'good' I had it until the last 4 years where I've been a student and haven't gotten the shot.... And so now I spend at least one, if not 2, weeks out of the year suffering.

    It took me 4 years to realize how good I had it back then and to take note that I might benefit happily and greatly from a $16 flu shot.

  81. Re:Captain TwatObvious by wisty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "A flu shot does not mean you won't get the flu [it is based on] predictions are made a year in advance"

    Yeah, but they usually work. Have you ever had a flu? I'd rather a prick on the arm and a bit of nausea for a day, even if it wasn't 100% likely to stop the flu.

    I'll agree that the swine flu is bad, but not catastrophic (it might mutate into something really deadly over the next 5 years, just like the Spanish one but the vaccine will be useless), and that big pharma will do anything for a buck, but it's still worth getting vaccinated.

  82. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you didn't question medical advice, you would be a drugged out wreck of a human.

  83. And the point is? by cptdondo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to have a tetanus shot and have First Aid, CPR, AED certs. Those are a condition of my employment. No shots, no certs, no paycheck.

    I also have to wear steel toe boots, a hardhat, and a dayglo safety vest if I'm on a job site.

    Let's face it, if you work in a high-risk area, your employer would be negligent in *not* requiring you to take reasonable and practical precautions.

    If you don't like, the door swings both ways.

  84. Ford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last time the medical hysteria industry made a big vaccination push over another mutation of the flu they got President Ford to mandate the shot for the US. The vaccine killed more people than the disease. I guess it's been long enough since then that the medical alarmists figure they have a clean slate.

    H1N1 isn't particularly deadly and doesn't warrant this much drama. If we take reasonable precautions (send sick kids/workers home, wash hands frequently, etc.) it would probably pass without significantly more damage than any other seasonal flu. That, however, is boring and hard to profit from, and denies big politicians opportunities to make big plays in public.

  85. RE: Some ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Federal Managers expect their "underlings" to suck them off, they .. the Federal Mangers being male.

    Obama should give the 1.4 million to the United Negro College Fund ... an uneducated mind ... is such a waste.

  86. simple thing by tracy79 · · Score: 1

    health is wealth and prevention is better than than cure! http://www.craigspr.org/

  87. Re:Captain TwatObvious by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but they usually work. Have you ever had a flu? I'd rather a prick on the arm and a bit of nausea for a day and spend 30 dollars, even if it wasn't 100% likely to stop the flu.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  88. Don't want the shot-- Say you're allergic to eggs by spgass · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd take the shot if it was required by my employer. But it doesn't seem like people really would have to choose between losing their job and getting the shot. If they claim they're allergic to eggs, I highly doubt they would test for that. People allergic to chicken eggs aren't given flu shots.

  89. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, how about some data from the Australian Government? They're not renowned for inflating the numbers of people affected by a disease.

    - 1 in 199.something (ok, call it 200) people who have been confirmed to have the swine flu have died from it.

    - 1 in 7.64 people confirmed to have swine flu has been sick enough to require hospital treatment.

    I dug this up while I was responding to a post on a forum, where a guy posted a link to an anti-vaccine video, which was referring to the 1976 swine flu vaccine in the US. In that case, 25 people died as complications from the vaccine, and about 500 more got Guillain-Barré syndrome.

    But considering they vaccinated slightly north of 48 million people for swine flu in 1976 (48,161,019 according to Wikipedia), that's a death rate of 1 in 1,926,440, and a serious-side-effect rate of 1 in 90,528.

    I'll take those odds over swine flu's 1-in-200 lethality rate any day! (Or even 1 in 500 if you assume for every confirmed case there are two or three who get a mild version and don't get tested)

    To make it perfectly clear: For every person who died from the 1976 swine flu vaccine, it's possible that nearly ten thousand would have died from the swine flu itself, if not for the vaccine.

    That's just deaths. Ignoring non-fatal complications, like having to have both of your feet amputated (and that was an otherwise healthy young person - you know, like you're claiming to be).

    Now, I understand that modern influenza vaccines don't have anywhere near the rate of serious side effects as that 1976 swine flu vaccine. You'd think we'd hear about it if they did, considering there are literally hundreds of millions of doses given each and every year. But even if they did, they would still be saving tens of thousands of lives.

    Another consideration - most of the people who have died from swine flu in Australia have died despite the best care modern medicine can provide. Some of the people who survived only did so thanks to lung machines, because their lungs are so filled with fluid that they can't breathe, at all.

    That's with less than 1 in 600 of the general population getting the disease. What happens if as little as 10% of the population of Australia comes down with swine flu?

    Well, then, we could expect to see something like 2.2 million cases, which means 290,000 people would get sick enough to require hospital treatment. In a country that only has a total of 80,000 hospital beds.

    I'll let you do the math, but I suspect that 1-in-200 death rate might climb a little, and instead of 10,000 dead, we might see several times that. If it was really virulent and infected a quarter, or half, or even the whole population? Then it's 1918 all over again. There just aint that many anti-virals around, and there definitely aren't enough hospital beds.

    And that's why our governments are so damn keen on getting us vaccinated.

  90. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My grandfather is a respected physician and used to be the head of our medical college, he said the same.

  91. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by rcolbert · · Score: 1

    Ok, you're kind of losing me on that one because Bill Maher is about as far left as you can get.

  92. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

    "All available data strongly supports the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. Not vaccinating based on superstition is grossly irresponsible." Oh so that must be why my cousin's VA doctor was telling him not to get to the H1N1 shot due to the key component of it being the same thing that was inducing "Gulf War Syndrome" (and was subsequently BANNED) in our soldiers. They can keep their damn shot. Less than 4 months ago they said they didn't have the means to test the efficacy of the vaccine, but now it is suddenly ok for mass-distribution....i think not.

    -Oz

  93. They did this at my facility after 9/11 by ethicalcannibal · · Score: 1

    As I recall, when I worked as a nurse, the facility, and the surrounding area's facilities, wanted us all to get vaccinated. It was right after 9/11. One of the ways you could get out of it was to be pregnant, or trying to get pregnant. My entire facility, and all but three nurses in the hospital, claimed pregnancy or trying.

    When my Director of Nursing came up to ask me about the stupid vacc, she just said, "so am I signing you up as pregnant, or trying?"

  94. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Interesting
    >p> You quoted some real bullshit there.

    is is part of the reason, I think, why the health officials are so worried about H1N1: we have no resistance to it

    People born prior to 1957 are, to a large extent, immune. They were exposed to similar live viruses that provoked stronger immune responses than the current H1N1 virus itself causes. That's why we already know, and we're seeing in the stats, that older people who are otherwise healthy aren't so much at risk - they "got theirs" already and don't need a flu shot.

    So your "money quote" isn't worth 2 cents. How good can the rest of the article be, if it ignores the known facts wrt age and infection rates? Not good enough to bother reading any further, since they willfully ignore the truth when it doesn't fit their agenda.

    Also, since they're doing this WAY too fast, I'd be more worried about vaccine-induced mutations, like the polio now going around in Nigeria that the WHO admits is from a vaccine that mutated.

    I've never had a flu vaccine, and never will. I've had the flu once, and that was because I was stupid enough to keep working around people who had it, and did way too many hours and not enough sleep. I won't make that mistake again, but even including that one time, my success rate in avoiding infection is over 98%, without any vaccine, so I'm not in the least worried.

    And my kids are doing the same. In fact, I don't know anyone (even people in the health-care field) who are going to get vaccinated. We'll stick to proper hygiene, eating and sleeping properly, and telling people who ARE infected to GTFO.

  95. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Originally the panic was due to the very high transmission rate (apparently) and the very high potential mortality rate, from memory it was looking at over 10% - which is a hell of a high mortality rate for anything, flu or otherwise. Then as the panic settled down it became more apparent that H1N1 swine influenza is simply a somewhat more transmissible influenza virus with some interesting sources and non-human mixing vessels.

    Doesn't mean you shouldn't vaccinate against it though. Considering that, as you yourself stated, 'millions of people die from the flu every year', why shouldn't we try to prevent the deaths of some of those millions for a strain that seems relatively stable and preventable at the moment?

    As for prevention, sure, that's a great idea. In fact, I'm amazed that it's not already official health policy wherever you are living; that medical staff should continually be cleansing their hands before and after any patient care. It sure as hell is here, whenever I go in to see a patient I clean my hands on the way into the room, and on the way out again. Every time. And sometimes in the corridors as well when moving between wards.

    I'm also fully vaccinated against almost everything possible, get my flu shots every year, will be getting swine flu in the next week or so. Most of that is mandated by NSW Health. In fact, all of it is. I don't see what the big deal is here for the State of NY finally requiring healthcare professionals to be vaccinated - it should have happened already.

  96. You are completely wrong, at least 85 died by Michael+G.+Kaplan · · Score: 5, Informative

    "151 dead from Swine Flu in Mexico", on recounting, turned out to be 6.

    I don't know where your non-cited figure of "6" deaths from the original swine flu outbreak in Mexico came from, but maybe it was from a misinterpretation of a report detailing the deaths of 7 patients at a single tertiary care hospital in Mexico city during a single month. The New England Journal of Medicine article that detailed the fate of the 98 patients acutely ill with the swine flu in that hospital at that time also references that 85 people in Mexico were known to have died as of May out of 4910 confirmed cases, a fatality rate of 1.7%.

    Fortunately only Mexico during the initial outbreak reported such a high fatality rate. This is very fortunate as almost no young person in the world had any kind of immunity to this strain. In all likelihood when you come down with it you will be 'lucky' enough to only have to suffer a few days of bed-bound misery.

    I'm a healthy skeptic.

    Skepticism is good, but you've jumped way beyond that into conspiracy theories and paranoia.

    I'll stick with preventative measures, as opposed to a shot that may or may not be effective this season

    Doing nothing does not count as a preventative measure. It is true that usually with the seasonal flu vaccine scientists must guess months beforehand what strains to put in the vaccine and since they don't always guess right the vaccine is usually only about 70% effective, but as for pandemic H1N1 the vaccine is an excellent match and it should give almost everyone who gets it protection.

    1. Re:You are completely wrong, at least 85 died by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Too lazy to click on the link? If you had, you'd have known that it was the WHO. Here' I'll make it easy for you

      Only 7 swine flu deaths, not 152, says WHO

      April 29, 2009
      A member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has dismissed claims that more than 150 people have died from swine flu, saying it has officially recorded only seven deaths around the world.

      Vivienne Allan, from WHO's patient safety program, said the body had confirmed that worldwide there had been just seven deaths - all in Mexico - and 79 confirmed cases of the disease.

      "Unfortunately that [150-plus deaths] is incorrect information and it does happen, but that's not information that's come from the World Health Organisation," Ms Allan told ABC Radio today.

      As for the NEJM article, read it again. It says out of the KNOWN cases. Many people contract the disease, don't seek treatment, and recover spontaneously. Most people refused to see a doctor because they didn't want to be identified as sick. The TRUE fatality rate was no where near 1.7%. It was under 0.5% - the NORMAL flu fatality rate. And it continues to be UNDER the normal fatality rate today.

      Also, it's expected that the virus, which is already no worse than any other flu virus, will continue to weaken. Simple math - most alterations in the viral genome will be less effective, so while they'll provoke a response that will provide immunity to the original virus, they'll be even less likely to kill the host. Or do you believe the virus is "intelligently designed"?

      We're in no more danger than a "normal" flu. take the same precautions as you would in any flu season - proper hygiene, stay away from infected people, plenty of ventilation and sleep. Flu shots aren't really needed unless you're in the highest-risk group - the morbidly obese who are just waiting for any opportunistic disease to pick them off, same as any other flu season.

      Besides, I'm immune to H1N1. Looks like my daughter, who was in Mexico at the time, now also is.

    2. Re:You are completely wrong, at least 85 died by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Too lazy to click on the link?

      No, because apparently you were too lazy to post the link. Reread your prior post agian...it contains no link (other than the one in your sig, which is not flu related)

    3. Re:You are completely wrong, at least 85 died by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      So you can't google when the html eats the tag? No initiative?

      The first hit for "152 deaths 7" is the WHO saying that the initial death count was extremely exaggerated.

      You know, instead of knee-jerk reactions saying "vaccine always needed, always benign", do some research. H1N1 has a lower-than-average death rate, and there are millions of people who, contrary to the public policy being put into place of "vaccine or fired", can't benefit from the vaccine because they're already immune, having been exposed to a similar, but stronger, variant back in 1957. That's why older people are less affected.

    4. Re:You are completely wrong, at least 85 died by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      1) I don't bother researching other people's claims for them. Enough people make baseless claims that cannot be verified. I don't have the time to waste attempting to verify all of that stuff. If you want to make a claim without backing it up with something, then unfortunately you get lumped in with the trolls until you follow up with evidence.

      2) That doesn't change the fact that you accused someone of being lazy for not reading something you posted when in fact you didn't actually post it.

    5. Re:You are completely wrong, at least 85 died by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I've posted LOTS of links in this thread. Unfortunately, ONE got eaten. It happens, and we don't have an edit mode so we can't review our posts and fix broken links (how hard would it be to have an "append to post" button that will allow us to add stuff marked as an update to the post w/o altering the text of the original post?). The people who are the most vocally critical are the ones who refuse to do their own research. That's lazy. Rather than saying "you're wrong, and here's why" they go "you're wrong - prove otherwise", without any further justification.

      They could at least present SOME proof as to why an assertion is wrong, or to look elsewhere through the thread (where the same link didn't get eaten).

  97. Re:Captain TwatObvious by RedSteve · · Score: 1, Informative

    Well, I know that they don't prescribe medicine.

    I have no beef with nurses; in fact, i respect and appreciate their role in the medical profession. But seeing as how they don't prescribe medicine and don't undergo the same training as physicians, the fact that one RN notes that pharmaceutical companies contribute to textbook production is an interesting anecdote and nothing more. It is just as meaningful as my observation that I know a lot of doctors who refuse any sort of drug rep gifts on the grounds that it might influence their decision to prescribe.

    What neither anecdote indicates is that there is just as much skepticism within medical colleges to the relationship between funding sources and conclusions as there are outside of the walls; that there are ethics courses focused on the critical analysis of pharmaceutical claims; that, in general, no serious text can get around scientific fact just to present and position their own product. (The faculty, after all, have to approve the referenced texts, and precious few of them desire to be perceived as corporate shills.)

  98. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe you'll find that they don't just guess the epitopes that they produce the virus for, rather WHO uses data from the previous hemisphere flu season and the presence of current strains. I believe that the formulation changes every six months (February/September), using data from WHO collecting centres around the world (Atlanta, Tokyo, London, Melbourne, etc) and they formulate a vaccine with two strands in it that are at that point the most current and most likely.

    The vaccine isn't created to treat potential mutants. It's created to treat the most likely continuing flu strains present in the system that are likely to continue to propagate into the next winter/flu season in the next hemisphere.

    Not a year in advance, and not guesswork. Observation and projection.

    WHO vaccine information for more if you're interested. Or here.

  99. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Dahan · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's an analysis of Bill Maher's anti-medicine stance on the Science-Based Medicine blog. It points out how he's considered an informed "skeptic" due to his anti-religious views, despite him embracing medical quackery.

  100. Re:Captain TwatObvious by rjames13 · · Score: 1

    Well, how about some data from the Australian Government? They're not renowned for inflating the numbers of people affected by a disease. I do not believe that the American anti-vaccine crowd are interested in some imaginary fairy land called Australia where big Pharma does not have its hand in every pocket of medicine. Because that would ruin most of their arguments, and they would need to come up with new ones, too much hard work.

  101. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Vexorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You sir, are not a healthy skeptic, to quote you from another post:

    And if you've had one, keep away from me - you're more, not less, likely to have a compromised immune system in the long run if you get annual flu shots.

    This is woo woo non-science , i.e. you are full of shit, please try better next time you want to pose as a healthy skeptic.

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  102. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I'd rather spend $15 on a flu shot than have a bought of the flu and pay a couple hundred for treatment, even if I only prevent the flu every fourth year I get the shot, and the other years I wouldn't have gotten it anyway.

    1. Over the counter medicines for symptom treatment (pain killers, etc.)
    2. Doctor visit to confirm flu if I recognize it fast enough
    3. Lab fees at doctor to confirm flu and what type it is
    4. Prescription for flu medication to reduce the misery a few days
    5. Revised prescription for preventative inhaler because it aggravated a minor case of asthma and is causing frequent asthma attacks 2-3 weeks after recovering from the flu itself beyond what normal asthma inhaler can handle (common side effect).

    Last year I got the flu. It was easily two hundred, and possibly three hundred dollars in actual costs. If I was a wage worker, the extra missed work would have been even more significant in costs.

    Around here, everyone is advertising the flu shot well under $30.

  103. The flue experience in Chile by cenc · · Score: 1

    We just got through the H1N1 flue and regular flue season in Chile. It was bad, but not anything like the way they are hyping it up in the States. People got sick, a few people died, but life went on as normal just fine. The only real thing that set it apart was the age of those that died.

    Before the season hit I paid to have all my employees get the normal flue shot. My reasoning was that at least it would lower the confusion if anyone did get sick it might be easier to dignose if there was lower probability that someone was just getting the seasonal flue. The problem we faced when it started here was it was so early in the outbreak around the World that it was not even clear what the symptoms, treatment, or progression was going to be like. It was a good call, because it turned out there was no real way to differentiate it from the normal flue. The Chilean government quit trying to test and quarantine very early on, and just prescribed H1N1 meds to anyone that presented a fever and one other classic symptom. They did not waist resources or time testing everyone. They made tamiflue and related medication widely available to everyone in the country for free with no questions asked.

    All told, I know a couple of people that got the flue personally and where formally diagnosed with it. I am almost certain two of my employees did contract it, one got the seasonal flue shot and one did not. Neither got medication for it, and just rode it out like the normal flue.

    All and all it was just a bad flue season, and honestly I believe I have lived through much worse when I lived in the Northern Hemisphere. The initial psychological panic around it was more damaging than the bug. Even that passed as everyone realized we where not all going to turn in to zombies and start eating human brains.

    The thing that scares me is the boomerang effect next year. That bug is going to go off to places like the U.S., where they health care system is a disaster, it will go through the super bug wash of various mixes of over-prescribed antibiotics or populations that can not afford treatment, and then it is going to return next year more of a super bug. I doubt however there is anyone left in south America that has not been exposed to it. The U.S. and much of the Northern hemisphere I do not believe can just provide free medication to everyone. The populations are too big. People are going to hesitate to go to doctors, not buy the medication, and it is going to spread much faster than it did here.

    One more piece of layman's medical advice / observation about H1N1. Watch out for handling money. All the banks (and other locations with high cash flows) I went to seemed to be the hardest hit locations (like 30% or more of the staff out or sick), even more than the hospital staff it seemed. As I understand it can live on money for like 12 to 48 hours. Just think of how many hands say your average $1 or $5 bills goes through in a 48 hour period. Stick to using your plastic when possible to pay for things. Petty cash is the fastest way to spread anything.

     

  104. Swine Flu has killed 1 out of every 1.31 MILLION by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    According to flucount DOT org which is updated every 4 minutes...

    The worldwide number of H1N1 Swine Flu deaths totals 5,149 people as of 11:35PM EST 10-10-09.

    The Worldwide population count is 6,789,710,547.

    This means that only 1 person dies from Swine Flu out of every 1,318,646 people.

    The general consensus in this thread from what I have seen is that they think every 1,318,646 people should get injected with a potentially life threatening vaccine in order to MAYBE protect that 1 person.

    Are you shitting me? You won't be giving ME any flu jab.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  105. No "truly" mandatory vaccines since WW I by jerryasher · · Score: 1

    From Penn's Center for Bioethics:

    http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/requirements.php

    Today, the term "mandate" is imprecise when applied to immunization. The last time the U.S. required vaccination without exception--a true mandate--was during World War I.1 Today, processes in place in the vast majority of states provide parents with significant latitude regarding whether to vaccinate their children.

    Mandatory vaccination programs should be reserved for the most severe of disease outbreaks, and only after the designated State or Federal official has declared a state of emergency.

  106. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, nice fallacious attack though. I think he's say instead of listening to a comedian you should listen to a doctor or a head of medicine. Or hell listen to the data.

    What we're saying is that Frist's history makes his word as a doctor approximately as reliable as Maher's word as a comedian/nutjob.

  107. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by rcolbert · · Score: 1

    Your anecdote !> my data

  108. Re:Captain TwatObvious by budgenator · · Score: 1

    according to my mom, who is an RN and damn good at her job, is that drug company's help fund and write the medical text books schools use.

    And I also supposed she told you that you needed to know the secret handshake to see the special MDs that were taught with the secret unbiased text books that were unfunded by the drug companies! I suppose that she also told you that the textbooks she studied out of in Nursing school were published by the same companies that published the textbook for medical schools, One of my instructors was honored by being tasked with writing a question for the state board exams in Nursing, it took her 6 months to do it properly and cross research to prove and disprove each possible answer, imagine a whole textbook. I'm glad your mom is not only an RN but a damn good one, she a rare and dieing breed.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  109. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 2

    And if you've had one, keep away from me - you're more, not less, likely to have a compromised immune system in the long run if you get annual flu shots.

    This is woo woo non-science , i.e. you are full of shit, please try better next time you want to pose as a healthy skeptic.

    Look through the thread. Read the link I posted (along with quotes) from The Lancet. You know, that peer-reviewed, internationally respected medical journal. The article that talks about specific cases of vaccine-caused auto-immune diseases ...

    Then you can apologize.

    Then you can read some of the other links I posted in this thread, including to the study that apparently shows that if you had previous flu vaccines, you're twice as likely to catch H1N1. And the WHO admitting that polio in Nigeria is now being caused by a mutated polio vaccine.

    And other references to how most people born prior to 1957 already have better immunity than the vaccine confers - which explains why older people in good health don't need to fear H1N1.

    Vaccines don't always work as intended, they can have side effects, including causing the very diseases they were supposed to cure (we ignored this from our experience with animals to our regret - for example, the leptospirosis vaccine your vet recommends is the #1 cause of leptospirosis in dogs).

    Some vaccines are great - like the smallpox vaccine. A disease with a stable viral structure. An easy target. Flu is not the same, and vaccines, absent other considerations such as basic hygiene and health (like washing your hands, not coughing on other people, eating properly) is not going to be the cure-all you seem to think it will be.

  110. Re:Captain TwatObvious by raddan · · Score: 3, Informative

    This simply means that you willfully misunderstand statistics. A vaccine that saves millions of lives at the risk of a few hundred is a justifiable risk. The same logic applies to warfare: we sacrifice the lives of the few to save the many. It is painful and regrettable, but it must be done.

    That is a FAR cry from saying that vaccines "cause disease" or that this is a manufactured pandemic to make money.

    At least 62% of the U.S. population is under the age of 45. How does conferred immunity from the 1957 asian flu help them? What about the world?

    You may have only gotten the flu once. The plural of anecdote is not data. Epidemiology is data, and it argues against you.

    If your car never fails in the 10 years that you drive it, does it mean that mechanics are perpetrating fraud? Think about it.

  111. I'm a fan of Bill Maher, but... by sstair · · Score: 1

    ...on this issue, he is a nutbar. How can he decry people who ignore all the scientific evidence of evolution or global warming, yet do the same thing himself on this issue?

    1. Re:I'm a fan of Bill Maher, but... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      ...on this issue, he is a nutbar. How can he decry people who ignore all the scientific evidence of evolution or global warming, yet do the same thing himself on this issue?

      Because the scientific evidence is far from unanimous and a good portion of it is coming from biased parties who stand to gain billions of dollars if their version of reality is accepted?

      I agree that it would be nice to live in "Future-world" where mature minds and real science rule the day (and there's a trustworthy Starfleet officer on every deck), but we don't live in that world. We live in a world of war, slavery, treachery and psychopaths and corrupt agendas. So when somebody comes at you with a needle, if you persist in pretending that your dream world is the real world, you're probably going to get used and abused in order to feed somebody further up the pyramid.

      Far too many people struggle to live in false realities which suit their sensibilities and egos, etc.; what they wish the world was rather than what it is. These people are food.

      -FL

  112. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    He didn't say listen to Frist he said don't listen to Maher. I take it you never learned the difference between iff and if statements or logic gates.

  113. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is absurd. Every time I have gotten the flu shot I get the flu. Yet, when I don't have any vaccine I'm fine and don't get anything close to the flu that season. I've been working in a hospital for years and not only have I never gotten the flu vaccine, but I've also never gotten the flu in the years I've been there.

    I would hope that if I were forced to get the flu vaccine, ended up with Guillain Barre syndrome and became paralyzed or died, that my family would sue that hospital for taking away my rights and hopefully this country would pass some legislature on the matter. Seriously, wtf?

  114. Mod Parent down by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

    Clearly, you weren't aware that people who die from influenza usually have other contributing factors. If those people feel vaccination may help them, have at it. But to force a completely healthy individual to risk various reactions up to and including death is not acceptable when dealing with a disease of this little effect. 30,000 people (I will pretend you are right, instead of acting the wiki-fascist, as you do) is a small percentage of the people who actually contract the flu or become carriers without exhibiting traditional symptoms.

    Clearly, you need to use a buzzer function again to impress everyone with your childish antics.

    --
    The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
  115. It's about staffing by pcolaman · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    When it comes down to it, being married to a medical technologist, I see this as coming down to staffing. I know in her lab, if two people call in they are buried in work, and if three people call in they are super fucked. Granted, she works nights, and staffing in the day time is somewhat better, but with hospitals making cutbacks due to the economy and the fact that they are about to get bent over and reamed by Obamacare (her hospital has already cut a dozen doctors and a handful of nurses and techs in anticipation of the need to give out more medical care with less money coming in), hospitals are going to do anything they can to try and keep as many people working without getting sick as possible, and this includes immunizations for H1N1.

  116. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The plural of anecdote is not data"

    Actually, yes it is. If you asked one person if they'd watched TV this evening, that would be anecdotal. If you asked 10000 people the same question, that would be data. The only difference is the plural.

  117. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative
    Guess what - epidemological studies say there is NO epidemic. Actually, the WHO put the total number of deaths world-wide at only 7 as of April, 2009 - all in Mexico. This flu is the mildest we've seen in decades.

    April 29, 2009
    A member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has dismissed claims that more than 150 people have died from swine flu, saying it has officially recorded only seven deaths around the world.

    Vivienne Allan, from WHO's patient safety program, said the body had confirmed that worldwide there had been just seven deaths - all in Mexico - and 79 confirmed cases of the disease.

    "Unfortunately that [150-plus deaths] is incorrect information and it does happen, but that's not information that's come from the World Health Organisation," Ms Allan told ABC Radio today.

    Also, it appears that the oft-repeated "36,000 people die from the flu every year" number is also bogus, being a bad extrapolation from a set of people who are already seriously ill, and not numbers taken from actual sampling the population at large. The actual toll may be well under 1,000. So much for any epidemological studies that support big numbers with bad guestimates instead of hard counts.

    Anyway, on to your other remarks ...

    So even you admit that for at least, say, 30% of the population (I'll let you keep 8% for the chronically ill), the vaccine is not really needed, since they already are immune to swine flu from past exposure? Well, that's a start.

    So how about removing the other low-risk groups - those over 5 years, under 6 months, the non-pregnant women? That's the vast majority of the population who simply aren't all that much at risk.

    I'll give you the obese, because they ARE at risk, but that can't be more than ... oops, we're talking America ... 67% of the population over 20 are either overweight or obese. Fuck, why are you people even worried about swine flu when you've got a pandemic of excess flab? Okay, let's see - morbidly obese - 3%. I'll give you the fatties. Pick a reasonable number for the number of pregnant women, and the number of kids between 6 months and 5 years old ... both combined, along with the Lardos certainly won't bring you to even 20% of the population. ALL the under-5 is only 7%, and if we take 10% of the people between 20 and 45 and say they're pregnant, that still only yields 3.5%, and we have to remove half of them, because they're men ... which gives us 1.75% of the population who are pregnant (still high, but who cares).

    So, between the morbidly obese (3%), the pregnant women (1.75%), and ALL the kids under 5 (7%), you're only at 11.75% of the population. How is giving the other 88.25% of the population a vaccine they don't need going to help the situation? And if the virus mutates, the vaccine is useless anyway. Now, since it's more likely that the vaccine will mutate to a weaker form, as happened in the past, people will crow about "how the vaccine worked", when it did nothing of the sort.

    There is NO justification for hyping vaccines to people who aren't at risk. That's 88.25% of the population who are being buffaloed into doing something that only profits the drug companies, as opposed to simpler (but less glamourous) solutions that will also help prevent them from catching other variants of the flu, and colds.

    And what about the latest study (look elsewhere in the thread) that shows that if you had a flu shot in the past, you double your chances of catching H1N1? Double! A study with 13 million subjects is not anecdotal - it's far more subjects than the other studies to date, which may explain why we're only making the connection now.

    As for the pandemic, it IS bullshit. 7 deaths in more than half a year. Even a death a day would not be a "serious pandemic", and we're nowhere near that.

  118. yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    medical fascism.
    what an age we live in.

    http://myspace.com/fearofyours

  119. Re:Captain TwatObvious by jesset77 · · Score: 1

    Have you ever had a flu?

    How the hell should I know. Do you normally get blood work done each time you get a fever and body aches?

    The word "Flu" gets thrown around to indicate any non-serious respiratory problem common to industrialized nations. The companies who actually make money devising and marketing these serums can claim X% efficacy all they want, but it means nothing to a public who still gets food poisoning and rhinovirus and don't feel as though they have been protected at all because they have no practical way to ever know if they get the genuine, honest to god "Flu" or not.

    --
    People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  120. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by honkycat · · Score: 1

    And, well, if you're not already a doctor or a trained scientist familiar with the literature, you probably should skip trying to listen to the data and listen to your doctor.

  121. You can sue if you wish by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 0

    The same reason it was mandatory Desert Storm Iraq War 1990/91 we were ordered to take anti chemical weapon vaccines. They were supplied by America. I was very untrusting of this. I ordered my unit only to take the VX nerve agent injection as I sincerely did not trust the other's. I went against convention and could have been fired myself for ordering this, however I am very proud to say, before that war started I had every soldier drilled perfectly to put on NBC suits and Gas Masks under 30 seconds. I was called a bastard for making them do it, but do you know what? Each and every one of my troops came back without "Gulf War Syndrome" You can read further data here http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726473.800-gulf-war-syndrome-linked-to-nerve-gas.html Sometimes however with the VX nerve agent injection I can get terrible nerves as do other's from my unit from time to time, but this could have been a lot worst for my troops if I did not order them to not take the others. Yes it is a sad situation and as usual, nobody is taking responsibility but there have been some compensation payouts by the MoD. I hope this post is allows you to make an informed decision.

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  122. What's in it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's in the vaccine? Anyone know? Seriously, it might have something extra. You have been warned.

  123. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    - 1 in 199.something (ok, call it 200) people who have been confirmed to have the swine flu have died from it.

    ... is NOT the same as saying 1 in 200 people died from swine flu.

    this thing has been over-hyped from the beginning - when the WHO had to reduce the initial dead from 152 to 7. "Serious outbreak?" Bullshit.

    Currently, the flu is estimated to cause 1 death in every 200 - same as regular flu - but that number is suspect because of the way it was derived. Unlike other estimates, it ignores people who contracted the flu and recovered w/o seeking treatment, so the actual number is lower than a "regular flu".

    Also, 1918 didn't kill 20% of the population. The wiki article that people pull that stat from gives contradictory figures. In one paragraph, it's 10% to 20%. A few paragraphs down, it's 2% to 20%. Totally unreliable.

    Now what was going on in 1918? Try a world war. Lots of disease and sickness and death during wartime. Also, people didn't die from the flu in 1918 - they died mostly from bacterial pneumonia - because antibiotics hadn't been discovered.

    We won't see any more people die than during a regular flu season. In fact, since everyone who was exposed to the swine flu in 1957 has decent immunity to this flu (which is not swine flu - it's an influenza a variant), we'll probably see fewer deaths, except among the highest-risk - the 3% of the population who are morbidly obese, and are going to die of *something* anyways but would be unscathed if they just didn't eat for 4.

    Also, I'm betting that this virus will follow the usual path, and rapidly become LESS virulent. Mathematically, as it mutates, the odds are that the vast majority of those mutations won't be as effective, so while it'll still provoke an immune response which will protect against the original form, it won't kill people off in anywhere near the same numbers. Talk of a pandemic is just hype at this point in time.

    Also, if it mutated to something much more virulent, your vaccine wouldn't protect you, since it wouldn't be against the new strain.

    Then again, I'm probably immune according to the gov't, so it's no skin off my nose.

  124. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    The problem is, they followed doctors around, and most who THOUGHT they got it right, were still cross-contaminating from handling charts, etc. You just do things unconsciously, and BANg, there you go!

    Now if you were born before the 1957 pandemic, the shot is less effective than the natural immunity you got from your previous exposure. Don't take the shot, don't worry about it, you're safe.

    Then again, we can expect some more fun around 2020 as a new flu strain comes out that exploits people who don't have a previous immunity from the Hong Kong flu of 68-69. We'll see the same OMG reaction, made worse because of the further increase in population, but that's life.

    This is now the "new normal" for flu, since we travel more. Less travel would mean longer times between outbreaks (a good thing), but much more dead at each outbreak (a bad thing), since we wouldn't have as many people who have either partial or complete immunity to any new variant due to previous exposure to similar variants. There's always a balance.

  125. Not Same Severity by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Think we could have practically wiped out polio or smallpox in this country if we just kicked back and waited to see what happened?

    No, but the case for these vaccines was clear since both small pox and polio are incredibly serious diseases resulting in high mortality rates or permanent handicap. For these diseases the rate of serious complications from the vaccine is far, far lower than the rate of serious consequences from the disease so it is very clear that you should vaccinate.

    The problem is that we are now developing vaccines for diseases which have far, far lower rates of complications and fatalities. An example is chicken pox. The rate of complications from the vaccine is comparable to the rate of complications from the disease, the WHO recommends it mainly as an economic measure (stops parents missing work to look after sick kids) and since the vaccine wears off you have to have booster shots or risk getting shingles as an adult which is a serious disease.

    Swine flu seems to be between the two. The disease can sometimes be serious but the vaccine has had no large scale testing. Hence, since I'm not an "at risk" category I'm waiting this one out at least until a while after the mass vaccination has started to see if there are an complications from the vaccine. Once the guinea pigs have shown it is safe I'll get my shot then.

    1. Re:Not Same Severity by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Preventing shingles in later age is a very good reason to be vaccinated against chicken pox. Ask someone who's had it.

  126. Understandable and justifiable by golodh · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't really understand the excitement about this, even if the measure comes across as a tad heavy-handed.

    First off, from a public health point of view it's perfectly reasonable to insist that *all* nurses, MDs, and hospital support staff are vaccinated against most diseases that hospitals are likely to encounter, and against *all* diseases that threaten to become a pandemic (and for which vaccines are available).

    The reason is very simple: health-care workers will get into contact with large numbers of weakened patients (old, infirm, very young, diseased, suffering from trauma etc.) and you don't want them to:

    - (a) become infected themselves (because they weren't vaccinated) and then infect scores of vulnerable patients because they are carriers

    - (b) become unavailable for work due to illness right when they are needed most.

    So, by and large and taking one thing with another, we are better off without health-care workers who don't wish to be vaccinated. This simple consideration consideration is enough to warrant *mandatory* vaccination for all health-care workers.

    The risk to at-risk individuals (and health-care workers) from the disease itself is much greater than the risk from a vaccine, so (statistically speaking) the only rational course of action is to take the vaccine.

    The only thing that I think might be done differently is to dismiss such health-care workers as refuse vaccination. But then again, what do you do with people who can't be kept in their present function?

  127. Re:Once again... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    cancer virus cell base = your H1N1 Vaccine

    And once again you're incoherent. Go away and die.

    http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/07/swine-flu-health-expert-warning/does-virus-vaccine-increase-risk-of-cancer.html
    http://vactruth.com/2009/10/02/fda-approved-h1n1-vaccines-contain-ingredients-known-to-cause-cancer-and-death/

    A real quick google search would have turned up the information you're looking for. Asshole.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  128. I went to the mandatorium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and got my flu shot here in Iowa. It was my first flu shot ever.

    I work end user IT support at a hospital, and they did announce and enforce a mandatory flu shot this year.

    There was some noise about the service worker's union putting an injunction but they dropped it.

    The hospital had procedures in place for people with valid medical or religious concerns about the flu shot. A short form to fill out and hand in to the Employee Health Clinic. From what I understand about the form they look at it for about 3 seconds to determine if it qualifies, then mark you down as compliant, and the form goes into the private medical record where HR and the employee's supervisor can't see it. All my boss or HR knows is that I'm compliant, not whether or not I was actually poked.

    However, I don't really see the big deal. We in the medical field (even those of us not treating patients directly) go to bigger risks in regard to exposure to disease. I'd put serious money down that even if the flu shot is dangerous in some way, it still comes out ahead of being exposed to the flu, and then summarily exposing others to the flu who are in poor health and whose lives are in danger by that exposure.

    In fact, I met a patient TODAY who had a heart transplant and then was exposed to the flu shortly after being transferred from the ICU to the inpatient unit, and was in some pretty serious trouble because of the immune repressing drugs (or whatever, I'm a computer guy not a doctor). That dude almost died because people who have the flu are exposing others days before they show symptoms.

    As an aside - I never thought I'd have a job where I had to wear scrubs, a gown, gloves, a hair net, and a mask to fix a computer. PLUS the computers are hooked up to people. That's crazy.

  129. Re:Captain TwatObvious by houghi · · Score: 1

    A vaccine that saves millions of lives at the risk of a few hundred is a justifiable risk.

    Except it is not millions with this one. It is thought to be 250.000-500.000
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic#Historical_context

    And that is worldwide. And that is nothing different compared to a 'normal' flu.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  130. Re:Captain TwatObvious by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    It took me 4 years to realize how good I had it back then

    How long will it take you to realize that correlation is not causation? Perhaps until the next time you get a spate of sickness? That flu shot only helps you not get the flu, and while your body is coping with it your immune system is depressed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you're seeing the world through rose-colored petri dishes.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  131. Re:Captain TwatObvious by KFW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is only partly true (only a very small part) and much less so now.

    The drug companies did sponsor some thin "throw-away" quick reference books on narrow topics. With the crackdown on drug companies, this is much less true now.

    Drug companies didn't and still don't fund or write any of the major medical reference texts that are used primarily. They would sometimes buy them to give away to doctors (again, this happens much less now), but they didn't have input on the content. I've edited major medical texts, and know the editors of other leading texts, and know that drug company concerns had nothing to do with the content.

  132. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "I haven't heard any defense of Holdren, BTW"

    In my lifetime the world's population has more than doubled, that fact is currently treated as the "elephant in the room" in any discussions about our species future.

    I accept your basic facts, I'm not american and know little of him but WP largely agrees with your link in that Holdren speculated on radical birth control and actively supported SOME of those ideas. However it also states - "He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size [6] and that he has never endorsed forced sterilization."

    Without the benifit of actually reading the book it looks to me it's your typical "acedemic investigates doomsday population senarios" type of thing that was fashionable in the 70's and 80's. However to go from there to a vast government sterilization conspiracy taking place via flu shots is a political leap of (bad) faith that I'm not willing to take.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  133. I work in IT at a hospital by b3x · · Score: 0

    We are being required to get both flu shots (seasonal and H1N1 when it arrives), and we are also required to sign a waiver releasing the hospital of all responsibility if something goes wrong. IANAL but this seems like a really shady thing to do. But in today's economy you can force people to do just about anything ....

  134. Re:Swine Flu has killed 1 out of every 1.31 MILLIO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are people really this stupid, or is it just Americans? Hint: Far from 6.7 billion people have been infected by the virus. Yet.

  135. It's a liability thing. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    I bet that if some patient catches H1N1 while in the hospital, the lawyers will be _all over_ the fact that the hospital administration negligently did not have the staff vaccinated against it faster than you can say "megabucks in damages".

  136. Re:Once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds awful.

    Can you list the side effects of the H1N1 virus?

  137. Re:Once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh noes, I have a one in ten risk of getting a headache for a few days! It's obviously much better that I catch the flu and transmit it to a hundred already sick and weak people at the hospital, who have a one in ten risk of dying.

  138. It is due to the use of certain adjuvants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your body already makes squalene. If you inject something into your system that is using synthetic squalene to get a stronger reaction from a smaller amount of vaccine and your immune decides to attack all squalene in your system then you are screwed. Google "Gulf War Syndrome Squalene"

  139. Re:Once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the possible side effects include symptoms you would get from the virus that you are getting along with side effects related to being poked with needles. This isn't news. Besides, look at the side effect list of an OTC medicine. If this can of Pepsi on my desk were required to list every ailment someone said they got from the soda, you'd be convinced the government was trying to give us all cancer. To some purpose I'm sure but I'd rather not tug on that thin mental rope.

  140. Re:Captain TwatObvious by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

    You know, you might get people to take your arguments more seriously, if you didn't write so much like an asshole. Just sayin'.

    I did read most of your points, and I do think you may have some points, but your presentation stinks to high heaven. Slagging off large parts of your audience isn't a great way to get people to take you seriously (fat slobs? You think firing around that aspersion here on slashdot is going to win you many allies? As one of the aforementioned fat slobs, I'd be sorely tempted to bloody your nose for you, for that one, if I ever got the chance) .

    Your posts make you sound like a crank with an axe to grind, no matter how good your citations are.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  141. Misleading National chart by MoeDumb · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine works in the ER of a large NYC hospital. Contrary to the flu trends chart saying this region has "high" flu activity, she says the ER is seeing just a trickle. She also says nearly half the staff she's spoken to -- doctors, nurses -- say they won't be getting the H1N1 shot before the deadline. "They can't fire us all."

    --
    Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
  142. Re:Captain TwatObvious by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

    Actually, while RNs can't prescribe drugs, they are authorized to administer a fair number of drugs without direct order while under the direction of a doctor. As are Paramedics. So as a matter of fact, they do have to study drugs in their education.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  143. How does that work? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I don't think you understand how it works:

    No vaccination: person gets chicken pox as a kid is ill for a week, recovers and has immunity for life (unless something else compromises their immune system).

    With vaccination: person gets vaccinated as a kid and gets immunity for 10 years (might be as long as 20 now but really they don't know how long the immunity lasts because it has not been around that long). As a teenager parents ensure they get the 10 year booster so immunity continues. Next booster (or first if 20 years) comes due at university. The person is probably completely unaware of it, forgets to have it and is no longer immune to chicken pox. Several years later they are exposed and then get a serious case of shingles.

    So which one do YOU think is the way to go? The problem is that with the vaccine being handed out like candy it is hard for kids to get exposed. Our kids will have to get vaccinated if they haven't managed to catch it before ~15 but it would be better for them to be exposed to the disease beforehand.

    1. Re:How does that work? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Varicella-zoster virus - aka the chicken pox virus - also causes shingles. Like other herpes viruses, it hides out in nerve cells (in the case of VZV, usually in the spinal cord). When the host becomes immunocompromised, it flares. Shingles is the disease that results.

      Looking at the Varivax data, it looks like nearly 100% of patients are still seropositive at 10 years. That's not too different from natural VZV exposure - after all, if you were immune for life, shingles wouldn't occur.

      Is it polio? No. But chronic postherpetic neuralgia is a godawful complication in later life, and it's reasonable to believe that the vaccine will limit that. Yes, boosters are required, but then again nobody has studied just how much of a boost parents get when their children get chicken pox and their immune system is reactivated.

      Anecdotally, my younger sister was about a year old when I got chicken pox and got a mild case. Very mild. So when the disease made its way around her age group, she got shingles - at age 6. Very nasty.

    2. Re:How does that work? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      But chronic postherpetic neuralgia is a godawful complication in later life, and it's reasonable to believe that the vaccine will limit that.

      ...and what are the potential complications from the vaccine later in life? Will your immunity last? Nobody knows because the vaccine has not been around that long. On the other hand we do know for a fact that the rate of complications from the actual disease is very low. Perhaps the rate of complications from the vaccine will be lower - if everyone always remembers to take boosters - but there is no firm evidence for this yet and even if there is a slight preference for the vaccine what is the benefit if I have to remember to have a booster every 10-20 years? Remember that the WHO primarily argues for the vaccination on economic, not medical grounds.

      Regarding the "boost effect for parents": why would this be an issue? Once you are infected with chicken pox the virus is never eradicated and remains with you and is just kept under constant control by the immune system. This is why a sudden case of shingles in later life is often the sign of something more serious which is compromising the immune system.

      Also, to counter you anecdote, the vaccine should not be given to people who have already had the disease since there is a small risk that it will weaken the immune response to the real virus in them and may cause shingles. Hence your example is also possible with the vaccine.

  144. Re:Swine Flu has killed 1 out of every 1.31 MILLIO by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should learn to read before you speak. You cannot point to anywhere in my post where I stated 6.7 billion people got the virus. That is the population of the earth. so if 5,149 people ON THE EARTH have died from swine flu then that's 1 out of every 1.31 million people ON THE EARTH that will die. Since the "authorities" want ALL PEOPLE ON THE EARTH to get the vaccine then the numbers become relevant. Maybe there's a vaccine for xenophobia you can try.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  145. Panic over nothing. by lunatick · · Score: 1

    The point isn't whether the flu vaccine is necessary or not. The point is you are mandated to get it if you work in a NYS article 28 facility (section 205 of the NYS public health law specifically) you are forced to get this shot if you want to keep your job. This includes care agencies, Hospitals, Nursing homes etc...

    Is the vaccine safe, who knows? They just started clinical trials. This is the problem Health care workers are being forced into the clinical trial. I know for a fact that it is not FDA approved yet, and because it is a vaccine for a "pandemic" disease it is allowed to bend the rules of acceptable ingredients. The mercury content of the vaccine is higher than normally allowed. available here While a healthy male may have no problem with this, how about a pregnant female? Some of the ingredients are known to worsen thyroid conditions . The problem is no one really knows what will happen.

    Also why mandate the swine flu shot but not the regular flu shot. 12% of people die from the flu every year (CDC reports) yet as of June of 2009 the swine flu has about a 6% mortality rate (Again CDC reports).

    This disease is less deadly than most other strains of the flu yet there is panic over it. The big deal is while the normal flu may put you out of commission for 3 days the swine flu can knock you out for 6 days to 2 weeks.

    The CDC is not mandating health care workers get the shot, only NYS is. Plus you have to sign multiple wavers that you won't sue anyone should you end up sick from it. Basically you are given the choice of playing Russian roulette or lose your job. You have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the bullet but if you get the bullet your chances don't matter you are stuck with the reality. A lot of the people educating people on the Vaccine when asked if they will get it, turn around and say no. How can they truthfully educate people on how safe this vaccine is if they refuse to get it?

    I know in Manhattan on Oct 13 an injunction is being filed by PATRICIA FINN on behalf of all health care workers, and it may go class action suit if the injunction is approved.

    Fyi I just gave a lecture on swine flu and have a ton more info if any one wants it, most of it is available off CDC websites though.

    --
    The Lunatick, Carpe Corpus!
  146. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Eugenics used to be fashionable too. Holdren's views are no less dangerous. And, in many ways, they're very similar. Holdren was simply worried about quantity rather than quality.

    Having a guy like Holdren in a government position destroys any possibility of trust. If we need to trust our government and be vaccinated to prevent a pandemic, then Holdren should resign. It's the only responsible course of action.

    But even without a pandemic, this is the USA. We have a right to a government we can trust. Holdren should be ineligible for government positions of responsibility in a non-totalitarian regime. Maybe someday we can have one of those again.

  147. Re:Once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually you're incoherent.

    Look into how vaccines are produced, dumbshit. They scraped some cancerous epithelial cells from a lady's snatch and grow them in that.

  148. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    And what happens if it happens to kill a couple orders of magnitude more than 250,000 to 500,000? Mass immunization is partial insurance against a dangerous mutation in this strain. As I see it, this strain is more likely than usual human-borne flu strains to become something more dangerous.

  149. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    Also, it appears that the oft-repeated "36,000 people die from the flu every year" number is also bogus, being a bad extrapolation from a set of people who are already seriously ill, and not numbers taken from actual sampling the population at large. The actual toll may be well under 1,000. So much for any epidemological studies that support big numbers with bad guestimates instead of hard counts.

    You have a cite? The WSJ article doesn't support your claim. It just shows that the 36,000 per year claim has some large error bars.

    And the rest of your post isn't justified. I see no evidence that the death rate from the flu is as low as you claim. And your analysis of susceptible populations is bogus. Maybe a bit over 10% is unusually susceptible to the flu (insulting labels such as "lardos" and "fatties" really further your case here), but the rest can die from a more lethal variation of an existing flu strain. That's the point you seem to be missing here. It can get worse. A flu that rapidly goes through the population as this H1N1 variant does, is more likely than normal flu variants to become unusually lethal. You're likely to be right, but that's merely because you are betting against a low probability event, not because you have an understanding of what's going on.

  150. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the deaths happen in the third world where poor nutrition is a major contributing factor. If you're malnourished or your diet consists of McD's and you're severely obese and diabetic then you're more at risk. If you're healthy and active with a well-balanced diet, your risks are probably higher from the flu shot.

  151. Re:Captain TwatObvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an educated guess. But a guess just the same.

  152. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    As one of the aforementioned fat slobs, I'd be sorely tempted to bloody your nose for you, for that one, if I ever got the chance

    If you're one of the morbidly obese fat slobs that are at higher risk, I'm not worried about anything you might do except you sitting on me.

    Morbid obesity is a "lifestyle disease" - completely preventable, and there is NO excuse. And there's a reason why they call it "morbid" obesity - it can kill you.

    That 3% of the population in the US is morbidly obese says something grim.

    So, if you're one of those morbidly obese fat slobs, clean up your act, stop stuffing your pie-hole, and claiming you're "disabled" (while too many of you sure manage NOT to be disabled when it comes time to belly up to the all-u-can-eat, though). You get that way one mouthful at a time, same as anyone else.

    I have no more patience for the morbidly obese than I do for smokers saying "I can't quit". They knew the risks. They thought "I can quit any time!" They were wrong, and after decades of ignoring warnings from everyone+dog, they have ONLY themselves to blame. If they make honest attempts to quit, THEN they have my sympathy - but to say "I can't quit" is bullshit. They don't even try. I agree with doctors who refuse to treat patients who won't quit smoking. Just like I agree with the official policy of refusing heart transplants to smokers, and the morbidly obese. Waste of time and resources, and an exercise in futility.

    Same as the morbidly obese who knew every time they looked in the mirror, or when they couldn't see their feet any more, that they were too fat. I mean, how do these people even wipe their asses? Oh wait, many of them don't - which contributes to that "morbidly obese person miasma" that surrounds many of them.

    I'll save my sympathy for those who at least TRY to lose the excess weight, and TRY to quit smoking, and TRY to get off crack. If you don't care enough to even try, why should I give a shit. Or, more generally, why should anyone else give a shit when you don't.

    If you're trying to lose the weight, you have my sympathies (a waist is a terrible thing to mind :-) If not, not.

  153. You can stick your job up your ass by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    before I take any vaccination shots whatsoever. I haven't ever gone and gotten them in the past why should I do so now just
    because Novartis and this government want me to?

    they blew it when they just came across as too DAMM EAGER TO INJECT... too DAMM EAGER.

    The opportunity for a world-wide injection campaign is out the window and wont be back, possibly for a quiet a while, but most likely
    not ever as

    PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME are wising up to the extent of the FRAUD

  154. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    The bogosity isn't just from the large margin of error - it's also from they fact that there has NEVER been proper statistics done - NEVER been a proper count, so there are no valid statistics. It's guesswork, and always has been. Same as the bogus claim that "spinach is good for you - it has lots of iron" which turned out to be an oft-copied mistake from a single government chart with a misplaced decimal point. Spinach has no more iron than any other veggie, and most of that isn't even bio-available. And yet, people still say "eat your spinach - it's good for you!"

    If H1N1 mutates into something else, then your vaccine targeted at H1N1 isn't going to help you very much, is it?

    The death rate is lower than the official claim for the simple reason that they counted only people who went to the hospital. Not everyone goes to the hospital just because they think they *might* have the flu. So, since they admit they didn't account for anyone who didn't present at a hospital, the death rate has to be lower than "the official rate", unless people are dying in their homes, which is something we're not seeing. So no, this is a mild strain of flu.

    also, the reason it doesn't affect most older people is because if you were around during the 1957 epidemic, unless you have serious underlying health problems, you're probably still immune.

    The 3% of the population who are morbidly obese didn't give a shit about themselves while they ate their way to blimpdom, so why should I? "I can't lose weight" is a defeatist attitude. If they're not willing to try, I have no sympathy. If they're making an honest effort, they have my full support, because a waist is a terrible thing to mind. But when you see pictures of people complaining about delays in getting gastric bypass surgery, and they're holding a big gulp in one hand, and a 12" sub in the other, just kindly fuck off and die already, lardo. Stop blaming others for your own problem, and accept some responsibility for your current situation.

    Same with smokers who, after being warned for years and years, and always smugly saying "I can quit any time", who then cry "but I can't quit!" You're rightfully excluded from the heart transplant list, even if you need one. Quit first.

    Why can't people accept some responsibility for the messes they get themselves in? Plenty of us were warning about the housing bubble back in 2006, and we were told "no, housing always goes up", even though that has NEVER been true. Why should we bail out anyone who was greedy and reckless and didn't listen to the warnings? There were enough of them.

  155. Wife faces this option too by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    She's a physician at hospital in Iowa, received letter that any employee not receiving flu shot would be terminated. She intended to anyway, but anarchist me says refuse just to stick it to the man. She says no and turn the TV down.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  156. Re:Captain TwatObvious by joocemann · · Score: 1

    It took me 4 years to realize how good I had it back then

    How long will it take you to realize that correlation is not causation? Perhaps until the next time you get a spate of sickness? That flu shot only helps you not get the flu, and while your body is coping with it your immune system is depressed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you're seeing the world through rose-colored petri dishes.

    yeah, ok... Thanks for trying to insult me. I must be an idiot for knowing that the slight immune reaction from flu shots was NOTHING like the natural flus I had the last 4 years.

    Thanks for being a douche, I love it when you attack me and pretend I'm stupid.

  157. Re:Captain TwatObvious by EdZ · · Score: 1

    Only in the US, where there still exists the odd notion that health care is not a basic right.

  158. Re:Captain TwatObvious by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

    If you're trying to lose the weight, you have my sympathies (a waist is a terrible thing to mind :-) If not, not.

    So do you really think, after that lengthy and ignorant diatribe, that your sympathies mean anything to me? For the record, I am trying to lose weight, and yes it is hard (harder than quitting smoking, which I've already done). But whatever. This isn't a talk show, and I'm not going to wade through your post and point out everything wrong with it, because you're not worth the time. I'm also not going to whine to you about how hard it is, and all that shit, because you don't care. And I can even respect that. All I really want to know is; if I can learn how to control what goes into my mouth, and how much, can you learn how to control the steaming brown flow of shit streaming from your own?

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  159. Bullsh** by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    Please cite your source that any known existing form of flu is an airborne disease. I'd like to know who has done this groundbreaking Nobel Prize winning level of research proof, that any form of flu is airborne. Last, I heard there has been no proof that any flu is airborne in the medical sense.

    Sure you can catch it is someone sneezes on you, That doesn't make it an airborne disease. It makes it a projected or ejected weapon disease.

  160. human race..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only thing that really invented by human is....
    politics....
    not any kind of science....
    but they claim this to be....
    XD

  161. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Look - if you're one of the morbidly obese, YOU caused your own health problems, not me, not someone else. And as the doctor pointed out in one of the links, the people who died in their hospital from H1N1 were huge, with the health problems that go along with it - if H1N1 hadn't gotten them, something else probably would have within the next 6 months, but it's no surprises that fat slobs are at higher risk.

    Everyone else is sick and tired about how so many of the uber-fat, rather than actually trying to shed their excess poundage, want "handicapped status." That's as ironic as someone killing their parents and then asking for mercy because they're an orphan. Want 2 seats on the plane? Pay for them. After all, when you want 2 extra-large pizzas, you pay for both of them.

    It's the same with smokers who get cancer and then say "It's not fair! Why me?"

    Part of the blame for the epidemic of obesity has to go to food producers who use too much HFCS, just like part of the blame for cancer has to go to the cigarette companies, but they can't claim victim status when they're both the principal architect and a willing, informed participant in bringing about their own situation. This is not something they don't have control over. If they aren't willing to control what they put in their mouth, then they have to accept the consequences, and one of those consequences is higher mortality from any opportunistic infection.

    What are they waiting for? A vaccine to cure obesity? Obesity isn't a "disease", though watching the morbidly obese at feeding time WILL make many sick. We see it often enough in restaurants - 4 people come in, somehow manage to sit on the chairs without breaking them, and proceed to eat everything in sight. First thing people do is look in the parking lot to see if there's a car with [$INSERT_EVEN_FATTER_STATE] license plates.

    It's having a "spill-over effect" on the general population. Too many of us have forgotten what a person who's not overweight even looks like. Saying "I'm not fat" when they're sedentary, their BMI is over 25, and their waste is bigger than their chest. Yeah, riiiight. Or saying "You need to put on some weight" when the person's BMI is over 25, and they really could afford to lose (and are trying to shed) a few pounds.

    H1N1 isn't a serious threat. HFCS, obesity, tobacco - THOSE are threats that make H1N1 look like a case of the hiccups.

    Death toll from obesity catches up with tobacco http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Death-toll-from-obesity-catches-up-with-tobacco
    Smokings Global Death Toll tp:wwwcbsnewscomstories20030912healthmain572833shtml

    Almost 5 million people die because of smoking each year.

    And now H1N1 is FINALLY sending us the common-sense message that those extra pounds, even if they don't make us officially "morbidly obese", put us at risk

    The past four deaths have occurred in the past week, as hospitals in the valley report being inundated with patients with flu-like symptoms and doctors race to understand more about the new virus.

    Most ICU patients have been overweight, he said, which is puzzling: Their weight isn't causing other health conditions that the federal government says puts people at higher risk of severe influenza complications, such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, he said.

    "I really don't consider being overweight a disease, at least in the patients we're seeing," Dean said. "It's not like they're so [obese] they've gone into heart failure. Somehow, the disease is striking them."

    So, they're not "that" fat, but they're big enough that they obviously got more than a few bowls of Crisco in common. Why is this so unexpected? We've been saying for decades that extra pounds are a health risk.

  162. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    As a genuinely disinterested observer, out of context quotes do not trump sworn testimony. If the republicans have evidence that refutes his testimony then why didn't they bring it up at the confirmation? Why aren't they screaming perjury?

    "this is the USA. We have a right to a government we can trust. Holdren should be ineligible for government positions of responsibility in a non-totalitarian regime. Maybe someday we can have one of those again."

    No you have a right to cast a vote for who YOU trust and a right to observe the ballot count. Holdren also has rights such as the presumption of innocence, and the right to hold and express any OPINIONS he likes, regardless of wether he works for the government or not.

    To sack him for him for ANY opinion (let alone one he refutes under oath) would be tantamount to convicting him of a thought crime. When the US starts prosecuting it's government advisers for thought crimes I will accept your proposition that it has become a totalitarian regime.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  163. Look to the source Luke! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Here in Australia we have a concept known as "A fair go" -AKA- "A fair suck of the sav".

    I genuinely belive you have been mislead by political muck rakers, if you have the courage to entertain self-scepticisim then give Holdren a fair suck of the sav by reading the book in question, or at least use it to put the quotes from your link in context.

    Don't get me wrong here I'm not trying to debate your political views or defend Holdren's views. You asked for someone to defend Holdren and I did by pointing out he also has rights under your admirable founding documents.

    I'm an old fart, I learnt critical thinking the easy way (ie: early in life), at about age 20 I read a book by James Randi that totally demolished my firmly held belief in the paranormal. Politicians use many of the same phycological tricks that magicians use, since then I have found that going to the source on any issue often results in political enlightenment.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  164. Re:Captain TwatObvious by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    Or you could let nature take its course; be sick for a few days, and your body's immune system is now stronger.

    There's a reason that older people are the least likely to devleop swine flu; its because their generation wasn't a bunch of panty-wastes afraid of getting the slightest cold and they didn't run around disinfecting the hell out of evertying. People today are sicker because of this nonsense.

  165. Re:Captain TwatObvious by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    Hmm... I never really got sick that much, but after changing my lifestyle to eating healthy and exercising, I haven't been sick in years. At all. Perhaps its not the shot, its that your lifestyle has reached the tipping point where you're hindering your immune system. And I HAVE been around people who have been sick.

    Its ok to get the flu you'll be better off for it, as would everyone else. Think about it... you don't use your muscles, they break down. You need to stress them to improve them. Same for bones (stress, not break..). Same with your brain; you get dumber by not doing anything intelligent.

    So why do people want their immune system of all things to NEVER be stressed? It neesd to actually fight disease to know how to do anything.

  166. The Jab backfires? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what if the flu shot makes you more likely to get the flu?
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/study-prompts-provinces-to-rethink-flu-p%3E%20lan/article1303330/

  167. Re:Captain TwatObvious by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

    I too am a skeptic, but the reason for the initial panic, which in retrospect was clearly overblown, is that unlike "normal" flu strains, no one has any immunity to this swine flu. When news first broke, we didn't know that the fatality rate would turn out to be similar to that of the seasonal flu, rather than the spanish flu epidemic. So at the very least there were more differences between the swine flu and seasonal flu than just money.

    All those people screaming fascism should consider what they would like to happen if, in the future, a flu strain emerges that has a high fatality rate. Public health is one of the things government is pretty good at, and I'd prefer to be required to have a vaccine than have my cubicle mate give me a preventable high-mortality disease.

    All that said, and NY requiring health care workers to get the flu shot is a PR disaster. Health care workers should all get the flu shot, but in this particular case, it shouldn't be required because the push-back is likely to have more serious consequences than having a few people opt out.

  168. Vaccinations not always without drawbacks by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that anyone who gets recurring Guillain-Barré Syndrome as a result of a flu shot will be mighty happy to lose their job as a result of mandatory vaccination.

    My father knows of 2 people, relative and acquaintance, who suffered from GBS after a vaccination (likely the 1976 one mentioned in the articles), one of whom died from complications from it. He has declined to get vaccinated because of it, and frankly I don't blame him. He has been through times when vaccinations were even more unreliable, and riskier, than they are today. And I don't consider them that big a panacea today, myself.

  169. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    And what happens if it happens to kill a couple orders of magnitude more than 250,000 to 500,000? Mass immunization is partial insurance against a dangerous mutation in this strain. As I see it, this strain is more likely than usual human-borne flu strains to become something more dangerous.

    That would be a GOOD THING (tm). If it happened, we would be a much healthier population, because this flu is pretty mild - it's taking out mostly the morbidly obese (who, as one doctor pointed out wrt the ones who died, were sick enough that they were probably going to die anyway within 6 months) and those with severe underlying diseases (almost all the infant deaths had neurological problems). Interestingly enough, this variant is showing a preference wrt death rates, not must for the morbidly obese, but the "ordinary obese" as well. Now if we could just engineer it so that it kills off smokers in 7 days, rather than tobacco killing them in 20 years, everyone would stop smoking within a week (one way or another). Can I get my research grant now?

    There's ALWAYS a silver lining, Skippy.

    Also, mass immunization isn't insurance against a mutation. Look at what's happening in Nigeria, where the polio vaccine mutated last year and is now the cause of the majority of polio cases.

    Polio surge in Nigeria after vaccine virus mutates
    LONDON (AP) -- Polio, a dreaded paralyzing disease stamped out in the industrialized world, is spreading in Nigeria despite efforts to stamp it out. And health officials say in some cases, it's caused by the vaccine used to fight it.
    In July, the World Health Organization issued a warning that this vaccine-spread virus might extend beyond Africa. So far, 124 Nigerian children have been paralyzed this year -- about twice those afflicted in 2008.
    Experts have long believed epidemics unleashed by a vaccine's mutated virus wouldn't last since the vaccine only contains a weakened virus strain -- but that assumption is coming under pressure. Some experts now say that once viruses from vaccines start circulating they can become just as dangerous as wild viruses.
    "The only difference is that this virus was originally in a vaccine vial," said Olen Kew, a virologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Kew said genetic analysis proves mutated viruses from the vaccine have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria.

    It's not speculation - it's happening right now. Makes me wonder about the wisdom uf rushing out deployment of the "live virus" nasal vaccine. Gives a nice pool of infected people with the real McCoy. If you're looking for a mutation to happen, that's where it'll come from.

  170. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    no one has any immunity to this swine flu

    That's simply not true. Anyone who was around during the 1957 flu season and isn't immuno-compromised has at least partial immunity. That's why it's not going after "the old folks" so much - they're mostly already immune.

    So certainly requiring health-care workers over the age of 52 to get a flu shot is just bad science.

    Also, the people who are twice as likely to catch this strain are those who have had flu shots in previous years. And those who are going to die from it are mostly the morbidly obese, and to a lesser extent, the obese, and those who have underlying health problems. For example, almost all the infants who have died so far had severe neurological problems, so if the flu hadn't gotten them, something else probably would have. It's opportunistic in that sense, and, while it's going to sound cruel and politically incorrect, in some cases, it's probably for the best.

    It's not as simple and cut-and-dried as they make it out to be. Certainly, nothing to justify making the evening news.

  171. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    That would be a GOOD THING (tm). If it happened, we would be a much healthier population, because this flu is pretty mild -

    Well, Skippy, if the lethality of the flu jumps greatly (so that it is far from being "pretty mild"), guess who's more likely to die of it? People with health immune systems that overreact to the disease. The 1918 flu (which this variant is related to) is well documented as killing inordinate amounts of healthy people (via a "cytokine storm"), not just the groups that you seem to have a problem with. The early deaths in Mexico had to my understanding relatively high proportions of young and middle aged adults. The strain later settled into more traditional mortality patterns of flus. Currently it still has a somewhat higher infection rate compared to regular flus.

    Mass immunization isn't perfect protection against an epidemic? Who'd have thunk that? Perhaps if you had read my post, you would have seen that I already took that into account. Even if the disease mutates, immunization can provide increased resistance (and put off the cytokine storm which I gather is a last resort defense). Diseases don't automatically bypass immunizationw when they mutate.

  172. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    The wikipedia article is total bullshit. We know, contrary to the wiki article, that the majority of deaths from the 1918 flu were caused by bacterial pneumonia. They didn't have antibiotics then, and it's hard to observe simple hygiene when the whole world is at war, and tens of millions are engaged in trench warfare.

    Your "cytokine storm" is nothing but an urban legend. Same as "spinach is good for you because it has lots of iron" is also totally false, and was propagated for decades because of a misplaced decimal point in one government chart.

    But thanks for playing, and showing how easy people buy into the hype.

  173. Re:Captain TwatObvious by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

    You still don't get it, do you? Go back and look over my posts to you, and re-read them, and ask yourself this: where in those posts did I once even dispute any fact, claim or reference that you've made here?

    No seriously, go back and check. The post will wait.

    Did you check? If you did, you'd have noticed that not once have I tried to argue you about H1N1, obesity, the efficacy of hygeine in flu prevention, or anything else. I made one comment about your ignorance, in general terms, but that's it.

    I read your posts, immediately had the urge to disagree with everything you've said, and then asked myself why. I came to the conclusion that it was your combative, insulting tone that put me off your message. I thought (more fool me) that you would maybe be wondering why everyone was flaming you, ignoring your sources and trashing your posts. Apparently, I was wrong. Won't be the last time, no doubt. But not to worry, I won't give you any grief over your combative (and counter-productive) style, ever again. You clearly either don't care, or are incapable of recognizing that you even have a problem. Either way, it's really none of my business, so merry trolling to you, sir.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  174. Re:Captain TwatObvious by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

    well you're right about people over 52 possessing partial immunity. I'm not sure if there has been any analysis on whether the H1N1 vaccine provides any additional boost to immunity, but it may.

    You're not twice as likely to catch the swine flu if you've gotten flu vaccines in previous years. There was an interesting study done in Canada that found increased incidence of H1N1 among those who received the seasonal flu shot this year. As is oft repeated on slashdot correlation is not causation. Additionally, no one else has been able to reproduce these findings - it could be a quirk of confidence intervals or just plain bad methodology. The canadian data isn't published and hasn't been released. The CDC has looked at their data and found no such connection, and neither has anyone else. one source

    If you're not in a high risk group (pregnant, compromised immune system, obese, very young, health care worker etc.) it's a good idea to get the vaccine when it becomes available, but no one's going to make you. If you're in a high risk group it's a really good idea to get the shot, but still no one's going to make you - unless you're a health care worker in New York.

    At this point the swine flu isn't very news worthy, with the exception that the media plays an important roll in public health announcements like, "the vaccine will be available soon." In April, when we first found out that there was a novel flu strain it was very news worthy.

    Finally, I'm going to repeat what I thought was the most important point of my initial post. What should the government do if a high mortality rate disease breaks out for which a vaccine exists?

  175. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Which is why I *also* said that people who are trying to lose weight have my sympathy and support, and that both the food companies who over-use HFCS, and the tobacco companies, should also be held accountable.

    How can I make it plainer that my beef is with the lazy fat self-indulgent slobs who refuse to take any responsibility for their current state, want to blame it all on anyone and everyone else, and even actively sabotage efforts by others to get healthier.

    Those people deserve whatever they get. Whether it's the flu or any other opportunistic virus, we're better off without them trying to play the blame game. Not the ones trying to fight the good fight against the flab.

    It's the same as smokers who can't be arsed to quit, offering cigarettes to those who are trying, or who have already quit. Or crack-heads trying to keep their friends hooked so they can sponge more crack money off them. Or parents who feed their kids 4 helpings to make up for the lack of attention they otherwise give, which is just insidious in its' long-term effects. Or the alkie who keeps trying to get their now-sober buddies to have "just one drink."

    In all these cases, there's a victim, and an victimizer. I simply don't have any patience or sympathy for the victimizers whatsoever, who are undermining the people around them. The "lazy fat slobs" who are dying of H1N1 are not the same people who trying to lose the weight, so this disease, while opportunistic, seems to be culling mostly the "right" targets more often than not (though there are always exceptions).

    Sure, its not PC to say such things, but it's also not PC to say that homeowners who lied on their mortgages applications deserve jail time. And yet, how is their fraud any different? They're just as much criminals as the guy who passes a phony check. Both let their greed get the better of them, and both committed fraud.

  176. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    What should the government do if a high mortality rate disease breaks out for which a vaccine exists?

    Considering that they won't know that it's high-mortality until it actually kills of tons of people, by which time it's too late to get it into production and distribution, nothing beyond encouraging quarantines and proper hygiene to prevent transmission.

    Places that put quarantines into effect in time in 1918 didn't get sick.

    So - what could the government do that would actually be effective?

    1. ground most passenger airplanes for the duration
    2. run lots of ads stressing the importance of not sharing keyboards, mice, etc., and to get people to stop picking their noses and wiping it on stuff,
    3. get students to wash their hands on entry to school, and between classes
    4. employees stay home if they're sick (and no more "but I don't want to lose a sick day to SICKNESS - I'm saving it for a trip to ...")

    The last three should have been done months ago, if you're serious about dealing with this or any similar infection. If you read through the thread, you'll see that there are still people who don't believe that simple things like washing your hands can be effective, even though both the WHO and the CDC recommend it. The message isn't getting out, because people have placed too much emphasis on a "cure", and not on prevention.

    That's a major policy failure.

  177. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    We know, contrary to the wiki article, that the majority of deaths from the 1918 flu were caused by bacterial pneumonia.

    Wikipedia doesn't say that. And you don't get it. So what if most 1918 flu deaths didn't come directly from the flu? I read several books on the 1918 flu pandemic. They indicate a lot of people survived "cytokine storm" symptoms (some only to die of pneumonia symptoms later). Further, we've actually seen cases in the past few years of the cytokine storm. There were a number of bird flu cases, for example. So it's not just an "urban myth". The World Health Organization has some literature on that subject.

    And I don't understand your complaint about spinach. This link seems to indicate that despite your supposed myth busting that spinach is a considerable source of iron. That link even suggests ways to overcome the digestive difficulties that reduce intake of iron from spinach. Sure there was an erroneous study, but spinach still turns out to be a source of iron despite the errors in that study.

  178. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    I've looked through my posts as well as a portion of the Slashdot comments and you're the only person pushing this silliness and vitriol. I have no idea why you're so hung up on "fatties" and smokers, but you've repeatedly obsessed over them in several posts now. A simpler solution than killing all the fatties and smokers is for you to get your head screwed on straight.

  179. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    We know, contrary to the wiki article, that the majority of deaths from the 1918 flu were caused by bacterial pneumonia.

    Wikipedia doesn't say that

    Oh, com off it, that's an outright lie - Wikipedia DOES say exactly that exactly that, both in the article about the 1918 flue:

    The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza

    and in the general article about influenza pandemics

    The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza,

    And in both cases, it's in the same paragraph as the speculation about "cytokine storms". Word-for-word, both articles agree that bacterial pneumonia was not just the #1, but the majority, cause of death. Not some theoretical "cytokine storm", which even the WHO has no basis other than speculation, as in this article.

    The theory doesn't fit the facts that we know, just like your claim that Wikipedia doesn't say that bacterial pneumonia caused most deaths. People died mostly of bacterial pneumonia in the middle of a flu epidemic in the middle of a world war that caused many to be malnourished, and exposed tens of millions to local diseases that they would never have encountered before - and most would have survived with antibiotics, which just hadn't been discovered yet.

  180. Killing the messenger by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, kill the messenger.

    It might be unpopular to say it, but people have to take some responsibility for being over-weight. Don't want to be more prone to sickness because you're morbidly obese? Then stop eating so much! Don't want to be more prone to cancer from smoking? Then quit smoking! Don't want to pick up an opportunistic infection when you can reduce your risk by simple hygiene? Then teach your kids to wash their hands and stop picking their noses!

    It's not a question of "obsessing over fatties" - it's pointing out that the stats are skewed, and that if you're not overweight, you have a much lower risk profile. This means that a lot of people who are panicking, shouldn't be. H1N1 is like any other opportunistic virus. Don't want to be a target? Reduce your profile - in this case, literally.

    This is all stuff that should be obvious, but instead we have people going in a panic and making uninformed decisions - like the "everyone MUST get a shot" one, when there's lots of evidence that people who were around during the 1957 epidemic don't need one, can't benefit from one, and shouldn't have to be put in such a position.

    The fat epidemic kills more people every year. We can solve it by banning HFCS in soft drinks and processed foods, and ending agricultural subsidies that make junk cheaper than real food. Tobacco kills more people every year, and we can prevent that too, but no, we won't. That would require people to *gasp* get a fucking clue and exercise some self-control. Any politician who recommends that course of action will be out of office really quick.

    Doesn't make it any less true. Which begs the question - who are the ones who really have their heads screwed on crooked? The people advocating personal responsibility and better health? I don't think so.

    As for "killing all the fatties and smokers" - they've already volunteered to do the job themselves. What are YOU doing to warn them?

    1. Re:Killing the messenger by khallow · · Score: 1

      It might be unpopular to say it, but people have to take some responsibility for being over-weight.

      For starters, that isn't your viewpoint. Most people who smoke or overeat, accept that they aren't on the optimal health path. They realize they aren't going to live as long as the skinny people who exercise a lot. They have "accepted responsibility" as you put it.

      The fat epidemic kills more people every year. We can solve it by banning HFCS in soft drinks and processed foods, and ending agricultural subsidies that make junk cheaper than real food. Tobacco kills more people every year, and we can prevent that too, but no, we won't. That would require people to *gasp* get a fucking clue and exercise some self-control. Any politician who recommends that course of action will be out of office really quick.

      Or we can do the right thing and stop constricting peoples' freedom in the name of bogus health improvements. As I see it, it doesn't matter that these people live 20 years less than they would otherwise.

      As for "killing all the fatties and smokers" - they've already volunteered to do the job themselves. What are YOU doing to warn them?

      Not a thing. 1) It's not my job; 2) The one's that are willing to learn already know; 3) it's meddling - I don't like meddlers; and 4) I don't care what mistakes people chose to make as long as it only harms them.

      It's not a question of "obsessing over fatties" - it's pointing out that the stats are skewed, and that if you're not overweight, you have a much lower risk profile. This means that a lot of people who are panicking, shouldn't be. H1N1 is like any other opportunistic virus. Don't want to be a target? Reduce your profile - in this case, literally.

      Practice what you preach. I've seen you use uselessly derogatory terms in at least two posts so far. I don't care what your problem with fat people or smokers is. They die 20 years early? Fine with me. You whining at me because people don't do what you think is the optimal health thing? That gets my hackles up. That's the sort of sentiment that leads to stupid nanny laws.

    2. Re:Killing the messenger by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      It might be unpopular to say it, but people have to take some responsibility for being over-weight.

      For starters, that isn't your viewpoint

      Really, now you're going to tell me what my viewpoint is? Look, you're not Kreskin, and even if you were, you still couldn't read minds, so lay off with trying to tell me what my viewpoint is,, when it clearly contradicts what I've written.

      Also, yes, I use derogatory terms like lardo and fat slob, for those who refuse to help themselves and REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY. Like the guy in the local newspaper who was complaining that he couldn't get gastric bypass surgery fast enough - while he's standing there with his lunch - a 2 litre of pop and a foot-long sub and a May West for desert. Blaming "the system". Fuck that. He should look in the mirror. This is exactly the type of stinking pile of Crisco who deserves to be publicly mocked, if only to serve as an object lesson to everyone else. Some peoples' lives are like the Titanic - they're an object warning to everyone else. If they won't help themselves, wtf should anyone else?

      You say they're free to do so? Sure, but don't ask me to help pay for it because they're "disabled". And don't defend their freedom to eat like pigs while trying to cut down my freedom to call them pigs. They're human garburators.

      Contrast that to people who are trying to quit over-eating, or quit smoking. I won't call the people who are making an honest effort to lose weight lardo or fat slob - they don't merit it, and need all the encouragement they can get, because people like you refuse to punish the ones who profit most from this - the producers of HFCS, tobacco companies, etc.

      Don't like it? Gets your hackles up? Tough shit, lardo.

    3. Re:Killing the messenger by khallow · · Score: 1

      Contrast that to people who are trying to quit over-eating, or quit smoking. I won't call the people who are making an honest effort to lose weight lardo or fat slob - they don't merit it, and need all the encouragement they can get, because people like you refuse to punish the ones who profit most from this - the producers of HFCS, tobacco companies, etc.

      Damn right. I refuse to punish those who have not done wrong. You're just another whiner like the people you complain about. The purpose of society in my view isn't to make things right even for the people I think deserve it. It doesn't provide a good life. It merely provides the opportunity to have a good life. Anything more than that and society will fuck it up as it so obviously has.

  181. Re:Captain TwatObvious by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

    Considering that they won't know that it's high-mortality until it actually kills of tons of people,

    Maybe, maybe not. This case in particular illustrates one way we can have plenty of warning - the disease was first spotted at the tail end of the flu season and we got to watch it develop in the southern hemisphere and learn A LOT between April and August. Had this flu strain proved to be particularly deadly, we would have known by July - and at that point the vaccine production was already well on its way. (obviously in the interim, a lot of people in the southern hemisphere would have died if the disease were particularly deadly, but that doesn't stop us from protecting our population - the same would be true in reverse if the disease had popped up in the northern hemisphere's summer or early fall.)

    I'm not scoffing at the idea that hand washing and self-quarantine are effective measures, just pointing out that widespread vaccination resulting in herd immunity is more effective. There are somethings you can't control, sometimes you just get sneezed on. An effective and mandatory vaccination program can save a lot of lives - like it did and continues to do with measles.

    The message isn't getting out, because people have placed too much emphasis on a "cure", and not on prevention.

    There's only so much you can change human behavior. School children in particular will never be as hygienic as you may want them to be. Vaccination isn't a cure - it is a preventative measure.

  182. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1
    What? Read my post. I too claim that a majority of 1918 deaths were from pneumonia.

    And in both cases, it's in the same paragraph as the speculation about "cytokine storms". Word-for-word, both articles agree that bacterial pneumonia was not just the #1, but the majority, cause of death. Not some theoretical "cytokine storm", which even the WHO has no basis other than speculation, as in this article.

    So? That's exactly what you've said and what I've said. The difference is that you fail to recognize that someone suffering from a cytokine storm is more susceptible to dying from pneumonia (their lungs being in much worse shape as well as the traditional weakened immune system) and that this fits with the observations both of cytokine storm symptoms in humans and in the observation that healthier people died during the 1918 pandemic more frequently than people in populations with traditionally weaker immune systems. Incidentally, your citation doesn't support your claim of "speculation" since they actually have autopsies of people who died from cytokine storm symptoms. In other words, "speculation" based on hard evidence not just speculation.

    The theory doesn't fit the facts that we know, just like your claim that Wikipedia doesn't say that bacterial pneumonia caused most deaths. People died mostly of bacterial pneumonia in the middle of a flu epidemic in the middle of a world war that caused many to be malnourished, and exposed tens of millions to local diseases that they would never have encountered before - and most would have survived with antibiotics, which just hadn't been discovered yet.

    So? Are you claiming that just any flu would have caused the same level of deaths? And how do you explain the large number of deaths from influenza in other parts of the world that weren't malnourished? Remember not everyone was sitting in a trench in Europe. Malnourishment doesn't explain the deaths in the US, for example.

  183. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Kids learn from their parents. Look how many adults still pick their noses at traffic lights. I've even honked my horn to let them know I'm taking pictures with my cell phone, just to see the expression on their faces when they know they've been caught.

    It's pretty bad when you're talking to a grown adult, and all of a sudden, with no warning, their finger just disappears up their snout. I have to wonder, do they even realize what they're doing? Is it *that* ingrained?

  184. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Problem is that your proposed cytokine storm model has zero to do with bacterial pneumonia - and that's what killed them, not pneumonia from a viral infection, but from a bacterial infection due to a weakened immune system.

    The flu weakened them, they caught pneumonia, they died. No "cytokine storm" can cause bacteria to spontaneously be generated and infect the lungs. People sick with the flu, poor ventilation trying to keep warm, sharing blankets, etc. ... and yes, bacterial pneumonia typically is caught when the immune system is already under assault from flu or even a really nasty cold.

    The same goes for the people in the US - a new virus, lots of people going from place to place so the virus continues to find fresh populations to infect (the car was just starting to be popular then), and wartime privations domestically all attributed to the flu of 1918 being worse than average. Also (1) places that introduced a quarantine didn't get infected, and (2) statistically, not every flu season will be average. There HAVE to be worse-than-average, to balance out the not-so-bad, or the average would change. (3) It's cyclical for the same reason that forest fires are cyclical - eventually enough dead material accumulates in a forest, and you have a major fire, just as eventually you have enough people who lack exposure to a particular strain of flu and a lot of them will get sick at the same time. It's entirely natural and normal.

  185. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    Problem is that your proposed cytokine storm model has zero to do with bacterial pneumonia - and that's what killed them, not pneumonia from a viral infection, but from a bacterial infection due to a weakened immune system.

    Please read my post. I already explained how it works. If your lungs are still messed up from a bout of cytokine storm, then you are more likely to die from anything that infects your lungs soon after.

  186. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Try "if your respiratory system is messed up from a bout of the flu" rather than a bogus "cytokine storm" and you're right.

    Everyone going on about 1918 seems to forget that things were a lot different a century ago. Most jobs were dusty, "doctors" would prescribe "cures" that were worse than the disease (like prescribing turpentine for lung problems and cancer...), heating and lighting often also were semi-toxic due to poor ventilation and bad design, living quarters were often cramped and didn't have adequate ventilation (or too much ventilation - drafty and cold), people often shared "the facilities" in tenements - ideal conditions for sickness to spread from person to person, refrigerators - rare, patent medicines flourished (including those that claimed snake-oil as a curative agent - hence the term snake-oil salesmen).

    This was the time when

    1913 the quack John R. Brinkley, calling himself an "Electro Medic Doctor," began injecting men with colored water as a virility cure, claiming it was "electric medicine from Germany." (Brinkley would go on to even greater infamy through transplanting goat testicles into mens' scrotums as a virility treatment.)

    Towards the end of the period, a number of radioactive medicines, containing uranium or radium, were marketed. These apparently actually contained the ingredients promised, and there were a number of tragedies among their devotees. Most notoriously, steel heir Eben McBurney Byers was a supporter of the popular radium water Radithor, developed by the medical con artist William J. A. Bailey. Byers contracted fatal radium poisoning and had to have his jaw removed in an unsuccessful attempt to save him from bone cancer after drinking nearly 1400 bottles of Bailey's "radium water." Water irradiators were sold that promised to infuse water placed within them with radon, which was thought to be healthy at the time.

    It didn't stop ... it continued right up to the 2nd world war. Heck, Coca-cola, 7-Up and Hires Root Beer were all supposed to be "good for what ails ya."

    Also, what good would washing your hands do in those days when you wiped them on a contaminated towel ...

    Tuberculosis, "consumption", etc., poor living and working conditions, and quacks prescribing quick-buck "cures." Of course disease and death would be higher than today.

  187. Re:Flu shots in the era of John Holdren by Kohath · · Score: 1

    No one has the right to be Science czar. Sacking him is not "convicting him" of anything. If it were, then the same thing happened to me when I wasn't given the job of Science Czar.

    I understand your position, but I disagree with giving evil people power based on assurances. He can have the benefit of the doubt without serving as Science Czar. He would be a poor choice even it he hadn't written that book.

  188. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    Everyone going on about 1918 seems to forget that things were a lot different a century ago.

    Unlike most ancient plagues, the 1918 pandemic is something that could happen today. Maybe we'd be better off due to better medicine and such, but we are more vulnerable in other ways (air travel, even more elaborate transportation infrastructure). It's not clear to me that we're prepared to quarantine properly or that our medical and transportation systems will bear up under a strong assault. If within a few weeks of the outbreak of a lethal strain, your medical system degrades back to the equivalent of 1918 medical care (particularly overwhelmed 1918 medical care as in the pandemic), then you don't really have a medical advantage over 1918. In order for antibiotics to work, those drugs need to be shipped to the people that need them. That means you need healthy drivers willing to work, diesel fuel, and working trucks. Will we have enough respirators and other equipment for the tough cases?

    My view is that the only real medical improvement over 1918 is the flu vaccine. Making a significant portion of your population, at least partly resistant (or more resistant as the case may be), is a great improvement over 1918. As I see it, the current medical defenses against a 1918 flu variant just aren't that good. We have strong initial defenses which can slow the initial spread of the flu. But once those are overwhelmed (especially if a mutation gets around the flu vaccine resistance), then we're in the same situation as almost a century ago.

    Finally, as I've mentioned before, they've observed the "cytokine storm" in a few recent cases of avian flu. It doesn't qualify as "bogus".

  189. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    The living conditions are a lot different from 1918. We don't have as many people sharing communal toilets, or using outhouses; we don't have 10 million people sitting in trenches every day fighting trench warfare, waist-deep in mud for weeks at a time; we don't have homes that are as poorly ventilated; we don't have workplaces that have as many dust and other particulates in the air to scar the lungs. We don't have that many places where everyone in the tenement uses the same washroom and the same toilets. We have such modern stuff as refrigerators. We no longer believe that turpentine or coca-cola are "remedies for what ails you." We know that simple things, like washing your hands, makes a difference. We don't have as many people using the same cloth handkerchief over and over all day, accumulating and dispersing the little buggies.

    Even if we didn't also have antibiotics, 1918 can't happen today, for the simple reason that people are in a healthier environment, and most of us eat better than people in a World War.

    It's the same as a bunch of dogs in an overcrowded puppy mill with poor ventilation, lousy sanitation, and the same bunch of dogs dispersed into many homes, with good food and ventilation. Diseases that will decimate the first group won't make much headway in the second, because of the different environmental conditions.

  190. Re:Captain TwatObvious by khallow · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'll buy that. The politics of the day also made matters worse. Winning the war was often considered more important than preventing the spread of influenza. So news about the flu along with good hygiene and public health information was often suppressed in order to prevent "public panic" (which in practice often meant hiding signs of government incompetence).

    But in my view, I see two things. First, immunization when it is available is part of good hygiene. Second, even with good hygiene, there's no obvious reason why a virulent and lethal disease can't spread through the population. After all, the regular flu, colds, etc already spread even in the presence of today's better hygiene. Evolution will probably keep a lethal disease from surviving in its lethal state for long, but a lot of people could die in the meantime. And for a disease of sufficient lethality, being healthy just means you might take a little longer to die.

  191. Re:Captain TwatObvious by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Every place that instituted a trave embargo avoided anyone coming down with the flu in 1918. Sure, a virulent and lethal disease can still spread through the population if they don't take measures to prevent it - but the measures to prevent the transmission of both colds and flu are simple - the problem is that people don't even want to do the simple things. The majority of adults (77% of men, 49% of women) still pick their boogers. If they can't master something as simple and obvious as "don't pick your nose and then touch something - you'll contaminate it", it's partly because there's a taboo surrounding talking about it. It's the same as when there was an outbreak of shigella among Jewish children here - doctors felt they had to be careful not to offend the jewish community by saying "your kids need to learn to (1) learn how to wipe their asses properly and (2) wash their hands afterwards.

    It's also why sinestrance survives - right-handed people mostly eat with the same hand they wipe with, left-handed ones, tending to be more ambidextrous, often wipe with the non-dominant hand. That must have come in handy back in the leaves and pine-cone days :-)

    Then there's the whole reactive arthritis problem - more infections, more chance of arthritis. So aside from the inconvenience of dealing with a bout of shigella, they're also now higher-risk for arthritis, simply because they failed basic hygiene.

    We really need to get the message out that, just because we have all sorts of fancy anti-bacterial house-cleaning sprays doesn't mean we can abdicate practicing and teaching proper basic hygiene. The problem being that those who can't be arsed to wash their hands properly after going to the bathroom aren't just putting themselves at risk, as we saw with the shigella outbreak, and as we see every cold and flu season when people cough into their hands, or pick their noses, or use the same soggy contaminated wadded-up kleenex or hanky a second time. etc.

    But we don't, because that would offend the 3/4 of the population who pick their noses, don't wash their hands, etc. And then they have the nerve to want to use my keyboard. They can have my keyboard when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

  192. News for science deniers? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

    When did Slashdot's audience turn from nerds (a category of people that, on the whole, love science and the benefits that science has brought us) into science deniers willing to grant fringe arguments equal validity to the work of dedicated scientists?

  193. Re:Captain TwatObvious by joocemann · · Score: 1

    On the level of cellular/molecular adaptation and reaction, the vaccine suffices to serve the same as a full infection; the difference being the degree to which you're encumbered by the immune response.

  194. Re:Bill Maher is funny, but an idiot in this matte by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

    "When the listen to stupid advice because you are some sort of public figure, I agree there should be some responsibility on the part of the public figure."

    Absolutely not. Political commentators should not have their first amendment rights revoked simply because people are stupid. That's what's being suggested here, that public people should be held accountable for what people do after listening to them, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE PUBLIC.

    It makes sense that doctors, lawyers, people in positions of authority, etc. should be held accountable, because they're expected (both by the public and by law) to give advice. But not fucking comedians.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  195. Re:Captain TwatObvious by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    If that's true, then why do we need the same flu vaccine each year? Why do elderly people already seem to have a good immunity towards the newest swine flu strain?

    Normally I agree that vaccines are a good idea... but something seems exteremly fishy about the flu vaccine in particular.

  196. Re:Captain TwatObvious by joocemann · · Score: 1

    If that's true, then why do we need the same flu vaccine each year? Why do elderly people already seem to have a good immunity towards the newest swine flu strain?

    Normally I agree that vaccines are a good idea... but something seems exteremly fishy about the flu vaccine in particular.

    I'll first let you know that I have much education in cellular/molecular biology; I am qualified to explain this rather elementary biological concept.

    I will try to keep this simple:
    When foreign proteins are introduced into your system, your body attaches to some of them and, in a way, identifies a specific part of the protein. Your immune system then develops antibodies that are VERY specific to attach to that very specific protein. This is important because your whole body contains TONS of various proteins, some of which are even from other organisms, such as the bacteria in your gut that help you digest (your 'symbiotic' relationship with them is a GOOD thing, you don't want them killed).

    So, one thing to know, is that genetic mutations, especially in viruses, happen quite commonly. Mutations lead to variations in proteins, and thus even though a protein may be 95% the way it was when your body made an antibody, it is NOT the same, and the body must develop NEW antibodies.

    Once the antibody and immune response is ready, the body cannot (generally) be reinfected by the same virus. It is because of mutation and recombination (say, a human flu virus with a pig flu virus thanks to close proximity of humans/pigs and similar genetics), that viruses change enough to still infect you.

    A vaccine is usually just some parts of a viral protein, or a deactivated virus (which has proteins). Or some system that presents/produces proteins, from the virus you want to be immune to, to your immune system. But since they are inactivated, your body develops an immune response that protects you from infection but without the virus actually being capable of infection.

    So, the reason you need a vaccine each year is the same reason you would get the flu each year (whether or not you get bad symptoms or not). The virus has mutated or recombined with similar other viruses and now your antibodies and immune system don't work on this one until it develops antibodies, etc.

    Let me know if this is clear enough. I can reword or dig up some literature for you if necessary.

  197. Re:Captain TwatObvious by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    Thanks, but you've not really told me anything I haven't known, unless you're asserting that the flu mutates much more frequently than almost any other virus. MMR are also viruses which I assume also mutate.. yet a few shots during childhood is all that seems to be needed.

    The flu vaccine seems like it was invented just to be a money printing press for the companies that make it, and the flu kills far less people that traffic accidents do each year.

  198. Re:Captain TwatObvious by joocemann · · Score: 1

    Thanks, but you've not really told me anything I haven't known, unless you're asserting that the flu mutates much more frequently than almost any other virus. MMR are also viruses which I assume also mutate.. yet a few shots during childhood is all that seems to be needed.

    The flu vaccine seems like it was invented just to be a money printing press for the companies that make it, and the flu kills far less people that traffic accidents do each year.

    Dude, living organisms and viruses are all unique. Each has various reproductive and life cycle properties, and in cases of transmitted disease, unique mutation/recombination properties, infectious properties, and transmission properties.

    In regards to the Flu, the virii are constantly infecting millions around the world and using those bodies as growth chambers (until they are healthy) while undergoing mutations/recombinations. The virus has a protenaceous coat that is more resistant to the outer-body environment, especially in colder seasons, and is easily transmitted.

    On the contrary, Mumps, Measles, and Rubella are nearly wiped out world wide; as a result of this, very few infections occur and people are rarely in contact with any potential mutated outcome, though that is possible. Quite possibly the transmission potentials and infection potentials are lower as well.

    You must consider, we get about 3 Flus each year because of mutation/recombination, but that is only even possible because we have so many millions of people infected, constantly and consistently, that serve as big virus factories. In the case of MMR virii, this simply isn't real. If it were, we would definitely be seeing new requirements for vaccination.

    Intuition and knowledge = answers.

  199. Re:Captain TwatObvious by KermitJunior · · Score: 1

    "no serious text can get around scientific fact just to present and position their own product. (The faculty, after all, have to approve the referenced texts, and precious few of them desire to be perceived as corporate shills.)"

    So you've either never been to college or you simply accepted what was put in front of you... more proof that higher education in America is going more towards the "teaching people WHAT to think" instead of "teaching people HOW to think."

    Most of the faculty would never purposely be corporate shills, but they will easily perpetuate "facts" that are "accepted" even if not true. Eggs are good for you. No, they're not. Yes, they are. etc. Pick almost any topic and you'll see a pendulum both in the "facts" and what is taught.

    --
    There is a Universal Life Value Check it
  200. Re:Captain TwatObvious by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    The virus has a protenaceous coat that is more resistant to the outer-body environment, especially in colder seasons, and is easily transmitted.

    Huh... and yet is killed with exposure to sunlight.

    On the contrary, Mumps, Measles, and Rubella are nearly wiped out world wide; as a result of this, very few infections occur and people are rarely in contact with any potential mutated outcome, though that is possible. Quite possibly the transmission potentials and infection potentials are lower as well.

    Yet the flu continues unabated. And then we have this: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/17/1651206

    I'd like to know, where is the double-blink placebo study that shows the flu vaccine is effective? Care to point it out to me?

  201. Re:Captain TwatObvious by joocemann · · Score: 1

    Dude, cherry picking articles that are convenient to preserve ignorant opinion won't get you far with me. Notice the stipulations of that article are exclusive, not inclusive.

    I'm not on campus right now but I bet I could dig up a ton of primary published scientific literature with data to support the efficacy of Flu vaccines.

    A quick dig with Google Scholar yielded this (if you wanna get to the 'answer' just go to the Conclusions section:

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/10/908

    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/12/778

    http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:ASHZ--Eay88J:scholar.google.com/+flu+vaccine&hl=en

    http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1997/05000/Cost_Effectiveness_of_the_Influenza_Vaccine_in_a.6.aspx (this only shows the abstract, but the last line of the abstract is a short version of the conclusion)

    ------
    And those are just from the first 10 results. I've informed you plenty; from here you can accept new information and begin to learn, or you can ignore it, use selective reading, and maintain ignorance. From here I assume you will become irrational so I will leave this conversation now.

    Fyi, light can degrade organic compounds, to include proteins. And while I do not claim to clearly understand the properties of influenza virus, I cannot, like you, purport absolution in an argument for the presence of miniscule anecdotal observation.

  202. The Pleasure Trap by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    On having a healthy weight, see "Learn how to escape the dietary pleasure trap!"
        http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm
    "The modern American diet contains concentrations of chemicals that we were never meant to consume. As food manufacturers have sought to compete with each other, foods have become increasingly artificial--loaded with ever-higher concentrations of pleasure-inducing chemicals, such as sugar, salt, and fat. But curiously, though the concentrations of these chemicals have escalated, the actual pleasure from eating has always stayed about the same. We now understand why. As our modern foods have become increasingly stimulating, our taste nerves are becoming desensitized--neuro-adapting to the modern diet's excessive stimulation. This sets the stage for a devastating trap, wherein a health-promoting diet is relatively unappealing. Fortunately, you now understand what it takes to escape this deceptive dietary trap. With consistent discipline, or perhaps an occasional period of supervised, water-only fasting, you can always get yourself back on track. In doing so, you will discover--or perhaps re-discover--that the diet of our natural design can be very enjoyable."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.