Should I get vaccinated?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally Posted by Stout

...I'm unable to find anything on specifically injecting aluminium into the bloodstream though.

....The "problem" here seems to be in actually injecting Al into your bloodstream, like the good/bad squalene argument ( Mercola, IIRC ). Does it get eliminated the same way ingested Al does ?

Vaccines are not injected in the bloodstream, they are injected into muscle. Scratching yourself on a piece of aluminum metal (like a scraping your arm on an aluminum window) may put more aluminum in your muscle than a vaccine.

Squalene is produced in your liver as a precursor to cholesterol, and is not used as an adjuvant in the USA.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

Not as long as they contain mercury, aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde

Oh brother. Learn what is really factual about these ingredients. Ethyl mercury is not methyl mercury. Methyl mercury is the toxic kind found in fish that is fat soluble and therefore hangs around in your body up to toxic levels if you ingest enough regularly. Ethyl mercury is NOT fat soluble and is gone from your body within 7 days, and is not present in toxic levels any more than water is in the vaccine.
http://www.ncirs.usyd.edu.au/facts/f-thiomersal.html

Aluminum is also not present in any toxic level, and you ingest it every day in your food too.

Quote:

Vaccines contain aluminum in a salt form. Anti-vaxers claim this is toxic, and some will cite that 4ppm will cause blood to coagulate. However, individuals are not exposed to such amounts of aluminum in a single vaccination visit. Below are the vaccines containing aluminum, with the corresponding parts per million (ppm) for an infant (~251 mL of blood in the body) and an 80lb. child (~4000 mL of blood); note the two numbers for DTaP represent extreme ranges of aluminum content.:

You body makes formaldehyde when you eat nutritious food.

Hydrochloric acid...

Quote:

When sodium hydroxide or hydrochloric acid are used, one to neutralize the other, the result is an NaCl solution of neutral pH: common table salt.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9
NaCl is common in our bodies, and is table salt. It's an electrolyte that we'd die without.

When antivaxxers rant about "toxins" in vaccines, they just show their complete ignorance about organic chemistry. Uneducated buffoons.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9
http://antiantivax.flurf.net/

[portlandatheist]

This may be of some interest:

This is today's google flu trends for Oregon. Google flu trends highly correlates with CDC data and although not as accurate, it is ahead by two weeks.
From this graph, it is possible that flu season has just recently peaked, and may soon decline. It also shows how much more widespread this outbreak is in comparison to previous years (the lighter blue).
The data shows this strain to be both more contagious and more virulent than seasonal flu.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by Stout

Cheers for that. I did a little research ( OK a lot ) and came to the same conclusions with the ethyl/methyl thing and having to acknowledge that if I was going to "get worked up" over Hg, then I'm going to have to avoid seafood.

I'm unable to find anything on specifically injecting aluminium into the bloodstream though.

I'm well aware of just how much Al I can consume in a day, heck, i worked in a restaurant and in the five years that I worked there i saw Al pots go from something robust enough to use as a sledgehammer, to something just a little thicker than tinfoil. Not to mention that it's present in food additives.

The "problem" here seems to be in actually injecting Al into your bloodstream, like the good/bad squalene argument ( Mercola, IIRC ). Does it get eliminated the same way ingested Al does ?

I wish I had some info about how Aluminum was eliminated, but I don't.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

From this graph, it is possible that flu season has just recently peaked, and may soon decline.

That sounds believable. Sebellius said that there's a chance of a second peak in December (after all, it is very early in the flu season). I hope people don't think it's too late to take the vaccine as it becomes more widely available in November.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

Russian roulette? That is the overstatement of the year. 5000 deaths worldwide in a population of 6.7 billion or .0000007462%

Zero negative reactions is not correct,

7 health care workers reported vomiting, loss of consciousness, and other minor effects.

Hospitals reported that 25 patients were exhibiting adverse effects from the new vaccine, including two serious cases.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially stated that there will be as many as 30,000 serious, potentially lethal adverse reactions to the novel H1N1 vaccine, or 1 out of 100,000.

Also, as of today, the CDC has not started tracking adverse reactions, although the plan is now in place.

OK, so the 5,000 figure is worldwide confirmed deaths (so far: many more deaths lie ahead, and many have not or will not be confirmed as attributable to H1N1), and doesn't include people who got very sick but survived. This is compared to a handful of temporary non-lethal adverse reactions. Most of which are likely mere coincidences. Thousands of people get sick every day, so merely by chance, a few will get sick immediately after getting vaccinated.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

El-wrong-a-rino.

As you know, the use of the word "holistic" automatically indicates the source is not valid.

Originally Posted by dudalb

90% of the time, yeah, it's a dead giveaway of quackery.

I wish I COULD get a H1N1 shot. Kaiser is strictly following the California State guidelines for the vaccine, and I am not in one of the lucky categories.

How true that is.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if the word "holistic" is used in the name of the organization, it's closer to 100% than to 90%. It's those earthy and crunchy new-age woo-woos.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally Posted by softstuff

I do wonder though if there will be some disease in the future, with a pretty risk free and readily available vaccine, that will quite simply wipe out the anti-vaxxers.

That is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Even during the worst outbreaks of disease and plague there are always many survivors, regardless of whether a vaccine existed or not.

So there will always be many, many people left alive who may not have received any vaccination. And in the event of a serious outbreak that killed so many people, even many of those who were vaccinated would be killed too, as no vaccine is 100% effective.

[skeptigirl]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Your continued pointing to the epidemiology indicates that you really aren't getting what I'm saying here. When you have time, I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully.

Don't bother with the link dump. I've already read them anyway. You're trying to use epidemiological data to explain a trend in epidemiological data. It's tautological. Your assumptions are apparently completely transparent to you.


Interesting comment considering that that's exactly what I see you doing. What's worse is that you don't even seem to realize that it's speculation.

I will concede that in the interest of better conveying the fact that I was not making an "assertion", I might have chosen my words more carefully; in the statement "There's nothing particularly unique about the virus itself", the qualifier, "particularly" was not strong enough.

As I've already acknowledged (twice), it might be reasonably argued that something we might call "different virulence" is the best explanation for the patterns we're seeing in the epidemiological data (you can't really argue for "greater virulence", since we aren't seeing that, but I'd entertain the idea of different virulence). But you seem to want to treat that as the only possible explanation, and it certainly is not. I don't agree that it is even the best explanation -- just that it is not unreasonable. You seem to want to insist on viewing "virulence" as solely a property of the virus. I don't agree with that. You also seem to want to insist that trends in the epidemiological data may be treated as if they can stand alone as evidence for a given explanation of those very trends -- and I REALLY don't agree with that.

Do you feel that you have a firm grasp of the formal logical fallacy referred to as "affirming the consequent"?

You really are making little sense here, Dym. Either the data supports your claim, all we are seeing is an amplified version of seasonal flu, or, the data supports my claim, the research supports this virus has an unusual pattern and is causing serious disease and death in people that seasonal flu rarely does.

And telling you I"ve read 3 reports is hardly a link dump.

I think you are being rather foolish here.

[skeptigirl]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

That definitely is a "NO BRAIN-er"

H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal which is well documented has being toxic and hazardous, especially to children.

Sadly, you are full of it. There is no such evidence. But there are many quacks who claim there is evidence.

Originally Posted by Without Rights

Dr. Tom Jefferson, head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence says;

"Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences, such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact of seasonal, avian or pandemic influenza."

Tamiflu is an antiviral. Thimerosal is in vaccines. How ignorant are you regarding this topic?

Originally Posted by Without Rights

...
Dr. Jefferson's requests for placebo-controlled studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccine have been called "radical" by the CDC.

When did it become radical to test effectiveness of a drug?

And upon what ignorant evidence have you concluded we haven't tested the effectiveness of influenza vaccines?

I am so tired of this crap.


I guess I'll have to let other knowledgeable people reply. I just can't deal with this ignorance at the moment.

[skeptigirl]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

...
Also, as of today, the CDC has not started tracking adverse reactions, although the plan is now in place.

OK, I admit, I've had a few beers so my emotional side is in control.

You are an idiot. The VAER system has been in place since 1990!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skeptigirl]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

What specifically is "nonsense"

The crap you are posting!

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The crap you are posting!

Totally.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

ok I have read the whole thread. Personal "ego fights" aside, what are the general conclusions so far? IMO these are, please correct me if I'm wrong.

a) Nothing is 100% certain, still,

b) vaccines are a good thing to have, even when they could pose some side effects

c) swine flu is more contagious but essentially no more dangerous than regular flu (its a flu after all)

That said, I have some questions for the knowledeable:


1) does the regular flu vaccine offers some protection agains the new strain? (in other words, if I can get the vaccine for my family, we will improve our odds of having a bad flu?)

2) if my family and I get the vaccine, is it a good idea to be more careful for a few weeks? maybe avoiding crowds for instance)

3) I have a 6 year old daughter (perfectly healthy) is she in the risk groups?

THANKS!

[softstuff]

Originally Posted by inquiringone

I'm curious. What state do you live in?

QLD, Australia.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

This may be of some interest:
http://www.freeflightcomps.com/images/p/swineflu.jpg
This is today's google flu trends for Oregon. Google flu trends highly correlates with CDC data and although not as accurate, it is ahead by two weeks.
From this graph, it is possible that flu season has just recently peaked, and may soon decline. It also shows how much more widespread this outbreak is in comparison to previous years (the lighter blue).
The data shows this strain to be both more contagious and more virulent than seasonal flu.

I didn't know Google had that function. Here's the Google Flu Trends from over here in Australia. As you can see, we've well and truly peaked and declined.




ETA: Looks like we've had far worse flu outbreaks in recent years.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are there no poor countries in the world which do not vaccinate their populations against the flu and which currently have large and well funded American organisations located in them able to conduct a double blind trial of the efficacy of the seasonal flu vaccine?

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm no doctor, but I've been told we can expect more cases in February, when the flu usually hits the hardest?

[Capsid]

Anecdotal information. In the UK there are sentinel GP surgeries that monitor flu cases. The number of cases is less in years where the vaccine matches the circulating strain. That might give some evidence of vaccine efficacy. I don't know how if affects death rates though.

[Phrost]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Oh, I agree with you 100%. Why do you think I am no longer a Libertarian?

Nobody cares; get a room.

Considering that Government is the only construct allowed to have a monopoly on force, not to mention that it's supposed to work for our benefit (and not detriment), any rational person should hold it to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

And the notion that it's somehow implicitly "good" is just another example of some self-described skeptics replacing their belief in God, with a belief in another G-word.

In 1976 when the last Swine Flu Panic Oh My God We're All Going To Die Lets Do Something Quick situation came about, 1 person actually died from the swine flu, while 26 died from the vaccine. This isn't evidence that all vaccines are dangerous, but it is evidence that they can be if we (the public) "blindly trust" and don't ask tough questions.

Any organization large enough to affect millions of lives should be scrutinized mercilessly for the public good, and distrust should be the default state for anyone willing to think for themselves. It doesn't matter if that organization is Government, or a corporation; and the fact that there's such a disconnect in some people's heads where they only choose to see the faults in one or the other, is both irrational, and irresponsible.

[BenBurch]

Except that isn't true about the 70s vaccine at all. Its woo.

[Phrost]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Except that isn't true about the 70s vaccine at all. Its woo.

I got the number wrong. It was 26, not 500. 26:1 is still a horrible ratio.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Either the data supports your claim, all we are seeing is an amplified version of seasonal flu, or, the data supports my claim, the research supports this virus has an unusual pattern and is causing serious disease and death in people that seasonal flu rarely does.

Ignoring the false dichotomy, I don't think you quite understand my "claim". I'm not saying that we are simply seeing an amplified version of seasonal flu. I don't actually even find that phrase to be entirely meaningful. Even in the absence of a novel strain, some seasons are more severe than others. If an H3N2 strain causes low prelvalence one year and high prevalence the next, does that mean it got "amplified"?

I'm not even sure you understand your claim. The "usual pattern" to which you implicitly refer is an amalgam of data from various years. Separate them back out, and you see some variation in the age distribution curves from one year to another -- confounded by variation in vaccine uptake, and by the continued trend toward declining mortality in all age groups (less pronounced in older age groups). It's particularly interesting that some researchers have found age distribution in seasonal H1N1 to be left-shifted relative to seasonal H3N2. So even if seasonal flu were somehow "amplified", I don't see any good reason to assume that the age distribution curves would adhere closely to the "usual pattern".

When a seasonal strain moves through a population, it affects different age groups differently -- partly due to differing degrees of immune memory, and partly due to differing degrees of overall immune fitness (as well as overall health, period). With this particular novel strain, there appears to be some pre-existing immunity among the older segment of the population and none, or very little, among those below a certain threshold age. We could reasonably predict that any influenza virus moving through such a population would behave differently than one moving through a population in which pre-existing immunity was more evenly distributed.

To the extent that it is a "claim", mine is simply this: In attempting to explain the patterns in the epidemiological data, it is a mistake to rely too heavily on the assumption that the virus possesses some unique properties. Of course, if you can prove it, that's different; but if you still don't understand why I cannot accept the epidemiological data itself as proof, you probably never will, so we may as well drop it.

The point I mostly want to emphasize is that an epidemic is not something a virus does to a host population; it is something which emerges out of the complex interaction between a viral swarm and a host population. Do we at least agree on that?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

ok I have read the whole thread. Personal "ego fights" aside, what are the general conclusions so far? IMO these are, please correct me if I'm wrong.

a) Nothing is 100% certain, still,

b) vaccines are a good thing to have, even when they could pose some side effects

c) swine flu is more contagious but essentially no more dangerous than regular flu (its a flu after all)

That said, I have some questions for the knowledeable:


1) does the regular flu vaccine offers some protection agains the new strain? (in other words, if I can get the vaccine for my family, we will improve our odds of having a bad flu?)

2) if my family and I get the vaccine, is it a good idea to be more careful for a few weeks? maybe avoiding crowds for instance)

3) I have a 6 year old daughter (perfectly healthy) is she in the risk groups?

THANKS!

A 13 year old boy from Canada, perfectly healthy, just died from the pandemic flu.

It infects people deeper in the lungs:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-...search-9859-1/

The reason why they made the vaccine for the pandemic strain is because the pandemic strain is totally new to most of us, and the regular flu and vaccine offers no protective effect.
They are finding people over 65 may have been exposed to a similar (not the same) virus way back when, and have some immunity, or that it doesn't infect them as badly for some reason. If you are over 65 and get the actual pandemic flu though, then the same risks of death apply. The vaccine for the pandemic strain is not new though, it the same vaccine, just with the ol' strain switch.

If you get the vaccine then it takes 7-10 days for your body to produce immunity. If you aren't already avoiding crowds, then I'm not sure starting avoiding crowds after vaccination is going to make a difference?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by Phrost

Nobody cares; get a room.

Considering that Government is the only construct allowed to have a monopoly on force, not to mention that it's supposed to work for our benefit (and not detriment), any rational person should hold it to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

And the notion that it's somehow implicitly "good" is just another example of some self-described skeptics replacing their belief in God, with a belief in another G-word.

In 1976 when the last Swine Flu Panic Oh My God We're All Going To Die Lets Do Something Quick situation came about, 1 person actually died from the swine flu, while 26 died from the vaccine. This isn't evidence that all vaccines are dangerous, but it is evidence that they can be if we (the public) "blindly trust" and don't ask tough questions.

Any organization large enough to affect millions of lives should be scrutinized mercilessly for the public good, and distrust should be the default state for anyone willing to think for themselves. It doesn't matter if that organization is Government, or a corporation; and the fact that there's such a disconnect in some people's heads where they only choose to see the faults in one or the other, is both irrational, and irresponsible.

26 didn't die from the vaccine. They got GBS, which they have a higher chance of getting from the flu. Since that flu didn't spread that year, then yes, the fact that they got GBS seems stupid, but more people still die of complication from GBS triggered by flu every year that the vaccine does have some preventative effect against. More cases of GBS are seen in flu affected individuals (1/100 000) than people who get the vaccine (1/1 000 000).

Some people are also have allergic reactions to the vaccine, but most people get allergic reactions for other reasons.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Ignoring the false dichotomy, I don't think you quite understand my "claim". I'm not saying that we are simply seeing an amplified version of seasonal flu. I don't actually even find that phrase to be entirely meaningful. Even in the absence of a novel strain, some seasons are more severe than others. If an H3N2 strain causes low prelvalence one year and high prevalence the next, does that mean it got "amplified"?

I'm not even sure you understand your claim. The "usual pattern" to which you implicitly refer is an amalgam of data from various years. Separate them back out, and you see some variation in the age distribution curves from one year to another -- confounded by variation in vaccine uptake, and by the continued trend toward declining mortality in all age groups (less pronounced in older age groups). It's particularly interesting that some researchers have found age distribution in seasonal H1N1 to be left-shifted relative to seasonal H3N2. So even if seasonal flu were somehow "amplified", I don't see any good reason to assume that the age distribution curves would adhere closely to the "usual pattern".

When a seasonal strain moves through a population, it affects different age groups differently -- partly due to differing degrees of immune memory, and partly due to differing degrees of overall immune fitness (as well as overall health, period). With this particular novel strain, there appears to be some pre-existing immunity among the older segment of the population and none, or very little, among those below a certain threshold age. We could reasonably predict that any influenza virus moving through such a population would behave differently than one moving through a population in which pre-existing immunity was more evenly distributed.

To the extent that it is a "claim", mine is simply this: In attempting to explain the patterns in the epidemiological data, it is a mistake to rely too heavily on the assumption that the virus possesses some unique properties. Of course, if you can prove it, that's different; but if you still don't understand why I cannot accept the epidemiological data itself as proof, you probably never will, so we may as well drop it.

The point I mostly want to emphasize is that an epidemic is not something a virus does to a host population; it is something which emerges out of the complex interaction between a viral swarm and a host population. Do we at least agree on that?

It's not even understood why the 1918 virus caused so many deaths. There was nothing special about the virus sequence.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Phrost

I got the number wrong. It was 26, not 500. 26:1 is still a horrible ratio.

You got the other side of the ratio wrong too... I'll see if you can figure out why on your own.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

26 didn't die from the vaccine. They got GBS, which they have a higher chance of getting from the flu. Since that flu didn't spread that year, then yes, the fact that they got GBS seems stupid, but more people still die of complication from GBS triggered by flu every year that the vaccine does have some preventative effect against. More cases of GBS are seen in flu affected individuals (1/100 000) than people who get the vaccine (1/1 000 000).

Some people are also have allergic reactions to the vaccine, but most people get allergic reactions for other reasons.

Correct. And the REASON flu didn't spread that year? You have to give some credit to the massive immunization campaign, in fact I think that without that we could easily have had thousands of deaths.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://hi-in.facebook.com/topic.php?...452&topic=8469

Since GBS is even seen in cases after surgery, here is an article that indicates that correlation may not mean causation even.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

Vaccines are not injected in the bloodstream, they are injected into muscle. Scratching yourself on a piece of aluminum metal (like a scraping your arm on an aluminum window) may put more aluminum in your muscle than a vaccine.

D'oh !!! I should have caught that.

It was a *copy and paste* version of a question I'd seen raised on another forum and it sounded legit. Then the thread went on to "question" the need for vaccines citing there being no vaccines for the Black Plague yet there aer still reported cases in the southern US. I'm finding that the person who's posting these things is motivated by an anti big pharma, anti corporate agenda so it's political and not based on any genuine fears.

Quote:

Squalene is produced in your liver as a precursor to cholesterol, and is not used as an adjuvant in the USA.

Yes, but it doesn't seem to matter to the anti-vaxers as they can just switch their concerns to the population of Europe.

Cheers.

[Eos of the Eons]

Plague was caused by bacteria wayyyy back when they didn't even know what a microbe was. It dies out because it kills most of its hosts, unlike the flu VIRUS.

Quote:

It is a bacillus, an organism, most usually carried by rodents. Fleas infest the animal (rats, but other rodents as well), and these fleas move freely over to human hosts.

http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/we...lague/05.shtml
What cases are still being reported??? Nuts!

Our OWN bodies make squalene, and people buy it and eat in capsules because it is an antioxidant! Suddenly it's deadly in a vaccine, which has far less squalene in it than your own skin???

Fraccin nutballs.

[skeptigirl]

Originally Posted by Phrost

I have to say that I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that people don't just outright, blindly trust the government when it says "here, take this..." provided there's a rational, evidenced-based public debate on the subject. Especially when lately, it seems like nearly everything is a goddamn crisis or emergency.

That said, I got the vaccine this weekend.

The CDC which sets the standards for vaccine recommendations is a public health organization. While it may be a government body, it is not the same as saying you are getting recommendations from politicians.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/we...lague/05.shtml
What cases are still being reported??? Nuts!

Plague is endemic in Uganda.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...&ordinalpos=16

There were 2 cases in the USA in 2002.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/artic...pple-rare.html

[Stout]

Quote:

What cases are still being reported??? Nuts!

Bizarre, isn't it. I had no idea.

Quote:

Approximately 10 to 20 people in the United States develop plague each year from flea or rodent bites—primarily from infected prairie dogs—in rural areas of the southwestern United States

Source

Then, if we want to ramp up the hysteria, we can go here.

Quote:

Bubonic plague affects the lymph nodes (another part of the lymph system). Within 3 to 7 days of exposure to plague bacteria, you will develop flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, chills, weakness, and swollen, tender lymph glands

Same source.

[BenBurch]

As I understand matters, its not entirely clear that what we call plague today is the same illness as the medieval disease of that name.

[Phrost]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

26 didn't die from the vaccine. They got GBS, which they have a higher chance of getting from the flu. Since that flu didn't spread that year, then yes, the fact that they got GBS seems stupid, but more people still die of complication from GBS triggered by flu every year that the vaccine does have some preventative effect against. More cases of GBS are seen in flu affected individuals (1/100 000) than people who get the vaccine (1/1 000 000).

Some people are also have allergic reactions to the vaccine, but most people get allergic reactions for other reasons.

You really could, at the very least, check Wikipedia. Reading comprehension also helps:

Quote:

On February 5, 1976, an army recruit at Fort Dix said he felt tired and weak. He died the next day and four of his fellow soldiers were later hospitalized. Two weeks after his death, health officials announced that swine flu was the cause of death and that this strain of flu appeared to be closely related to the strain involved in the 1918 flu pandemic.

+

Quote:

Overall, about 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), resulting in death from severe pulmonary complications for 25 people, were probably caused by an immunopathological reaction to the 1976 vaccine. Other influenza vaccines have not been linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome, though caution is advised for certain individuals, particularly those with a history of GBS.

=

26

[Phrost]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The CDC which sets the standards for vaccine recommendations is a public health organization. While it may be a government body, it is not the same as saying you are getting recommendations from politicians.

Strawman. Try harder next time.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

As I understand matters, its not entirely clear that what we call plague today is the same illness as the medieval disease of that name.

Yes, I noticed that the CDC was referring to the disease as "human plague" which is why I was hesitant to post a link to it.

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by Phrost

You really could, at the very least, check Wikipedia. Reading comprehension also helps:



+



=

26

Well, to pick a nit, only 25 may have died from complications resulting from the vaccine. The first one died of the actual virus.

That being said, and while I use Wikipedia alot, myself, it may not be as accurate as all that.

From the CDC:

Quote:

Because GBS cases are always present in the population, the necessary public health questions concerning the cases among vaccine recipients were "Is the number of cases of GBS among vaccine recipients higher than would be expected? And if so, are the increased cases the result of increased surveillance or a true increase?" Leading epidemiologists debated these points, but the consensus, based on the intensified surveillance for GBS (and other conditions) in recipients of the vaccines, was that the number of cases of GBS appeared to be an excess.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-1007.htm

The cases of GBS could be increased, but it appears to me that it might not be as bad as may have been reported in the media, though I will defer to those on the forum who are in the medical field.

From the same article:

Quote:

Had H1N1 influenza been transmitted at that time, the small apparent risk of GBS from immunization would have been eclipsed by the obvious immediate benefit of vaccine-induced protection against swine flu. However, in December 1976, with >40 million persons immunized and no evidence of H1N1 transmission, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization, at least until the issue could be explored.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by Phrost

You really could, at the very least, check Wikipedia. Reading comprehension also helps:



+



=

26

I linked a better source of information about plague, actually.

Then there is this source about 1976, plus the other links. I've read plenty, thanks. I also stay away from Wikipedia.
I prefer sources like this:
http://www.haverford.edu/biology/edw...arnervirus.htm