42 replies to this topic

[Pliny]

There was nothing in the news this flu season about getting flu shots - what happened? I guess everyone is washing their hands. Anyway, no big deal this year even if a few H1N1 cases emerged.

What's up?

[Topaz]

The radio report I hear was the the flu is just about over and some cases will pop up but nothing alarming. I haven't had a flu shot in years and have never gotten either. The head of the company that suppied the flu shot was a close friend of Harper's, need I say more, he made his millions.

[Moonlight Graham]

Good point Pliny. I guess the medias found more interesting things to report this winter.

[RNG]

No significant new one sprung up this year. Now, I have COPD. The flu could easily kill me so I am pretty up on all this stuff. And Mrs. RNG has worked in hospitals as a clinical dietitian all her life. The problem is that each year they guess which flu or flues will rage. If they guess right, we won. If they guess wrong, lots and lots of people get sick, and unfortunately, on a world wide basis lots of people die. But there is strong evidence that the more flu shots you get, the more you are resistant to a wide variety of flues. I have been getting shots every year since 1994. And only had the flu once in that time. (And yes, the authorities, that is WHO and the Atlanta Center for Disease Control admitted they blew it that year.)

[segnosaur]

There was nothing in the news this flu season about getting flu shots - what happened? I guess everyone is washing their hands. Anyway, no big deal this year even if a few H1N1 cases emerged.

What's up?

Well, the particular strains of flu that are commonly circulating usually varies on a year to year basis. (And, as RNG stated, groups like the WHO have to guess months in advance as to which strains will be most common.)

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that what's happened is that the H1N1 strain, which had been an "emerging" strain last year, has now become just another endemic strain, but one that is still the most common. With no other emerging flu strain to overtake H1N1, there was little need for any large scale response this year. People who got the shot the previous season were already protected against the most common circulating strain, those who didn't get the shots were mostly brain damaged idiots who wouldn't get the shot anyways because they're amoral jerks.

From: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...u-pandemic.html
The WHO and its international group of influenza experts has been watching for a number of signs it believes are key to determining that H1N1 is morphing into a seasonal flu virus that circulates during winter months in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Edited by segnosaur, 28 April 2011 - 08:31 AM.

[GostHacked]

Also not hearing too much about this global warming.. or climate change so far this year. What's up with that?

[Pliny]

...those who didn't get the shots were mostly brain damaged idiots who wouldn't get the shot anyways because they're amoral jerks.

...an encapsulation of my very essence.

Thanks for the input, it expalins everything. Did the death rate go down this past year?

[Pliny]

Also not hearing too much about this global warming.. or climate change so far this year. What's up with that?

You haven't heard? We ae going to burn all the fossil fuels and when they are all gone we will be finally safe.

[Keepitsimple]

It's too bad the media was duped last year into promoting the hysteria around H1N1. It ended up being one of the mildest flus on record and served to mask the reality that normal flu season results in 2500 Canadians dying from flu-related complications every year on average. THAT has always been the REAL story. The good news is that the H1N1 strain has now mutated itself into seasonal flu and its mild effects have helped to keep the mortality rates down - and out of the headlines. Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

[Pliny]

It's too bad the media was duped last year into promoting the hysteria around H1N1.

.....and our politicians along with our tax dollars.

Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

Amen!

[segnosaur]

It's too bad the media was duped last year into promoting the hysteria around H1N1. It ended up being one of the mildest flus on record and served to mask the reality that normal flu season results in 2500 Canadians dying from flu-related complications every year on average. THAT has always been the REAL story.

Don't think its quite accurate to call the H1N1 a "mild" flu.

While the overall death rate from H1N1 was lower than in previous years, the flu did have a different effect than other strains... it tended to hit younger people worse than the elderly. (For example, in the 2007/08 and 2010/11 seasons in the U.S., the number of pediatric deaths was under 100. During the 2009/10 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate shot up to almost 300.)

I know its impossible to put a "value" on human life, but I suspect most people would be more concerned about a virus that seems to hit younger people harder than the elderly.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/IPD16.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP516.htm

I could also point out that perhaps part of the reason why death rates were so low during the H1N1 "pandemic" is because vaccination did end up being more widespread than it might have otherwise have been, due to the panic. (I do recognize though that the flu season peaked early, which would have reduced the value in the vaccination.)

The good news is that the H1N1 strain has now mutated itself into seasonal flu and its mild effects have helped to keep the mortality rates down...

As I said before... its more likely that low H1N1 rates this year are due in part to the widespread vaccination that already occurred.

...and out of the headlines. Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again.

The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market?

From: http://www.medbroadc...channel_id=1026
In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.)
Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.

[Pliny]

Don't think its quite accurate to call the H1N1 a "mild" flu.

While the overall death rate from H1N1 was lower than in previous years, the flu did have a different effect than other strains... it tended to hit younger people worse than the elderly. (For example, in the 2007/08 and 2010/11 seasons in the U.S., the number of pediatric deaths was under 100. During the 2009/10 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate shot up to almost 300.)

Where are the statisitics for that?

I know its impossible to put a "value" on human life, but I suspect most people would be more concerned about a virus that seems to hit younger people harder than the elderly.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/IPD16.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP516.htm

The first stat you sight is influenza-associated deaths and I don't think shows anything more than annual variables.

The second one is simply admissions to hospital which is a good statistic to show how much public concern was generated by a frenetic media.

I could also point out that perhaps part of the reason why death rates were so low during the H1N1 "pandemic" is because vaccination did end up being more widespread than it might have otherwise have been, due to the panic. (I do recognize though that the flu season peaked early, which would have reduced the value in the vaccination.)


As I said before... its more likely that low H1N1 rates this year are due in part to the widespread vaccination that already occurred.

Merely suppositions on your part.

Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again.

The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market?

From: http://www.medbroadc...channel_id=1026
In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.)
Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.

2% is still hundreds of millions of dollars if not in the billions. A good return from a few press releases. I agree most of the manufacturers disappeared because of the high level of liability but not the low profit margins. The liabilities cannot be absorbed by smaller companies, and lately, including with the H1N1 virus, the pharmaceutical companies lobby government to provide them liability protection or they won't provide the much needed vaccines.

Statistically, I am not convinced of the efficacy of flu vaccinations in prevention. I have not had the flu either since the nineties without a vaccine. but that is just anecdotal, so beyond scinetific consideration. If a person gets the vaccine every year and attributes their flu freedom to that it too is anecdotal and I give it the same credibility. I don't advise anyone to contradict their beliefs or substitute mine for theirs. I only ask them to look for themselves. You, segnosaur have looked and found what you like to believe and you accept the data presented you. You will be healthier because of it. It is one of the things that "beliefs" do. "Beliefs" contribute to the placebo effect.

All believers believe their beliefs are true facts - except skeptics who are only certain they know nothing with any certainty and are on a mission to prove absolutely no one knows anything for sure, even though they beelive there is no such thing as an absolute - absolutely!

Edited by Pliny, 04 May 2011 - 11:56 AM.

[segnosaur]

Don't think its quite accurate to call the H1N1 a "mild" flu.

While the overall death rate from H1N1 was lower than in previous years, the flu did have a different effect than other strains... it tended to hit younger people worse than the elderly. (For example, in the 2007/08 and 2010/11 seasons in the U.S., the number of pediatric deaths was under 100. During the 2009/10 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate shot up to almost 300.)

Where are the statisitics for that?

Ummmm... the statistics were in the very first reference I gave in my post. They came from the CDC.

I know its impossible to put a "value" on human life, but I suspect most people would be more concerned about a virus that seems to hit younger people harder than the elderly.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/IPD16.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP516.htm

The first stat you sight is influenza-associated deaths and I don't think shows anything more than annual variables.

Actually, the first reference is for the number of influenza-related pediatric deaths... The graphs are pretty simple. Not sure how anyone can be so incompetent that they can't understand them.
2007/08 - 88 deaths.
2008/08 - 133 deaths
2009/10 - 282 deaths - This was the year of the H1N1 Pandemic. Notice the number of deaths is a lot higher than previous years? Why do you think that is?
2010/11 - 97 deaths - After the pandemic. Number of deaths is back down

The second one is simply admissions to hospital which is a good statistic to show how much public concern was generated by a frenetic media.

Actually, no its not. The important thing to note is that the number of hospitalization of children aged 0-4 far exceeds the number of people hospitalized in other age groups. This is quite different than the patterns in other years, when its often the elderly that have the most hospitalizations (For example, see: http://www.cdc.gov/f...2011/EIP816.htm)

For example: (from the references provided above)
2007/08 - ~40 children/100,000 were hostpitalized, compared to ~75 elderly/100,000 population
2009/10 - ~75 children/100,000 were hospitalized, compared to ~25 elderly/100,000 population.
Notice something? The proportion of children hospitalized (indicating a serious infection) was much higher during the H1N1 pandemic.

And your argument that it was due to "frenetic media" doesn't hold much weight. After all, doctors/hospitals tend to admit people based on actual need, not on what the patient wants. (And even if there were a few doctors who excessively admitted patients because of the "panic", you would see the same increase in admissions in all age groups. You didn't see that though... You only saw children with a higher admission rate.)

I could also point out that perhaps part of the reason why death rates were so low during the H1N1 "pandemic" is because vaccination did end up being more widespread than it might have otherwise have been, due to the panic. (I do recognize though that the flu season peaked early, which would have reduced the value in the vaccination.)


As I said before... its more likely that low H1N1 rates this year are due in part to the widespread vaccination that already occurred.

Merely suppositions on your part.

Which is based more in science than the airy-fairy mumbo jumbo bunk that you keep pushing.

You know, I've published multiple references in this thread to mainstream sources. Now where exactly is your evidence? Does it exist? (Hint: No, it doesn't.)

...and out of the headlines. Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again.

The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market?

From: http://www.medbroadc...channel_id=1026
In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.)
Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.

2% is still hundreds of millions of dollars if not in the billions.

So, not only are you ignorant of science/epidemiology, you are also ignorant of business.

Just a little hint... when you're dealing with big business, you care about profit margin, not raw dollars. Even if I had potential earnings of $1 billion, I'm not going to bother with a product if I have to invest $100 billion to see that profit.

A good return from a few press releases. I agree most of the manufacturers disappeared because of the high level of liability but not the low profit margins.

Where is your proof!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh' that's right... you don't have any, except your wonderful hand-waving.

I've provided references. You have given zip. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. The big nothing.

Statistically, I am not convinced of the efficacy of flu vaccinations in prevention.

That's because you seem to be rather scientifically ignorant.

Here's a study they did with 264 health care professionals. They found that the number of reported illnesses among those who were vaccinated against influenza was 29/100 people, whereas the people who did not receive the vaccine was 41/100 people.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/10/908.short
See? A study doing real science. Appearing in an actual scientific journal. Amazing, isn't it?

Oh, and here's a study involving 1600 children involving the nasal vaccine. They found that vaccinated children have, on average, 1.2 fewer days of influenza-like illness than those who didn't receive the vaccine.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/2/e24
And guess what? That's an actual scientific study.

I have not had the flu either since the nineties without a vaccine. but that is just anecdotal, so beyond scinetific consideration. If a person gets the vaccine every year and attributes their flu freedom to that it too is anecdotal and I give it the same credibility.

You're right. That's why, when I provide evidence regarding the influenza vaccine, I like to point to actual scientific studies, with things like control groups and double blind protocols. Those studies do not count as "anecdotal". Its solid evidence. Its the way science progresses.

I don't advise anyone to contradict their beliefs or substitute mine for theirs. I only ask them to look for themselves.

And I ask people to actually look at real hard evidence, like that provided by science.

You, segnosaur have looked and found what you like to believe and you accept the data presented you.

I do not have a "belief" in this area. Belief implies acceptance without evidence. However, the evidence in this matter is pointing to the fact that vaccines save lives. Its based on multiple studies, involving thousands upon thousands of patients.

All believers believe their beliefs are true facts - except skeptics who are only certain they know nothing with any certainty and are on a mission to prove absolutely no one knows anything for sure, even though they beelive there is no such thing as an absolute - absolutely!

Nope.

A skeptic is not a cynic. A skeptic does not automatically question everything that is presented to them. Instead, a skeptic looks at the quality and weight of evidence presented to them.

I am a skeptic. I accept that vaccines work because I've viewed the evidence, weighed the quality of evidence supporting vaccination (multiple studies involving thousands of patients, many performed using double blind protocols to avoid "proof by anecdote") vs. those against vaccination (snake oil salesmen and anecdotes by idiots). The evidence supporting vaccination is more convincing to anyone who approaches things with a rational mind.

[Pliny]

Ummmm... the statistics were in the very first reference I gave in my post. They came from the CDC.


Actually, the first reference is for the number of influenza-related pediatric deaths... The graphs are pretty simple. Not sure how anyone can be so incompetent that they can't understand them.
2007/08 - 88 deaths.
2008/08 - 133 deaths
2009/10 - 282 deaths - This was the year of the H1N1 Pandemic. Notice the number of deaths is a lot higher than previous years? Why do you think that is?
2010/11 - 97 deaths - After the pandemic. Number of deaths is back down

OK....let's take a close look at this graph. I'm having a little bit of trouble with it. Your link

2007/08 - 88 deaths
2008/09 - 133 deaths
2009/10 - 282 deaths
2010/11 - 97 deaths

It seems that no deaths occurred the last half of 2008 and very few occurred in all of 2010.
Most of the deaths occurred in 2009 and most of them in the last half of 2009. That's when the H1N1 flu season started. I could interpret the graph to mean that the administering of the vaccine caused a spike in the number of deaths and that would be an illustration of the problem of interpreting statistics. OR...it may be the fact, after all H1N1 didn't just appear in Jan 2009 and disappear in January 2010 but it appears to have done so. I seem to recall the big frenzy regarding vaccination was around October of 2009.

Any way, I cannot get all my questions answered regarding these graphs from the information in them.
more information is necessary. The graph itself looks odd, as though data is missing. Earlier years would have to be included so that I know the information falls outside what would be considered normal parameters of variability. I am only looking at three years really with an apparent spike in all of 2009, not just the fall when the H1N1 scare started.

Is 2009 an anomaly over ten or twenty years? Don't know. I can't tell that from the graphs, and unless the vaccines were particularly effective in the last half of 2008 I don't know why the death rate was zero nor why it was insignificant in all of 2010.

You have made some conclusions from this information and hope others will make the same conclusions, I haven't, I need more information. Frankly I have looked at and posted in earlier threads overall death rates for a fairly long period and there has been nothing that falls outside of what would be considered a normal variable on an annual basis.

[Pliny]

And Segnosaur, was it you who earlier called Jenny McCarthy an idiot for trying to link her sons autism to vaccinations because there was no scientific evidence of a link. The big announcement is that there is a link. You should hear about it soon if you haven't already. The facts were there but suppressed and all we saw were the denials. But it was argued loud and long that there was no connection.