H1N1 Vaccine
November 1, 2009 5:00 PM
Scott Pelley reports on the manufacture, distribution and safety of the H1N1 flu vaccine.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
-
Web Extra: Greed and Chaos 1:17 November 29, 2009
-
Web Extra: A Blind Eye 0:51 November 29, 2009
-
Web Extra: Uranium for Sale 1:46 November 29, 2009
-
The Cost of Dying 14:07 November 22, 2009
-
Web Extra: At Home, At Peace 1:38 November 22, 2009
-
Web Extra: Comfort and Costs 1:51 November 22, 2009
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 35 CommentsIn summary: in the US, if you took or knew people who took the seasonal flu vaccine in the past without harm, then the H1N1 made the same way is probably just as safe. I would take it without hesitation. In Europe, where I live, this choice is not available - the 2009 formulation is not like the seasonal flu formulation. As a result I've been reading everything I can get my hands on from regulatory agencies, from package inserts for vaccines that use the same processes and/or components. That's what everyone needs to do - use the internet to it's proper and fullest extent and read the available information. Then make an informed choice.
MUST READING for H1N1: the weekly update from the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/
Here you will find the most illuminating information -
- hospitalizations and deaths per week
- mortality vs expected rates for this time of year
- the fact that this flu has had two outbreak peaks in 2009 already
- the most recent outbreak had greater fatality than any of the last 3 seasonal flus, at least for children
- information on resistance to anti-virals (we are down to 2 antivirals with H1N1, seasonal still has 3 effective)
- only 14 of 5,528 cases tested were NOT H1N1
Even though there is missing historic data and the fact that the clinical trials are incomplete for the EU vaccine, I will probably still trust my husband (yes, a scientist) and get the H1N1 vaccine, with reservations. I also know people with small children and I would hate to infect them if I can avoid it. My mother lost a brother and my father lost a sister to the 1918 version, and I am sure my grandparents would gladly have taken the risk of a vaccine to save their babies.
BUT PLEASE - TAKE THE EFFORT TO READ THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF, especially the CDC site! Note that the virus is starting to mutate, and some few resistances are being seen with the remaining 2 antivirals. Read read read the DATA, then decide your course.
Welcome to the "New World Order". This Pandemic is just the sort of "Planned" attack on our security needed to institute "Marshall Law" if in fact, Obama's administration decides to make this vaccine "Mandatory"!
If that occurs then most citizens will not accept their "Ordering" us to get the shot (or inhaler). Civil unrest and subsequent rioting will spread across the Nation faster than the Plague! Shortages of 'Essential Services", Food, Water & electricity & Fuels will further disrupt the Corporate flow of Trade. Google search: "international swine flu conferrence pdf" and read the "Break outs" on this scenario. Do not take my word, see for yourself. also, search "PNAC". Remember that "Posse Commatatus was suspended by Bush and was not reinstated by Obama as he promised he would do, "once elected President". He extended the "Patriot Act" as he promised he "would suspend it, if elected President"! We are sleeple and deserve what is coming to us, for not making a Stand against this Tyranny!
It combines 2 strains, not just 1! WHY did these people combine these deadly strains? Is it to make $$$ for the makers of the vaccine? Population control? Is this our next 911 Event so the government can take the few remaining constitutional rights away, by causing more FEAR! There is not enough data about this vaccine to justify administering it in such quantities. I mean, 1/2 the population of the USA? here is a bit of info if you are not too lazy to see for yourself, what the World leaders have planned for America and the rest of the planet. Google search the following: "international swine flu conference pdf". Also check out H1N1 vaccine ingredients at the same time.
Additionally, I want to know where the live virus that they shoot into the eggs comes from. I am NOT lying when I tell you that many of the vaccines used on children originated in aborted babies.
Finally, Scott Pelly says that you have a 99% chance of only having MILD flu symptons even if you get H1N1. Some people hypothesize that the immunizations will cause a mutation of the H1N1 virus that will be even more virulent and there won't be a vaccine for it.
For the mercury risk alone, I would avoid the vaccine, but also because the risk is very small and there are too many risky unknowns about the vaccine, including the long-term and cumulative side-effects of vaccines.
My son had H1N1 and developed pneumonia after 5 days of illness. He's was put on antibiotics + a multi-vitamin and Vitamin D3 + acetaminiphen and ibuprofin alternating. Other than normal flu symptoms of coughing, sore throat and aches, the onset started with a bad headache and the first nite he had the chills so bad he was shaking. You can be nauseas or vomit as well. Overall, he was a very healthy kid. His room mate came down with the flu within a couple of hours after my son.
Coincidentally, when people go to the dr w/ the flu, no one is being tested for H1N1, however, they walk away w/ the diagnosis. This inflates the numbers. What if the flu that is going around is the seasonal flu or another strain altogether? In addition, the CDC has now come out saying if you had H1N1, you still need to get the shot? Does this not fly in the face of getting a disease, are you not then supposed to be immune? What the heck is going on here???? It's like a bad sci-fi movie!
When I started looking into the subject, I did so because of concern that 2 others of my family have auto-immune diseases + asthma and the affects of squalene, an adjuvant that has previously not been approved by the FDA for use in vaccines, it's now been approved. In the article below on Risks, it states: "The adjuvant Mercola is referring to is based on an oil known as squalene. It is used to reduce the amount of viral antigen required in vaccines, which allows companies to produce more vaccines for less money at a faster rate." Recall that we were to initially receive 2 vaccinations for H1N1, now it's only 1 plus another vaccination for the regular seasonal flu. This could be of course, that after trials, they found that only one was needed.
I do not underestimate this flu, conversely, I am very afraid of the fear mongering itself and what is coming down the pike w/ mandatory vacinations. The only out in NY is to "prove" that you are allergic. WHat if you are afraid of an ingredient in the vaccine but can't prove that your allergic, are forced to take it and it has lifelong implications? My cousin got Guilliame Barre in the 70's and was paralized.
Read these articles:
NOVEMBER 2009 Does the Vaccine Matter? http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=99335
Vaccines, Autism and Gulf War Syndrome
From Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Bettym19@mindspring.com
8-15-5 http://www.rense.com/general67/vacc.htm
US puts flu vaccines on trial - NIAID director Anthony Fauci explains testing strategy.
Nature News ^ | 28 July 2009 | Declan Butler
Posted on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:29:04 AM by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303336/posts
Risks of the Swine Flu Vaccine
Alex Newman | The New American http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=208584
03 September 2009
the American Journal of Pathology (http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/6/2057 )
Website which contains numerous medical studies on the adjuvant Squalene: http://www.novaccine.com/vaccine-ingredients/results.asp?p=1&s=2&sc=27&scientific=Y
September 30, 2009
Blockbuster Primate Study Shows Significant Harm from One Birth Dose of a Mercury-Containing Vaccine
Editor's update: The article is now available for purchase at Science Direct. See link below.] http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/blockbuster-primate-study-shows-significant-harm-from-one-birth-dose-of-a-mercurycontaining-vaccine.html
Critics question safety of vaccine additives
By Gayle S. Putrich http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-2418889.php
Vaccine for swine flu may be unsafe warns WHO
Mark Prigg, Science and Technology Correspondent
27.07.09 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23724398-details/Vaccine+for+swine+flu+may+be+unsafe+warns+WHO/article.do
I?m trying to understand the issues surrounding the latest H1N1 vaccine and have been doing research (gasp!) on the Internet and have been reading the package inserts that accompany the Influenza A vaccines manufactured by CLS, Novartis, and sonofi pasteur that are published on the Institute for Vaccine Safety website. It?s safe to say that the three inserts contain identical language in many sections of the documents and, being in the business of making money and being wary of litigation, the pharm companies have covered their bases to protect against legal action by inserting the proper disclaimers as any prudent person would expect. The CLS insert, however, contained something that was not in the other two. In the indications and usage section was the following:
?Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is an inactivated influenza virus vaccine indicated for active immunization of persons ages 18 years of age and older against influenza disease caused by pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus.
This indication is based on the immune response elicited by the seasonal trivalent Influenza Virus Vaccine manufactured by CSL (AFLURIA®). CSL?s Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine and AFLURIA are manufactured by the same process. There have been no controlled clinical studies demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with AFLURIA?
The part of the statement that caught my attention is, of course, ?There have been no controlled clinical studies demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with AFLURIA?.
I take this to mean that the spread of the disease is not affected by vaccination with the CLS drug. If this is true, why get vaccinated? (Just to be clear, I am not anti-vaccine; I?ve gotten them my whole life, as have my children, although I?ve never gotten a flu shot and have never gotten Influenza, I?m just trying to make an informed decision.)
If the drug maker is not prepared to support the effectiveness of its own drug, what should consumers infer from this?
That aside, how, then, is the effectiveness of a vaccine measured? It seems to me that there are several assumptions here: 1.) The intent of the vaccine is to prevent the spread of infectious disease by bolstering the immune systems of vaccine recipients to reduce their risk of contracting the disease; 2.) The science behind the process of vaccine manufacture, usage, and the resultant changes in individual biology is well documented, proven science (i.e. the vaccine creates the anticipated antibodies); and 3.) Based on 1 and 2, we should logically deduce that the number of cases reported for the vaccinated disease should decline. (It occurs to me that we really aren?t eradicating a disease, we are merely preventing people from contracting it. Some viruses survive in nature, do they not?) The third assumption does not sound like science to me. If JiffyLube tells me that I should change my oil every 3,000 miles because it will extend my engine life and I do it, that doesn?t mean my car is going to last 100,000 miles. Unless they can prove it, it?s just marketing.
People that get vaccinated and people that don?t get vaccinated are likely to be exposed to the wild virus in question at the same rate. Some in both groups will get sick, but not all. Those with severe cases will be reported and treated. Those with mild cases will ride it out. In theory, the number of severe, i.e. reported cases, will drop. But that doesn?t mean that fewer people are getting sick nor does it mean that the disease is spreading any more slowly. It therefore seems my first assumption is incorrect. Perhaps the goal is to reduce the severity of reported cases. Either way, I?m still puzzled why a vaccine manufacturer would include such language in their package insert if there were good scientific reasons for omitting it.
Not that I am a fan of vaccines but I have work in environments that people have not been vaccinated and died horribly from diseases that were preventable because of vaccines.
I had a woman who did not vaccinate her son because she did not believe in the MMR vaccine and her son died from measles. She blamed the doctor the nurse and even the government.
Remember it is each of our choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate but if you do not it is no ones fault. You make the choice not anyone else.
I know I do not want to die from a disease that is preventable. But again the choice is yours.
Not vaccinating my family is dangerous behavior? Our entire school has had H1N1 (including 1 high risk individual) and it was a blip -- mild, completely uneventful.
For an intracellular virus like influenza, cell mediated (NATURAL) immunity is more important for protection than (vaccine) -- this is indisputable. It explains why people born before 1953 seem to not be affected as much.
To suggest that vaccines are without risk is completely ignorant. Show me the random, double blind study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated populations -- long-term-- and I'll jump on your bandwagon. In the meantime, my children will get sick and year after year and build immunity on their own -- assuming they don't become high risk individuals.
I think this 60 minutes segment was complete propaganda. I'm much more interested in understanding why the football player they featured ended up intubated (which, by the way, is why he was such a disaster 2 weeks later) yet the rest of the football team got the flu and were fine. Or how about the efficacy of the flu vaccine: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1?
How about some real investigative journalism that takes effort.
No, THAT's misinformation. She didn't say Guillain-Barré has not ever occurred from vaccination since 1976. She said we haven't seen outbreaks of Guillain-Barré anywhere near the magnitude that was observed in 1976. Nobody denies Guillain-Barré can develop from vaccination. Guillain-Barré can develop from a vaccine, however, it's just as common among the unvaccinated. And since the 1976 outbreak of Guillain-Barré (which incidentally has never been definitively linked to vaccines in the first place), we haven't seen similar outbreak of Guillain-Barré. The odds of developing Guillain-Barré from a vaccine is a million-to-one. The odds of getting H1N1 (which is capable of potentially killing otherwise healthy adults, pregnant women, and small children) is far less comforting.
"And the doctor stating more people are going to die if they do not receive the H1N1 vaccine? That is promoting fear in the general public to scare people into getting vaccine."
No, that's being honest. Warning someone that they're engaging in legitimately dangerous behavior is not promoting fear. The seatbelt analogy is an apt one to an extent, however, it's not a perfect metaphor as one's choice not to vaccinate endangers not just their own life but potentially the lives of everyone they come in contact with. That's a fact. It's conspiracy nutters like yourself who promote paranoid fear of any and all authority figures regardless of the evidence against your position.
"Note not a single peer reviewed research article was provided to back-up any of the claims. Educate yourselves, do not expect mainstream media to be looking after your best interests."
There's a 100 years of medical literature backing her up. This is like a creationist whining because a scientist debunking their myths doesn't specifically reference scientific studies every single time they talk about the subject. If you can't find vaccines studies, you either haven't really looked or you've made up excuses to reject them out of hand. It's not hard to find studies supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It's called Pubmed. USE IT!
Let's see. If you're right, almost every medical scientist in the world is either less knowledgeable of vaccines than you or they're all in on a massive evil conspiracy to get us all in a horribly poorly thought out sinister plot that involves slowly killing us over the course of a 100 years by increasing our average life expectancy 30 years. Yeah, that's the ticket! Or you're just wrong. Which sounds most likely to you. Please note that if you choose the former, then the internet doesn't have enough bandwidth to contain your enormous ego.
www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Vaccines
But considering that 36,000 U.S. citizens die each year from seasonal flu (think 9/11 times 12) and so far over a 1000 U.S. citizens (most of whom were either young children, pregnant women, or otherwise perfectly healthy) have died of H1N1, while extraordinarily few people develop any serious negative side effects from the vaccines, I'm curious as to why you think the lone cheerleader, whose condition probably had nothing to do with the vaccine and whose condition is treatable, is the story that warranted more exposure. I suppose that's because the football player's story doesn't confirm your personal biases. CBS doesn't need your kind of "reporting." But I hear Fox News is always looking for more reporters like you.
www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Vaccines
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 35 Comments