# Flu vaccination



## Fsharpmajor

I'm in a high-risk category (asthmatic), so I'm entitled to a free flu jab on the NHS every year. I got it this morning. In the UK, if you aren't in a high-risk category, you can still have it done in a pharmacy reasonably cheaply.

I'm *not* in the pay of the manufacturers of flu vaccine, but in my opinion it works extremely well. I haven't had flu for nearly 20 years. What do you think about it? Share your thoughts and experiences.


----------



## Ukko

Hah. The local pharmacies provide flu shots, charging ~$28. Considering the misery the flu can inflict, it's a deal. I've been getting them for forty years or so (my employer paid the fee back when I had an employer), and can affirm that they have no effect on the common cold.


----------



## Polednice

I haven't yet figured out if I'm entitled to a free jab or not. I had a free one once, but I think that might have been accidental theft.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. The local pharmacies provide flu shots, charging ~$28. Considering the misery the flu can inflict, it's a deal.


Absolutely. I've never had really bad flu but, as a small business (partnership of two), I can't afford even to take the risk.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

Every year I've had the shot I haven't had the flu


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Polednice said:


> I haven't yet figured out if I'm entitled to a free jab or not. I had a free one once, but I think that might have been accidental theft.


I would think that you are almost certainly entitled to a freebie, but that said, you'd need to check with your GP about whether or not you should have it.


----------



## Operafocus

I'm not against vaccinations in general, when it comes to the "basic jabs" you get throughout your childhood and teenage years, in order to avoid getting serious diseases etc. If taking a regular flu jab works for people, then fine.

*However*. And there is a however. When it comes to these "oh my God we're all going to die!" jabs they offer up on "the next pandemic", then my attitude is different. I remember when the swine flu came, and they produced vaccinations worth BILLIONS, and injected people without it having gone through proper testing. They recommended it to people who were pregnant, to anyone in the "risk group" and everyone who were scared of death, basically. This particular vaccination was full of mercury for starters. The late effects seem to be that the pregnant women who took the jab had a larger percentage of still born babies. People lost their sense of taste and smell over a period of time, some never got it back. People got sick like dogs after they took the jab, because they got the virus injected and therefore the body went through the process it would have done *anyway* if you got swine flu. "But it's much milder." For some, it really wasn't.

I didn't take it. I was told that I was putting other people's lives at risk by not getting vaccinated - which is ridiculous, considering you can still be a carrier of the virus even when you're not sick. You can be 100% immune and still give it to someone else. I'm a risk factor. I'm asthmatic and I've got an auto-immune disorder. I was given SUCH a bollocking for not getting the jab - but what these educated doctors and nurses failed to inform people with auto-immune diseases of, is that this particular vaccine would strengthen the symptoms you're already experiencing with such a disease. Hence, a lot of people with such diseases got really ill. But hey, at least they didn't potentially die of swine flu, right? I didn't get sick from swine flu. Not bird flu either. I've had regular flus, been ill, survived. You're down for a week to ten days, then you're fine. In most cases.

People who actually die from a flu are not healthy individuals to begin with. If someone's body is not equipped to deal with a flu, whichever strength it is, then something _else_ is wrong. Over here it was complete hysteria. "3000 people are going to die!" In the same sentence they could have mentioned that an average of 1500 people in the risk group die every year from regular flu, which is bad - obviously - but 3000 people *potentially* dying is *not* a pandemic. If 60% of a country's population died of an epidemic, then I'd be worried.

*By comparison, through the years:*
*Spanish flu:* 500 million infected - 20-100 million died.
*Asian flu:* 200 million died. 
*Hond Kong flu:* 1 million died.
*Seasonal flu:* 340,000-1 billion infected a year - 250,000-500,000 die every year.
*Swine flu:* 622,482 reported infections - 14,286 (lab-confirmed).

We have healthier diets these days, we have antibiotics, we have hygene... so people's bodies are (generally) better equipped at handling bacteria- and virus infections. I also think that when it comes to for instance flu, it's the body's way of taking some down time to get rid of stuff that's built up. It's like a spring clean, really. The average person gets a proper flu 2 or 3 times in their lives. So although I'm technically "at risk", it takes a bit more than a flu to make me shake in my boots.

Oh-kay, rant over :lol:


----------



## Almaviva

Operafocus said:


> I'm not against vaccinations in general, when it comes to the "basic jabs" you get throughout your childhood and teenage years, in order to avoid getting serious diseases etc. If taking a regular flu jab works for people, then fine.
> 
> *However*. And there is a however. When it comes to these "oh my God we're all going to die!" jabs they offer up on "the next pandemic", then my attitude is different. I remember when the swine flu came, and they produced vaccinations worth BILLIONS, and injected people without it having gone through proper testing. They recommended it to people who were pregnant, to anyone in the "risk group" and everyone who were scared of death, basically. This particular vaccination was full of mercury for starters. The late effects seem to be that the pregnant women who took the jab had a larger percentage of still born babies. People lost their sense of taste and smell over a period of time, some never got it back. People got sick like dogs after they took the jab, because they got the virus injected and therefore the body went through the process it would have done *anyway* if you got swine flu. "But it's much milder." For some, it really wasn't.
> 
> I didn't take it. I was told that I was putting other people's lives at risk by not getting vaccinated - which is ridiculous, considering you can still be a carrier of the virus even when you're not sick. You can be 100% immune and still give it to someone else. I'm a risk factor. I'm asthmatic and I've got an auto-immune disorder. I was given SUCH a bollocking for not getting the jab - but what these educated doctors and nurses failed to inform people with auto-immune diseases of, is that this particular vaccine would strengthen the symptoms you're already experiencing with such a disease. Hence, a lot of people with such diseases got really ill. But hey, at least they didn't potentially die of swine flu, right? I didn't get sick from swine flu. Not bird flu either. I've had regular flus, been ill, survived. You're down for a week to ten days, then you're fine. In most cases.
> 
> People who actually die from a flu are not healthy individuals to begin with. If someone's body is not equipped to deal with a flu, whichever strength it is, then something _else_ is wrong. Over here it was complete hysteria. "3000 people are going to die!" In the same sentence they could have mentioned that an average of 1500 people in the risk group die every year from regular flu, which is bad - obviously - but 3000 people *potentially* dying is *not* a pandemic. If 60% of a country's population died of an epidemic, then I'd be worried.
> 
> *By comparison, through the years:*
> *Spanish flu:* 500 million infected - 20-100 million died.
> *Asian flu:* 200 million died.
> *Hond Kong flu:* 1 million died.
> *Seasonal flu:* 340,000-1 billion infected a year - 250,000-500,000 die every year.
> *Swine flu:* 622,482 reported infections - 14,286 (lab-confirmed).
> 
> We have healthier diets these days, we have antibiotics, we have hygene... so people's bodies are (generally) better equipped at handling bacteria- and virus infections. I also think that when it comes to for instance flu, it's the body's way of taking some down time to get rid of stuff that's built up. It's like a spring clean, really. The average person gets a proper flu 2 or 3 times in their lives. So although I'm technically "at risk", it takes a bit more than a flu to make me shake in my boots.
> 
> Oh-kay, rant over :lol:


Oh boy. You're wrong in so many of your statements above, that I'd better just shut up, or we'll be fighting.

For everybody else: take the recommend shots, people. There's good science behind them.


----------



## sabrina

I have never had a flu shot (vaccine), but I would probably think about it if I had some health conditions, although I'm not sure at all I'll accept it. 
This flu shot is done after statistics. We never know what strain of influenza virus will strike next fall. It's only a guess. Most of the upper respiratory infections are due to other viruses, not influenza. The H,N type of influenza virus antigens are mixed, more like a lottery. In your shot you get a bunch of antigens, and you are supposed to get the specific antibodies for those antigens. 
Actually there are more types of immune response, not only with specific antibodies. Some of the vaccines are socially helpful, but many other vaccines are discussable. When you introduce some foreign antigens, you never really know for sure what type of response you get. Sometimes, the vaccines don't even generate the expected antibodies, or the level is quite low. That's why, some vaccines have to be redone after 5-10 years. But who is tested for his level of antibodies? Clinical studies are sometimes like a joke. 
Frankly, I think some autoimmune diseases might be triggered by some antigens. A model is the post streptococcic glomerulonephritis. In this case, strep's antigens look like some of our antigens, and after an untreated strep-throat is off, like after a few weeks, you get the complication (rheumatic fever followed by carditis, or nephritis, or choreea) . The nephritis is treatable, but the carditis leaves scars on the cardiac valves. There are many other autoimmune diseases without a discovered cause. This was just an example, but the strep is a bacteria, and vaccines are usually against viruses. Different beasts. For bacteria we still have the antibiotics.
The best is to stay healthy.


----------



## Aksel

I've taken a couple of flu shots over the years, both for normal flu and the swine flu a few years ago. I'm highly asthmatic, and I've found it works really well for me, at least it has previously.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Operafocus said:


> I also think that when it comes to for instance flu, it's the body's way of taking some down time to get rid of stuff that's built up. It's like a spring clean, really.


I disagree--respectfully--with many points in your post, but I'll challenge you on this one. I am not a qualified medical professional, and for that reason I can't presume to say, for individual people, who should get the flu jab and who should not.

But I think I'm safe in saying that influenza is *not* your body's way of taking some down time to purge itself of toxins. Flu is a contagious viral disease which can have deadly consequences--even for otherwise healthy people. We saw this with swine flu--young children and pregnant women were being killed by the virus in more numbers than expected. So the swine flu vaccine was offered and recommended to them. Nobody was compelled to get it. All it does is elicit an immune response. It's an inactivated form of the virus, but it has intact proteins against which your body produces antibodies. These protect you against infection when you encounter the real thing. It is *not* something like thalidomide.

What happened, though, is that the Daily Mail published a series of misleading, ignorant, absurd, preposterous, self-contradictory series of articles about swine flu and the swine flu vaccine. The kindest explanation for it is that they hoped for the best, but simply didn't have a clue what they were talking about. The least kind one is that it was deliberate, profit-motivated scaremongering with a political slant. Either way, the unnecessary confusion must surely have cost a few lives, especially among pregnant women. I'll post some links to these articles if I'm requested to do so.

The same goes for scaremongering about the MMR vaccine, for measles, mumps and rubella. These three diseases can each have *very* serious complications--death of your child in the case of measles, sterility in the case of mumps, and birth defects in your baby if you get rubella while pregnant. The safety of the MMR vaccine has now been proved many times over. It *doesn't* cause autism, but still many parents won't get it for their kids. (Unfortunately, some of those who didn't now wish they had, though).

Vaccines *do* work. There may be rare complications, but your risk of dying from one of these is far smaller than your risk of dying from the disease for which you got the vaccination.

Smallpox, polio and diphtheria didn't just go away all by themselves. We got rid of them (in the developed world, at least) by immunization. We can get ourselves free of other fatal viral diseases with the vaccines we have now. New ones are emerging all the time. I've had one for the type of pneumonia that killed my father. There's one against HPV (which causes cervical cancer in women), and a new one against one of the most common types of meningitis. (Meningitis can kill your kid within 48 hours).

Anyway, that's the end of *my own rant.* Nothing personal is intended. Thankfully we are free (for the most part) to make these decisions ourselves


----------



## Guest

Vaccines are my bread and butter. I am an immunologist. Some things to keep in mind.

First - don't worry about mercury. It isn't straight mercury that you take into your system. If your vaccine actually still contains thimerasol (the mercury-containing compound that everybody complains about), it is in such low levels, it is not worth even mentioning. But most manufacturers have already moved away from it, so it isn't even a factor. Shame, because it is a great preservative that allows the vaccine to last a lot longer and makes it easier for more and more people to get vaccines. But look at it this way - sodium and chlorine are both horrible elements that you would not want to take into your body alone. But we ingest sodium chloride every day - normal table salt. Every serious study looking at the effects of thimerasol on humans from vaccines has come up with nothing.

The vaccine shot does not contain the flu virus. It contains proteins from the flu virus, but not the flu virus itself. You have as much chance of contracting the flu from the flu shot as you have of being eaten by a shark if someone puts you in a tank with shark teeth and the fin alone. The nasal vaccine does contain virus, but it is attenuated - no longer going to harm you. So anybody who tells you they got the flu from getting a flu shot is, I'm sorry to say, and I say with all due respect, simply not telling the truth.

The way they determine the strain of the flu virus that will predominate in any given season is not exactly random. Since the northern and southern hemispheres have their seasons reversed, the flu season hits the southern hemisphere before it hits the northern hemisphere. They can identify the dominant strains in the south, to prepare for what will likely hit the north, and vice versa. Sure, they may not end up being the same, but it isn't exactly a random shot in the dark.

While it is true that the worst effects of the flu are not likely to affect the most healthy among us, the logic behind vaccinating the population is what is referred to as herd immunity. Think of it like the phalanx in battle. You have a large group of people protected, so that, even if a few individuals in the middle bear no armor or shielding, they will be protected by the group as a whole. The virus needs to pass from host to host. The more people immune, the less targets to infect. So even if a healthy male, in his early 20's, with no medical issues gets the flu and nothing serious happens, other than out of work for a few days, he is still a source of transmission to others. The less people that can be infected means the less it will be spread. It is kind of the same concept as creating a fire break to prevent the spread of a forest fire. You have removed fuel for the virus, so the epidemic dies out, protecting the weaker in the population who would likely have far worse symptoms, even up to and including death.

For people who think vaccines are merely a ploy by pharmaceutical companies to take our money - ask yourself how many people you know who died or were disfigured by smallpox? Or who spent their youth in an iron lung from Polio, or were crippled from polio? How many of you could even say what a case of Rubella looks like? Or could describe what whooping cough (Pertussis) sounds like? Who among you has seen a person be suffocated by diptheria? Seen someones muscles lock up from tetanus? Seen a rabid dog running down the street?

That is what vaccines have done. We now live in an age where we are healthy enough and free enough of some of the more debilitating of illnesses that used to regularly sweep through populations. Some of it is from improved hygiene, but a large amount is due to vaccines.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Vaccines are my bread and butter. I am an immunologist. Some things to keep in mind.
> [...]
> For people who think vaccines are merely a ploy by pharmaceutical companies to take our money - ask yourself how many people you know who died or were disfigured by smallpox? Or who spent their youth in an iron lung from Polio, or were crippled from polio? How many of you could even say what a case of Rubella looks like? Or could describe what whooping cough (Pertussis) sounds like? Who among you has seen a person be suffocated by diptheria? Seen someones muscles lock up from tetanus? Seen a rabid dog running down the street?
> 
> That is what vaccines have done. We now live in an age where we are healthy enough and free enough of some of the more debilitating of illnesses that used to regularly sweep through populations. Some of it is from improved hygiene, but a large amount is due to vaccines.


Right on,_DrMike_. I am old enough to have had an elementary school classmate who was crippled by polio, and my immunity to whooping cough and Rubella was creating by catching them - Rubella (aka German measles) more than once). Same deal with measles and mumps. Those 'childhood' diseases were part of the obstacle course of growing up, and if you didn't catch them while still a child, you worried; measles and mumps were apt to be a harder hit on an adult.

Three cheers for vaccinations!


----------



## Almaviva

Thankfully DrMike, a specialist in the field of immunology, has shed some light on some of the absurd and misinformed statements we've read in previous posts. Scaremongering about vaccines makes so mad that I have to abstain from discussing it, lest I'll be offending people and violating the very Terms of Service I'm sworn to uphold. I get mad because this kind of irresponsible spreading of misinformation can kill and maim people.

The bottom line is, folks, stop getting your notions about vaccines from tabloids and the Internet, and trust the specialists like DrMike. They mean well and their work is meant to protect you, not hurt you and hurt your offspring or take your money in some sort of dark conspiracy.


----------



## sabrina

Sorry, it's all about antigens and how they trigger our immune system. Of course, vaccines had great influence limiting infections with polio virus. Unfortunately it is not eradicated. Variola major virus was also close to eradication. Amazing results. But NOT all vaccines are good for us. It's up to you if accept the flu shot or not. And it's not only the flu vaccine that may do more harm than good. Please try to read, and ask many professionals. I know they are divided. I am one of them, LOL


----------



## Ukko

sabrina said:


> Sorry, it's all about antigens and how they trigger our immune system. Of course, vaccines had great influence limiting infections with polio virus. Unfortunately it is not eradicated. Variola major virus was also close to eradication. Amazing results. But NOT all vaccines are good for us. It's up to you if accept the flu shot or not. And it's not only the flu vaccine that may do more harm than good. Please try to read, and ask many professionals. I know they are divided. I am one of them, LOL


You are a medic? Sanitary engineers are professionals too, y'know.


----------



## sabrina

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are a medic? Sanitary engineers are professionals too, y'know.


I am MD, with residency in virology, medical bacteriology, immunology, hematology.


----------



## Almaviva

sabrina said:


> I am MD, with residency in virology, medical bacteriology, immunology, hematology.


 Do you practice medicine with patients, or just research? Because if you do see patients, you should take the flu vaccine so that you don't spread it to your patients.


----------



## Ukko

sabrina said:


> I am MD, with residency in virology, medical bacteriology, immunology, hematology.


Excellent. One of my friends from back when the world was young hoped to marry a lady doctor, on the theory that if it was a good plan for a woman to marry a doctor, it ought to be a good plan for him. I pointed out that MDs are college grads, and he quit school in 10th grade because it interfered with hunting season, but he was undeterred.

But still, you can't talk me out of my flu shot.


----------



## Guest

sabrina said:


> Sorry, it's all about antigens and how they trigger our immune system. Of course, vaccines had great influence limiting infections with polio virus. Unfortunately it is not eradicated. Variola major virus was also close to eradication. Amazing results. But NOT all vaccines are good for us. It's up to you if accept the flu shot or not. And it's not only the flu vaccine that may do more harm than good. Please try to read, and ask many professionals. I know they are divided. I am one of them, LOL


Polio is close to being eradicated. It is a matter of getting it to the harder to reach areas of the globe. Unfortunately, so much disinformation regarding vaccines has made many third world countries leery of them, thinking some nefarious scheme is in place to hurt them. Smallpox is eradicated. The only way for it to reemerge is for someone to intentionally release it. Diseases like whooping cough were almost unheard of in the U.S., but with the false information spread about the MMR vaccine, and the DPT vaccine, more people are choosing to not get these common vaccines, and so whooping cough (pertussis, the "P" in the DPT vaccine) is seeing a bit of a resurgence.

Yes, it is about antigens triggering the immune system. With vaccines, we take the exact antigens in the whole virus that we know would trigger an immune response, and in many of the vaccines we simply give you the antigens, minus the rest of the virus. The immune system is then "tricked" into thinking you have been infected, mounts an immune response, which then develops memory, so the next time you encounter the actual virus, the immune system remembers, and can mount a larger and faster response, often eradicating the virus or bacteria before it has a chance to gain a foothold. As has been mentioned, many childhood illnesses can be much more severe when acquired as an adult.

Take chickenpox, for example. When I was a kid, there was no vaccine. You just got chickenpox, or you didn't. The problem is, without the vaccine, you have all kinds of problems later in life. You see, chickenpox virus belongs to the same family of viruses as the herpes viruses. Once you are infected, the virus can lay dormant in nerve cells for the rest of your life. The disease later in life is known as shingles. So if you caught chickenpox as a child, or are exposed for the first time as an adult, you can develop shingles - a very painful illness. But if you get the vaccine, you are protected not only against chickenpox, but also against shingles.

What vaccines are not good for us? As an MD, I'd be curious to hear which ones those are? There have been problems in the past with certain vaccines in their development, but I am not aware of vaccines that are currently licensed that are not good for us. And I am really surprised that you, as an MD, are not required to get your annual flu vaccine. I guess it is run differently in Canada. In the U.S., it is required. I currently work at a contract research organization that frequently works with the flu virus, so I have to have it. And previously I worked at a children's hospital, and it was also mandatory.

I have had some nasty reactions to vaccines, but not any of the run of the mill ones. Mine have been from some of the nastier ones that come with working around really nasty stuff. I am in the process of getting the anthrax vaccine, and it is no walk in the park. I have worked with viruses closely related to smallpox, so I have to be revaccinated with the smallpox vaccine every 10 years. That is a rough one as well. And they tightly regulate who gets those - only those that are at high risk. The normal ones they allow to the general public don't have the same problems. And even the rough ones - I would take any one of them again in a heartbeat, because some temporary discomfort sure beats the hell out of the alternative should I be exposed to, say, the anthrax bacillus, or something else equally unpleasant and potentially fatal.

Vaccines don't cause autism. There is overwhelming evidence against it, and only the refuted statements of a quack doctor from the UK who was found to have falsified data in a court of law saying otherwise - in the case of the MMR vaccine. It has been over a decade since California stopped allowing any vaccines that used mercury-based preservatives - and the rate of autism has not gone down. In fact, it has even increased. The same is true over in Europe. You are exposed to worse preservatives in the food you eat every day. Vaccines undergo multiple levels of safety training before they are allowed onto the market - at least in the U.S. And pharmaceutical companies are going to want them to pass testing in the U.S., because, let's face it, there is a lot of money here for them. And there is no shortage of people who are willing to report any possible problem with them, so if there is a legitimate concern, they get pulled pretty quickly.

Maybe if you could tell us which vaccines are not good for us . . .


----------



## sabrina

DrMike said:


> Maybe if you could tell us which vaccines are not good for us . . .


I am not going to enter a dispute with you as I agree to everything what you said, only I am not so optimistic regarding vaccines and their efficacy. I'll give you a simple example of somebody who had the anti mumps virus vaccine, and when he was a young adult, he caught from somewhere mumps, and ended up sterile. Had he enough immunity against the virus? Certainly, not good enough. It should have been better to get mumps as a kid, as mumps in children is much milder and the immunity is much stronger after the disease.
But this topic was just about the flu shot. Again, this vaccine is done after statistics, and the antigens used, might not be the same as the coming virus. But, more than that, most of upper tract respiratory infections are caused by adeno-, corona-viruses or other viruses that sometimes produce infections quite similar clinic to Beta hemolytic Strep...but are not influenza viruses, for which the vaccine is designed. Bref, you have no protection against a large array of viruses that jump around. Of course not all the vaccines are as bad. I didn't bite the link of autism and whatever vaccinations. But big problems with anti HBV vaccine happened in France some many years ago...
It's a mad world!:devil:


----------



## Almaviva

Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2006 Jul;54 Spec No 1:1S89-1S94.
*[Successes and failures of anti-HBV vaccination in France: historical background and questions for research].*

[Article in French]
Lévy-Bruhl D.
*Source*

Institut de Veille Sanitaire, DMI, Saint-Maurice. [email protected]

*Abstract*

The promotion in France, in the mid 90s of hepatitis B vaccination for pre-teenagers and high-risk individuals has been very successful. Between 1994 and 1998, vaccination coverage in pre-teenagers was over 75% and more than one third of the French population has been immunized, indicating that vaccination went well beyond its target. Vaccination of infants has been much less successful. *Epidemiological studies, undertaken following notifications of neurological events following vaccination, could neither confirm nor totally disprove an association between the two events, even if the hypothesis of a coincidental temporal relationship remains by far the most likely explanation. *This situation led to the stagnation or the decrease of the vaccination coverage for its various target-populations. However other factors may have contributed to this situation. Research in social sciences would be useful to study the contribution of a negative perception of the epidemiological relevancy of hepatitis B vaccination, especially in infants, as well as of the shortcomings in the management of the implementation of the vaccination strategies. The results would help to tailor communication strategies that are needed to support an active promotion of hepatitis B vaccination in France.

PMID:17073135 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sabrina, as the article above shows, the trouble with the Anti HBV in France seems to have been a lot more uncertain than you indicate.

Also, I'm asking again since you haven't replied - same point raised by DrMike - are you practicing medicine with patients, or are you just doing research?

Because if an MD sees patients, not taking the flu shot - at least as far as US standards are concerned - seems to not be an option (except in exceptional cases that may get a waiver). I would expect that Canada held its practitioners to similar standards.


----------



## Guest

sabrina said:


> I am not going to enter a dispute with you as I agree to everything what you said, only I am not so optimistic regarding vaccines and their efficacy. I'll give you a simple example of somebody who had the anti mumps virus vaccine, and when he was a young adult, he caught from somewhere mumps, and ended up sterile. Had he enough immunity against the virus? Certainly, not good enough. It should have been better to get mumps as a kid, as mumps in children is much milder and the immunity is much stronger after the disease.


Look, I can't speak to every anecdotal piece of evidence you provide. But how many people do you know that have been vaccinated against mumps and later in life caught mumps? I don't know a single person. You mention one - I am assuming there is only the one example, or you would have cited more. Is it 100% effective? I don't know anything in life that is 100%. But surely the fact that you can only cite one such instance suggests that the vast majority of people who receive the vaccine are protected. I'm not sure what the circumstances surrounding this anecdotal individual were - whether there were other circumstances involved. But the overwhelming evidence shows that it is much better to get the vaccine than to not get it. And for your one individual, I can cite you the actual data showing the rise in cases of whooping cough in kids whose parents didn't get them the DPT vaccine.



> But this topic was just about the flu shot. Again, this vaccine is done after statistics, and the antigens used, might not be the same as the coming virus. But, more than that, most of upper tract respiratory infections are caused by adeno-, corona-viruses or other viruses that sometimes produce infections quite similar clinic to Beta hemolytic Strep...but are not influenza viruses, for which the vaccine is designed. Bref, you have no protection against a large array of viruses that jump around. Of course not all the vaccines are as bad. I didn't bite the link of autism and whatever vaccinations. But big problems with anti HBV vaccine happened in France some many years ago...
> It's a mad world!:devil:


Yes, the vast majority of upper respiratory tract infections are from a broad variety of viruses - all of which we lump in together as the "common cold." So? Let me pose this to you. You go and buy fire insurance for your house. Your house gets some minor flood damage, though, and you don't have flood insurance. Was it unnecessary to buy the fire insurance? No, because the two are completely unrelated - you would want insurance for both. But just because you don't need to use the fire insurance doesn't mean you shouldn't have bought the policy. Same with the flu virus. So what if most URT infections are minor "cold" viruses? If you get the flu vaccine, you are protected from the flu, which is nastier than a common cold. In some cases it can be fatal. So because they can't vaccinate you against every conceivable upper respiratory tract infection, you shouldn't get a flu shot?

As to the HBV vaccine in France - there were two women who won a court case in France, where they convinced a judge/jury that the vaccine had caused MS in them. Interestingly, the court rejected the defense that there should be direct scientific evidence required to support such a claim - the court said the women didn't need scientific evidence to prove the vaccine caused MS in them. There have been numerous studies that have since shown that there is no credible link between the HBV vaccine and MS.

Look, anecdotal evidence, like you cite above with the mumps case, certainly pull on the heart strings, but they have no real value in discussing things like this. For one, they allow someone to throw out an idea without having to substantiate it with verifiable information. How do I know you really heard of a person who was vaccinated against mumps but later still contracted it and became sterile from mumps? Did the individual stay current on the regular boosters required for this vaccine? You do know that some vaccines require boosters? I wish it were different, but not all vaccines confer lifelong immunity. Hell, previous infections with certain viruses don't confer lifelong immunity. So if the individual in question had only been initially vaccinated, and then never received any of the boosters, well, you don't even tell us how late in life he acquired mumps. So if he was not fully compliant with the vaccination regimen, then no, he couldn't expect the same level of protection as someone who did. But we can't know any of this, because you offer only a single, unverifiable instance, with no background info. Was the person immunocompromised? Undergoing chemo, or anything else that might weaken his immunity?

But the vast amount of information suggests that the vaccines are safe and effective. I should think you would know this, with a VERY impressive resume of having residencies in not only virology and medical bacteriology (here in the U.S., those tend to just get lumped together into a single "Infectious Diseases" residency), but also immunology and rheumatology.

The antigens selected for the flu shot may not match up with the actual strain that season - but most of the time they do. From time to time, we get thrown a loop, and something unexpected comes out. And then we scramble to get another vaccine out quick. But for the most part, they do a really good job of surveying all around the globe CONSTANTLY to see which strains are in circulation. As someone who works closely with a group that is involved in that process, I can tell you that the entire scientific community that concerns itself with flu virus is constantly on top of what strains are popping up where. You make it sound like some crap shoot - like they take a random guess. And it just isn't so. It is more like a weather forecast. They observe the weather patterns, and based on what they know, they forecast that season's flu strains. Are they always right? No. But if the weatherman tells you it is likely to rain, don't you take an umbrella?

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I hope my posts are not coming across as mean, or violating the TOS. But I worked with an Infectious Disease fellow at the children's hospital I last worked at, and he told me of the increase in cases of measles and whooping cough he was seeing - needless suffering of little kids because someone had told their parents that, well, you know, these vaccines don't always work, and I heard of so-and-so whose cousin got vaccine X but later still got the illness.


----------



## Almaviva

Wow, Sabrina, in spite of the fact that you haven't clarified yet how a practicing MD is allowed to forfeit the flu shot in Canada, I'm still very impressed with your resume. Residency training in virology, medical microbiology, immunology, and hematology, huh? I'd be curious to know what programs and universities offer this unusual training in residency format, and I tip my hat to you for the mind-boggling sheer number of years necessary to acquire all four! I've certainly never seen anybody with such extensive residency training at least this side of the border; maybe in Canada it is different. I mean, after a while, wouldn't the person want to engage in some paid work instead of four different residency training programs? In any case, wow, like I said, I'm in awe of someone who is willing to sit for this massive amount of training, although I'm less thrilled with the fact that such a person would publicly doubt the efficacy of the current available vaccines for public health and would mix up the common cold and the flu - not to forget strep (three wildly different kinds of upper respiratory infections) in her arguments - I mean, aren't you kind of undermining the fundamentals of your very multiple specialties when you say this kind of thing? Most MDs with specialty training in such matters are staunch advocates for vaccines and do their best to stop the nonsense that is uttered out there, so pardon my curiosity with a personal question, but where did you get your training? Would you please tell us exactly where you have attended these programs? I'd like to have a word with the residency training directors of your programs, just to educate myself about their approach to public health and vaccinations, so that I can get informed about the fact that like you say, specialists seem to be divided in such matters (I wasn't aware of this division to tell you the truth, except for some publicity-seeking kooks and conspiracy theorists, but since you're so ultra-specialized and extensively trained in these matters, you must know better). Alma, perplexed.


----------



## Guest

There is one other point regarding vaccinations that I think bears mentioning here. 

Many people will cite anecdotal evidence of getting a vaccine and still getting sick. It is useful to know that anytime your body mounts an immune reaction, there is the possibility of feeling some symptoms of being sick. The reason is that some of what you feel when you ARE sick is the actions of the immune system, not the virus or bacteria itself. When the immune system is activated, it sets off a variety of mechanisms to control infection. In addition to generating cells that very specifically target the invading pathogen, or the cells infected by the pathogen, there are also numerous cells that act in very non-specific ways to create an antimicrobial environment. They will release chemicals into your system that to a variety of things, including signaling to other cells so they can find the site of infection, making it possible for immune cells to traffic to where they need to go, and releasing other chemicals that can kill the pathogens. As a result, you may feel sick, maybe have a low grade fever, some achiness, feel a bit run down. This can also happen when you get a vaccination, because your immune system is responding, even though you are not actually infected. When you are sick, only some symptoms actually come from the virus/bacteria itself.

Or maybe to make it more easily understood - have you ever gotten a bad cut, and while it was healing, it was still red, inflamed, itchy? That is your body's natural mechanisms at work healing you, not necessarily the results of the cut.

I understand some people may hear of dramatic, emotional cases where someone had something terrible happen to them, and it seemed to be very closely linked with when they received a vaccination. But that doesn't provide proof of connection. It is kind of like an airplane crashing, and investigators finding out that most of the people on board had eaten carrots prior to the crash. Did eating carrots cause the crash, or was that just coincidental? Think of vaccines in the same way. These shots are a very small volume. Trace elements of preservatives, even if there were evidence they could cause harm, are at such ridiculously small concentrations that there is no risk. Toxicity is determined not merely by the nature of a chemical, but also a dose. Even water can be toxic at high enough doses, but at the right amounts is required. As to this concern of exposing yourself to different proteins in vaccines - your immune systems is faced with foreign proteins all the time. Whether you are ingesting something, or inhaling something, or got a scratch and microbes entered into you through that scratch, your immune system is constantly working. 

As I mentioned before, we are lucky in this day and age to not have to know the pain and misery of diseases like smallpox, or polio, or, for the most part, measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus. These aren't simple illnesses that can be unpleasant. Smallpox wiped out untold numbers of native Americans. Those who were not killed often were disfigured from the scars. Polio could leave you paralyzed. Diptheria causes a mucous plug to fill your airway and suffocate you to death. Tetanus can cause your muscles to lock up in a horribly painful way (it is sometimes called lockjaw). How many people do you know of who received the vaccines and had something bad happen to them? Do you know anybody personally, or only heard third hand about someone who did? Do the people who try to warn you have actual firsthand knowledge, and is it something you can verify, or merely unsubstantiated claims? And ask yourself whether you have all the facts. Most vaccines require boosters - did the individual who had the adverse event follow the prescribed vaccine regimen? Or did they merely receive the first vaccination, and never get the boosters? Too many variables are possible to simply accept a statement such as "well, there was a man who got the mumps vaccine as a child, but later in life developed mumps, and as a result was sterile."


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> But still, you can't talk me out of my flu shot.


Me neither. Referring to DrMike's post above, the only side effect I get from the flu jab is a feeling of being slightly off-colour the next day, and a bit of soreness at the site of the injection. It's very minor. They give you a good leaflet that tells you what to expect.

On the other hand, if I get flu I could end up in hospital or even die. At the very least, I'm going to experience two weeks of sheer misery.

It's a no-brainer.


----------



## sabrina

I am sorry I posted on this thread. Why? Just because I liked this forum, and I respected Almaviva. But I was really hurt by his post. 
Please delete my posts on this thread!


----------



## Guest

sabrina said:


> I am sorry I posted on this thread. Why? Just because I liked this forum, and I respected Almaviva. But I was really hurt by his post.
> Please delete my posts on this thread!


Look, I know Alma's post came off not in the friendliest tones, and Lord knows we all have reacted in ways in the past on here that, in hindsight, should have been toned down a bit (except, of course, when it comes to me, as I am the model of self-restraint when it comes to posting, especially in this forum ). But in this particular topic, it is more than just differences of opinion. It ultimately doesn't matter whether people voice differing opinions on how great a composer Bach was (although we all know he was one of the greatest!), or to what degree Anna Netrebko is overweight (sorry, Alma, I couldn't resist.

But here with this topic, it is a bit different. There are implications in telling someone that vaccines may not be as safe and effective as people think - implications like causing some people to choose to not get vaccinated. So we are simply trying to get you to tell us how you have come by this information, and provide some basis for some of your claims, such as the number of MD's you know that are hesitant to recommend vaccinations. For both Alma and I, here in the US, the number of residencies you have claimed seems quite a lot. Four residencies, in virology, medical bacteriology, immunology, and hematology, would take an excessive amount of time here in the U.S. And where would you be able to practice in all of those areas at once? Perhaps it is different in Canada, and if that is so, or if you really have put in some herculean effort, that would also be interesting to know. But you have presented your arguments here from the standpoint of one with some expertise in the field, and so we are merely looking for some validation of that expertise.

For myself, I have a ****** and a Ph.D. in microbiology. I spent two years of undergraduate research, 5 years of graduate research, and 5 years of postdoctoral training studying immunity to viral infections, focusing in particular on viral infections that tend to persist (e.g. HIV, hepatitis C virus). I now work at a research facility that, among other things, is heavily engaged in influenza surveillance and screening, among its other activities.

To say that you are just a normal person who has concerns about vaccines is one thing, but to say it after stating that you are an MD with residencies in virology, medical bacteriology, immunology, and hematology, carries much more weight. I don't discount that someone with such training may still be somewhat skeptical, but it frankly does surprise me, particularly considering the residencies in virology, medical bacteriology, and immunology. I come from the science field, so I don't know what all is involved with gaining a residency in these fields, but from a scientist's perspective in this specific area of research, there is not much doubt of the efficacy and safety of these vaccines.

Edit: If you notice the asterisks above, please don't infer that I am keeping my education classified - rather, it seems that the software here cannot differentiate between bovine fecal matter and a bachelor of science degree - and to be quite honest, sometimes I can't tell the difference myself!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Okay- on a lighter note-*



DrMike said:


> Edit: If you notice the asterisks above, please don't infer that I am keeping my education classified - rather, it seems that the software here cannot differentiate between bovine fecal matter and a bachelor of science degree - and to be quite honest, sometimes I can't tell the difference myself!


I pretty much figured out before the edit that this was what must have happened.

Many years ago, I noticed some people calling that credential "S.B.," to avoid just such an implication (or indictment).

Chi_townPhilly, who also holds a ß.$.


----------



## Almaviva

Sorry, Sabrina, I did say that I get mad at this sort of thing... I was able to refrain from commenting upon another post from a *lay* person repeating misinformation from tabloids, but I wasn't able to refrain from asking you to substantiate your claims, because such opinions *coming from someone who claims to be a specialist* are very damaging - they can actually result in people getting killed and maimed, like I said. Someone will say - "wow, I read on Talk Classical this woman who is a specialist in virology, medical microbiology, immunology, and hematology, and she says that not all vaccines are good for me - therefore I should think twice before accepting the next shot that a doctor recommends to me, since this woman is much more specialized than my doctor, and she doubts it."

These are not benign claims, like DrMike said. They have consequences. Actually, conceivably, life-threatening consequences. DrMike is spot-on: you made some very wide-reaching claims and *all we're asking for, is substantiation*. You repeatedly said you've never had a flu shot; we wanted to know how come the Canadian authorities let an MD practice without accepting flu shots which over here are mandatory for people who see patients given that they can't afford to spread the flu to immunocompromised patients (as a specialist in hematology I'm sure you know this, that it would be very dangerous for your leukemia patients on chemotherapy to be approached by a doctor who is a carrier of one of the strains of the influenza virus). You never replied to this (asked three times). We wanted some clarification on the impressive claim of four residencies (speaking from the standpoint of the American system, some 12 to 16 years of training after four years of college and four years of medical school - that is, 20 to 24 years of superior education after high school) and where these programs are offered in residency format (over here, they're more commonly offered as research doctoral programs rather than residency programs except for hematology - we'd instead see infectious diseases residency training programs - so, it's natural that your claim caused some perplexity and curiosity). You haven't replied to this either.

We're giving you the benefit of the doubt (like I said, maybe things are different in Canada and we're just clueless Americans who don't understand the Canadian systems of health and medical education, but then, educate us on the issue, please, by quoting the institutions, programs, and duration of training for each one of these four residency programs). So, we're merely asking questions, but you're reacting by claiming that you feel hurt and not replying to these valid questions.

You know, it is fair game in a debate, when people put forward some wide-reaching claims, to ask for substantiation and clarification. You mentioned the problem with the Anti-HBV in France, I posted an article from a French peer-reviewed scientific journal disputing your claim - you haven't replied to that either.

So we're still waiting. As soon as you substantiate what you're saying, I may even reconsider my views on vaccination - but for the moment, you haven't convinced me or DrMike, so we'll continue to see vaccination in a positive light, and will continue to express dismay at those who spread notions to the contrary, since such misinformation can actually damage people's health, something that both DrMike and I are very interested in preserving since we both made of it our life mission and career.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

sabrina said:


> I am sorry I posted on this thread. Why? Just because I liked this forum, and I respected Almaviva. But I was really hurt by his post.
> Please delete my posts on this thread!


I take this as evidence that the poster wants to drop the issue. I don't think that there's any reason to bring out the "comfy chair" and "the soft cushions."

I will add that it's pretty compelling to find DrMike & Almaviva on the same side of ANY issue- and may spring for flu vaccination- for the first time- this autumn.


----------



## Ukko

Chi_townPhilly said:


> [..]
> I will add that it's pretty compelling to find DrMike & Almaviva on the same side of ANY issue- and may spring for flu vaccination- for the first time- this autumn.


Yeah, I was impressed by that 'togetherness'. Just remember, _Chi_, if you come down with a rhino-virus within a few days of the shot - don't relate it to the injection unless the shooter sneezed in your face during the process.


----------



## Guest

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I take this as evidence that the poster wants to drop the issue. I don't think that there's any reason to bring out the "comfy chair" and "the soft cushions."
> 
> I will add that it's pretty compelling to find DrMike & Almaviva on the same side of ANY issue- and may spring for flu vaccination- for the first time- this autumn.


Funny you should say that - I was just telling Alma he should avoid the soft cushions.

Actually, I was thinking of saying "Nee" until she conceded. Should that have failed to achieve the desired result, I would have to resort to the Holy Hand Grenade.

And bite your tongue - Alma and I agree on a great many things. Why just the other day, we agreed that . . . . Hmm, nope, but then last week we both came to a consensus on . . . . Now just wait, give me some time. I'm sure I'll think of something.

Actually, sometimes it feels like Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtain in Point Counterpoint on SNL. I am waiting for the moment I get to post to Alma, saying, "Alma, you ignorant ****!"


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I take this as evidence that the poster wants to drop the issue. I don't think that there's any reason to bring out the "comfy chair" and "the *soft* cushions."
> 
> I will add that it's pretty compelling to find DrMike & Almaviva on the same side of ANY issue- and may spring for flu vaccination- for the first time- this autumn.


Who is talking about soft?:devil:

Oh yes, I've actually been growing very fond of good old DrMike, with whom I've been exchanging PMs on politics, opera, and Mahler.

He has already convinced me to buy Mahler's second (I did), and he's almost convincing me to refrain from voting for Obama (he's a persuasive fellow) although things remain unbalanced, I haven't been able to convince him to love opera (although he has tried) and much worse, he still thinks that Anna is overweight (at least, he didn't say fat!).

So I'm really on the losing side of the exchange, but I'm bravely carrying on.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah, I was impressed by that 'togetherness'. Just remember, _Chi_, if you come down with a rhino-virus within a few days of the shot - don't relate it to the injection unless the shooter sneezed in your face during the process.


Yeah, it was really one of those warm fuzzy moments - there you have it, folks! Bipartisan cooperation is possible! So long as Alma agrees with me, all is well.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I pretty much figured out before the edit that this was what must have happened.
> 
> Many years ago, I noticed some people calling that credential "S.B.," to avoid just such an implication (or indictment).
> 
> Chi_townPhilly, who also holds a ß.$.


B.Sc. is often used, at least in Canada and the U.K. Not specifically for that reason, but it does solve the problem.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Who is talking about soft?:devil:
> 
> Oh yes, I've actually been growing very fond of good old DrMike, with whom I've been exchanging PMs on politics, opera, and Mahler.
> 
> He has already convinced me to buy Mahler's second (I did), and he's almost convincing me to refrain from voting for Obama (he's a persuasive fellow) although things remain unbalanced, I haven't been able to convince him to love opera (although he has tried) and much worse, he still thinks that Anna is overweight (at least, he didn't say fat!).
> 
> So I'm really on the losing side of the exchange, but I'm bravely carrying on.


Actually, I believe the word I have used in describing Anna is "largish." And remember, Alma. No Russian-made "soft cushions" for a month.

He did try to get me hooked on opera during my TC sabbatical. I had a streak for a few weeks - watched Das Rheingold and Die Walkure on DVD, listened to Tannhauser and Tristan und Isolde on CD, along with Eugen Onegin. End result - I like opera a little bit more, especially Wagner, but still not there.

But Alma, you didn't pick up on my ulterior motives - in getting you to buy the Mahler (2nd symphony on DVD, conducted by Boulez), I was able to send subliminal messages to you, and have been brainwashing. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it - the blatant propagandizing of an overtly religiously themed symphony? Talk of resurrection? You need to set up a camera to film your nocturnal activities - don't be surprised to find yourself sleepwalking to your nearest midnight Mass!;D


----------



## Art Rock

I'm getting one for the first time, being in a recognized hazard category now. I have hesitated since in 54 years on this planet I have not had flu once. But the risk if I get it is sufficiently great to get the jab.


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> I'm getting one for the first time, being in a recognized hazard category now. I have hesitated since in 54 years on this planet I have not had flu once. But the risk if I get it is sufficiently great to get the jab.


I have been getting them ever since I was diagnosed with diabetes. I am in a high risk group. But then the last two places I have worked have required the annual vaccination. So I have been getting them annually since 2003.

I have also had the smallpox vaccine, even though I was born after the year they stopped vaccinating in the U.S. I get my regularly scheduled MMR and DPT vaccines. And right now I am in the process of getting the anthrax vaccine series. Add that to the daily insulin injection, and I am a veritable pin cushion. My wife likes it at least that I am now back to working with vaccine-preventable viruses - before I was working with HCV.


----------



## Polednice

Fsharpmajor said:


> I would think that you are almost certainly entitled to a freebie, but that said, you'd need to check with your GP about whether or not you should have it.


It turns out that I'm not.  Following one of these criteria is necessary:


Diabetes (no)
Chronic respiratory disease (no)
Heart disease (no)
Asthma (no)
Liver disease (no)
Spleen dysfunction (no)
Cochlear implants (no)
Immunosuppression condition (no)

I always get a little confused and concerned when people mention diabetes though, as I have insulinomas on my pancreas. In simple terms, they basically cause the 'opposite' of diabetes as I have too much insulin while diabetics don't have enough - but, seeing as it's all insulin-dysfunction, I wonder if I should be entitled to the same things!


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> It turns out that I'm not.  Following one of these criteria is necessary:
> 
> 
> Diabetes (no)
> Chronic respiratory disease (no)
> Heart disease (no)
> Asthma (no)
> Liver disease (no)
> Spleen dysfunction (no)
> Cochlear implants (no)
> Immunosuppression condition (no)
> 
> I always get a little confused and concerned when people mention diabetes though, as I have insulinomas on my pancreas. In simple terms, they basically cause the 'opposite' of diabetes as I have too much insulin while diabetics don't have enough - but, seeing as it's all insulin-dysfunction, I wonder if I should be entitled to the same things!


Hmm, interesting question. The main issue is keeping blood sugars within a tight normal range. I would think your condition would make that just as difficult as it is for a diabetic. Are you able to manage your blood sugars? I suspect it is more a matter of your condition probably being a lot more rare than diabetes, and so the other risks are not considered as much when it comes to deciding policies regarding things like vaccinations. Pity, if that is the case.


----------



## Couchie

So to summarize, we have an immunology MD against vaccines, a microbiology MD who doesn't believe in evolution, and a MD who keeps his patients waiting while he discusses the breasts of opera stars online. Med schools are really letting just about anybody in these days, eh?


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> It turns out that I'm not.  Following one of these criteria is necessary:
> 
> 
> Diabetes (no)
> Chronic respiratory disease (no)
> Heart disease (no)
> Asthma (no)
> Liver disease (no)
> Spleen dysfunction (no)
> Cochlear implants (no)
> Immunosuppression condition (no)
> 
> I always get a little confused and concerned when people mention diabetes though, as I have insulinomas on my pancreas. In simple terms, they basically cause the 'opposite' of diabetes as I have too much insulin while diabetics don't have enough - but, seeing as it's all insulin-dysfunction, I wonder if I should be entitled to the same things!


No, insulinomas are a quite different condition, and don't carry the same effects of diabetes on vessels, eyes, peripheral nerves, etc. They can however be very serious (of course, the malignant kind is, which doesn't seem to be your case, right? but even the benign ones can be serious by causing dips in blood glucose that can cause seizures, coma, and other consequences.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Couchie said:


> So to summarize, we have an immunology MD against vaccines, a microbiology MD who doesn't believe in evolution, and a MD who keeps his patients waiting while he discusses the breasts of opera stars online. Med schools are really letting just about anybody in these days, eh?


*I mean no personal offence against you,* but in my opinion that remark is utterly thoughtless.

I would ask that you take a look over the progression of this thread before making cheap shots like this.


----------



## Couchie

Fsharpmajor said:


> *I mean no personal offence against you,* but in my opinion that remark is utterly thoughtless.
> 
> I would ask that you take a look over the progression of this thread before making cheap shots like this.


The humour (or lack thereof ) was in the gross misrepresentation of everything in my post. I have nothing but the highest respect for MDs, especially TC's.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Hmm, interesting question. The main issue is keeping blood sugars within a tight normal range. I would think your condition would make that just as difficult as it is for a diabetic. Are you able to manage your blood sugars? I suspect it is more a matter of your condition probably being a lot more rare than diabetes, and so the other risks are not considered as much when it comes to deciding policies regarding things like vaccinations. Pity, if that is the case.


My blood sugar is manageable in that my symptoms leading up to an episode of hypoglycaemia are obvious and unique so I can just stuff my face with food to avoid the more serious effects of low blood sugar.



Almaviva said:


> No, insulinomas are a quite different condition, and don't carry the same effects of diabetes on vessels, eyes, peripheral nerves, etc. They can however be very serious (of course, the malignant kind is, which doesn't seem to be your case, right? but even the benign ones can be serious by causing dips in blood glucose that can cause seizures, coma, and other consequences.


Thanks for the information - I didn't know any of that before. My insulinomas are indeed benign, though there is a 50% chance with my condition that that won't always be the case. For now, though, my naughty little tumours haven't caused any of the threatening symptoms of hypoglycaemia.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Couchie said:


> The humour (or lack thereof ) was in the gross misrepresentation of everything in my post. I have nothing but the highest respect for MDs, especially TC's.


No worries! Speaking for myself, I have nothing but respect for the opinions of unicellular green organisms:

*http://www.infovisual.info/02/001_en.html*


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> So to summarize, we have an immunology MD against vaccines, a microbiology MD who doesn't believe in evolution, and a MD who keeps his patients waiting while he discusses the breasts of opera stars online. Med schools are really letting just about anybody in these days, eh?


How DARE you call me an MD! That would be a waste of a perfectly good education! :devil: Make that Ph.D. in microbiology!

On a side note, ever notice that, no matter how long an MD has been at work, they still call it "practice?" We Ph.D.'s, the "real" doctors, finally get to doing, not practicing.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> My blood sugar is manageable in that my symptoms leading up to an episode of hypoglycaemia are obvious and unique so *I can just stuff my face with food* to avoid the more serious effects of low blood sugar.


Oh how I envy you. You don't know how many times I have been tempted to give myself a triple dose of insulin so that I can then binge on chocolate and ice cream!


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Oh how I envy you. You don't know how many times I have been tempted to give myself a triple dose of insulin so that I can then binge on chocolate and ice cream!


Well the extra uncontrollable weight gain (which happens without the face-stuffing) is not particularly pleasant for someone with self-esteem issues.  Want to swap?!


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I would remind both you guys about the tissue compatibility problems when it comes to swapping your pancreases.


----------



## Almaviva

Fsharpmajor said:


> *I mean no personal offence against you,* but in my opinion that remark is utterly thoughtless.
> 
> I would ask that you take a look over the progression of this thread before making cheap shots like this.


Look, I think Couchie meant it as a joke. He's a nice fellow, I mean, a nice green monster.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> On a side note, ever notice that, no matter how long an MD has been at work, they still call it "practice?" We Ph.D.'s, the "real" doctors, finally get to doing, not practicing.


Hey, I hold a Ph.D. as well in addition to my MD degree, so I'm a "real" one, right? [Alma, hopeful]

@Couchie - making my patients wait while I discuss the breasts of opera stars online makes of me a more cheerful doctor, therefore, it's all for their benefit!


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Almaviva said:


> Look, I think Couchie meant it as a joke. He's a nice fellow, I mean, a nice green monster.


I realize that now (it was getting late on this side of the Atlantic).

I think an M.D. once told me that the "Ph" in Ph.D. stands for "phoney."


----------



## kv466

I've not been to a doctor in years...every time I take my own vitals, they're perfect...I may die today or tomorrow but I don't take any medication unless it makes me feel funny, don't give blood or let anyone but my female friends play around with my body!


----------



## Almaviva

kv466 said:


> I've not been to a doctor in years...every time I take my own vitals, they're perfect...I may die today or tomorrow but I don't take any medication unless it makes me feel funny, don't give blood or let anyone but my female friends play around with my body!


Well, you're young. A time will come when you'll have to change this behavior, trust me on this.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Well, you're young. A time will come when you'll have to change this behavior, trust me on this.


Amen - right at 29, all hell started breaking loose with my body. Type II diabetes, sleep apnea, back aches, you name it. Sucks getting older. I used to visit a doctor once in a blue moon. Now I have a GP, an endocrinologist, an opthalmologist, and a sleep doctor. The copays suck!


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I don't mind most of the symptoms of ageing, but there's one that really bothers me. I can't remember what it is.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Amen - right at 29, all hell started breaking loose with my body. Type II diabetes, sleep apnea, back aches, you name it. Sucks getting older. I used to visit a doctor once in a blue moon. Now I have a GP, an endocrinologist, an opthalmologist, and a sleep doctor. The copays suck!


We should add for the benefit of our young friend kv466 that in addition to my phrase "a time will come when you'll have to change this behavior," for him the change is likely to come *faster*, since he's not getting seen for preventive care.

The young always feel invincible... (we all know about it because we were once young ourselves) and based on this feeling, an otherwise smart guy like kv466 feels that if his vital signs are normal (which doesn't prove anything - there are so many *other* things that can go wrong even with normal vital signs), he doesn't need preventive care. He'll be eventually proven wrong, since the aging process won't fail to take its toll, and sometimes bad things happen sooner rather than later (case in point, your conditions at the young age of 29), and it is a lot better to see a doctor annually and get the recommended screenings than to stick one's head in the sand.

Healthy or not, young or not, the right thing to do is to have an annual visit to a primary care provider for general surveillance and preventive care.

For example, a young man can suddenly develop testicular cancer, or a melanoma (especially the athletic kind who practices sports outdoor), etc. - and after a certain age, prostate cancer, colon cancer, diabetes (including people who are fit), etc. Also, like we've mentioned above, boosters are needed for tetanus shots, etc. While most serious illnesses are relatively rare for people who are kv466's age, they aren't unheard of, and a good annual physical and annual routine lab tests are a good way to *stay* healthy.

So believing that one doesn't need to see a doctor regularly because one has normal vital signs and no symptoms of illnesses is a very imprudent thing to do.

It's often only when people lose their good health (sometimes for neglecting to get the proper screenings) that they regret not having taken care of it earlier.


----------



## sabrina

Although I intend to stay away from this forum for a while, I broke my intentions, as I want to make some notifications as you requested.
I still consider Almaviva's post toward me highly inquisitive, almost racist, sorry, but this is how I felt. 
All my studies were done over the ocean in Europe, so please, leave Canada in a peace! I am licensed to work as MD in Europe, not in N America, so help me God. I don't like the medical system here, neither in Canada, nor in US too much. 
I did 6 years Medical School, +2 years internship (internal medicine). After that, I did 5 years residency, and in the end I worked as a hematologist/(pathology) for many years. The stupid alien-like residencies I did, have no correspondence in USA or Canada, and I am not guilty at all for that. I had very good professors, and I would not allow anyone to question their quality.
This is a forum, not a medical cabinet. Nobody should base their medical decisions on any Internet websites.
As I said, read as much as you can, and ask professionals. I laughed about me being a professional, maybe you didn't notice.

The problem of influenza virus vaccine is debatable, not because of the vaccine per se, but because the virus permanently changes its antigens, making the vaccine a lottery.
The fact that I don't want to get it, does not mean anything. It's a fundamental right I have. I may not accept some other vaccines, but that's right now, when there is no real necessity. For me and my family I limit the vaccines only to the mandatory ones, as long as they make sense for me. While I am not against vaccines, I am not happy for some decisions (like governs buying vaccines for whatever pandemics), but that's a different discussion.
Again, I am sorry! I can't believe what happened!

OMG, STEVE RIP!


----------



## Almaviva

Sabrina, you don't seem to have the concept of race down pat. Please kindly explain why my post was racist.

To everybody else: please don't believe that the influenza vaccine is debatable, or a lottery. It is not debatable, and it is not a lottery. Please believe rather in what DrMike - a *real *expert on the matter - told you about the vaccine, which is the correct view of it. Live long and prosper!

Alma, out of this thread.


----------



## samurai

I agree with both Dr.Mike and Almaviva on this {that's a rarity in itself}. I have been taking the flu shot for years now. When I was working, it was mandatory given the field I was in. Now that I'm retired, I fully intend to voluntarily keep receiving it. Same for my wife. One bout of pneumonia in the Army was enough to convince me that one cannot afford to play around with things like this, not only for one's own benefit but for the sake of every other citizen. Since I have been taking the injection, I have not gotten the flu nor experienced any side effects whatsoever, except maybe for a slight cold. IMHO that is indeed a small price to pay for the protection one is afforded against a much deadlier threat!


----------



## Guest

sabrina said:


> The problem of influenza virus vaccine is debatable, not because of the vaccine per se, but because the virus permanently changes its antigens, making the vaccine a lottery.
> The fact that I don't want to get it, does not mean anything. It's a fundamental right I have. I may not accept some other vaccines, but that's right now, when there is no real necessity. For me and my family I limit the vaccines only to the mandatory ones, as long as they make sense for me. While I am not against vaccines, I am not happy for some decisions (like governs buying vaccines for whatever pandemics), but that's a different discussion.
> Again, I am sorry! I can't believe what happened!
> 
> OMG, STEVE RIP!


Not to be insulting, but I'm afraid your understanding of how influenza works is not complete. Yes, the virus mutates, you can get antigenic shift and antigenic drift. But many strains re-appear. And just because you have a mutation in the virus does not mean that it is no longer recognized by the immune system. If the mutation occurs in a region of a viral protein that is not targeted by the immune response, then it will not impact the ability of memory immune responses to recognize the mutated virus.

It is not like a lottery. Based on how successful they seem to be, I'd say you have significantly higher than lottery chances. But it still doesn't validate why you wouldn't be vaccinated. Don't get me wrong - you don't want to get the vaccine, that's fine. But why warn others? You haven't said anything that would justify not getting it - only that it might not work. I buy insurance for my car, for my house, for my life, and for my health. If I never have to use it, I don't say that it is bad to buy insurance, rather I count myself lucky. And should I get in an accident, be injured, have damage to my house, etc., then I am damn glad I bought the insurance.

So, your argument against the flu vaccine is that it might not be for the right strain. You do know that it is a cocktail of the prevailing strains? Not just one? But I ask you - should they have picked the wrong strains, what have you lost in getting the vaccine?

And I don't understand how Alma's comments came anywhere within the same universe as racism. Have you revealed your race to us here? I know you are from Europe, and now are in Toronto. Assuming Alma is like the average American, there is a high likelihood that he is of European descent. I don't think anything in Alma's comments suggested his disagreement with you was racially motivated, rather intellectually motivated.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

sabrina said:


> The fact that I don't want to get it, does not mean anything. It's a fundamental right I have. I may not accept some other vaccines, but that's right now, when there is no real necessity. For me and my family I limit the vaccines only to the mandatory ones, as long as they make sense for me. While I am not against vaccines, I am not happy for some decisions (like governs buying vaccines for whatever pandemics), but that's a different discussion.


I don't believe that you are really either a doctor or a scientist.


----------



## eorrific

They're amazing! Got the shots (not free of charge and weren't covered in a health insurance) twice a year since last year and apparently I didn't contract any kind respiratory infection this past year (which I usually contract about thrice a year). Studying's a complete torture whenever I'm sick with the flu, and usually my grades also suffer.

Definitely worth the money.


----------



## karenpat

I go to my primary physician to get the flu vaccination every year - I have for as long as I can remember. It isn't 100% effective I suppose, I did get the flu once, but to get the flu once in 25 years isn't so bad. It's not expensive either.


----------



## Guest

karenpat said:


> I go to my primary physician to get the flu vaccination every year - I have for as long as I can remember. It isn't 100% effective I suppose, I did get the flu once, but to get the flu once in 25 years isn't so bad. It's not expensive either.


They have really made it easy here in the US to get it. You can go to most local pharmacies to get the shot, if you don't feel like going to your doctor's office. I get them through work for free, mainly because they require it.

You are right - no vaccine is 100% effective. That is why there is strength in numbers. If you are the lone person in an area that is vaccinated, and lets say that the efficacy is, for the sake of argument, 50%. You have a 1:2 chance of catching it if exposed, and given the number of people around you that are not infected, the chance of being exposed is high. If more people, though, are vaccinated, then essentially you all serve as human shields to one another. The less easily the virus can be transmitted, the quicker the infection dies out. That is why it is also important for people who don't face a huge risk from catching flu should also be vaccinated. Sure, it might not cause a debilitating or fatal infection in you, but if you catch it then you may transmit it to someone who will not be so lucky. That, in essence, is what is referred to as herd immunity. Essentially it is the concept that health, while certainly a personal issue, is also a community issue. There is strength in numbers - that's why we don't send out lone soldiers to fight our wars or defend our country, rather we organize large forces.

So when you consider whether YOU need a vaccine, remember it is more than just your health that you are protecting. Smallpox no longer plagues us because most people were vaccinated and essentially protected us.

Remember also that it is much more cost-effective to prevent an infection than to treat an infection. Think of the costs of being out sick with the flu - lost work and pay, doctor's office costs, medicine (even if you are only buying decongestants and such to treat the symptoms).


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> They have really made it easy here in the US to get it. You can go to most local pharmacies to get the shot, if you don't feel like going to your doctor's office


It's quite easy to get here in the UK as well. If you're in a high-risk group (including people with various medical conditions, and everyone 65 or over) you get it free on the NHS. If you aren't in a high-risk group you can pay to have it done at a pharmacy. The cost varies, but it's generally about £8 to £12 (roughly $16 to $24 US), which in my opinion is very reasonable for the protection you get.

EDIT: By the way, DrMike, thanks very much for your valuable contributions to this thread.


----------



## Sieglinde

I'm no risk group and I haven't had flu since I was a child. And no one's getting near me with a needle.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> It's quite easy to get here in the UK as well. If you're in a high-risk group (including people with various medical conditions, and everyone 65 or over) you get it free on the NHS. If you aren't in a high-risk group you can pay to have it done at a pharmacy. The cost varies, but it's generally about £8 to £12 (roughly $16 to $24 US), which in my opinion is very reasonable for the protection you get.
> 
> EDIT: By the way, DrMike, thanks very much for your valuable contributions to this thread.


I think you can buy them at pharmacies for $20-$30. Our current insurance has a co-pay of $30, so it is, at most, the same cost as going to the doctor, but you don't have to wait in a long line, or schedule an appointment. I'm glad they have worked out this system.

Happy to contribute. I figured I should contribute in my area of expertise - Lord knows I contribute heavily in areas where I have no expertise!


----------



## Guest

Sieglinde said:


> I'm no risk group and I haven't had flu since I was a child. And no one's getting near me with a needle.


Ah, needles are nothing. Hell, I stick myself once a day (used to do it twice a day) for my insulin. I hope your luck holds out and you continue to not catch the flu. Depending on how comprehensively the flu vaccine is distributed in Hungary, you may have many of your fellow countrymen/women to thank for your not having caught it.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Sieglinde said:


> I'm no risk group and I haven't had flu since I was a child. And no one's getting near me with a needle.


The trick to receiving an intramuscular injection is to relax. If you tense up, it will hurt more. If you stay relaxed, it hardly hurts at all.

I realize that's easier said than done if you have an actual phobia. Personally I actually enjoy watching the needle go in. I'm sure Sigmund Freud would have something to say about that.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm in a high-risk category (asthmatic), so I'm entitled to a free flu jab on the NHS every year. I got it this morning. In the UK, if you aren't in a high-risk category, you can still have it done in a pharmacy reasonably cheaply.
> 
> I'm *not* in the pay of the manufacturers of flu vaccine, but in my opinion it works extremely well. I haven't had flu for nearly 20 years. What do you think about it? Share your thoughts and experiences.


I am asthmatic too (we have THIS in common...LOL), but I'm afraid of side effects.

Martin



Fsharpmajor said:


> I don't believe that you are really either a doctor or a scientist.


I am a doctor is stupidology. This counts!

LOL

Martin


----------



## Fsharpmajor

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I'm afraid of side effects


The side effects are minimal--maybe a small rise in your temperature, a slight feeling of being "under the weather," and a bit of soreness at the site of the injection. These are due to your immune system responding to the vaccine, exactly as intended. They only last for a day or two.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I have both a PhD (in biology) *and* a PHD (in my biology).

I don't really mind if people are unclear about the difference between the two.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

MEA CULPA

I have posted an "offensive video" because I thought it was funny. I thought that because it was in youtube it was accessible to everybody...(It was bad taste/choice from me). I received a warning, *it was fair*. I apologize.

Martin

[Admin edit: the offensive post was deleted by forum staff in case anyone is looking for it ]


----------



## violadude

I'm immune to the flu.


----------



## Guest

I had one yesterday. They usually work well for me. I find it odd that I rarely feel the needle going in, but a few hours later it feels as if Mike Tyson bare-knuckle punched my arm! Pneumonia shots are even worse in that regard!


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Kontrapunctus said:


> I had one yesterday. They usually work well for me. I find it odd that I rarely feel the needle going in, but a few hours later it feels as if Mike Tyson bare-knuckle punched my arm! Pneumonia shots are even worse in that regard!


I think a quote from DrMike's post #25 in this thread explains that quite well:

_"It is useful to know that anytime your body mounts an immune reaction, there is the possibility of feeling some symptoms of being sick. The reason is that some of what you feel when you ARE sick is the actions of the immune system, not the virus or bacteria itself. When the immune system is activated, it sets off a variety of mechanisms to control infection. In addition to generating cells that very specifically target the invading pathogen, or the cells infected by the pathogen, there are also numerous cells that act in very non-specific ways to create an antimicrobial environment. They will release chemicals into your system that to a variety of things, including signaling to other cells so they can find the site of infection, making it possible for immune cells to traffic to where they need to go, and releasing other chemicals that can kill the pathogens. As a result, you may feel sick, maybe have a low grade fever, some achiness, feel a bit run down. This can also happen when you get a vaccination, because your immune system is responding, even though you are not actually infected. When you are sick, only some symptoms actually come from the virus/bacteria itself.

Or maybe to make it more easily understood - have you ever gotten a bad cut, and while it was healing, it was still red, inflamed, itchy? That is your body's natural mechanisms at work healing you, not necessarily the results of the cut."_

I'm left-handed, so I always ask for the injection to be given to my right shoulder, although I don't generally experience enough discomfort for it to really matter. If the pain is bothersome, you can take a simple painkiller such as ibuprofen for a day or so.


----------

