Safety concerns over the H1N1 flu shots. Poor little ferrets were tested with the shots first. (They survived.)
Mike Goldman in comments shared a YouTube that discusses the fears over the shots.
CDC's website on H1N1.
More on the H1N1 by Flu.gov.
I haven't yet made up my mind, but there are plenty of fears to deal with on both sides of the argument.
22 comments:
Here's an article in The Atlantic, quite good.
Of course, one has to consider the author of The Atlantic article is a senior research fellow of the New America Foundation, an entity which IMHO has primarily a political agenda.
As usual, I'm not saying it's right or wrong about H1N1 vaccine; I'm just saying... read the list of board members in the wiki... that as a source, the NAF is hardly objective and is far more political than scientific.
At least the care2 article makes a credible attempt to discuss scientific sources. Could we please confine the discussion to science and medicine rather than politics? Is that too much to ask?
It is way too much to ask, Steve. This is a political scare campaign, quite frankly. The swine flu doesn't appear to be as dangerous as even the ordinary seasonal flu.
Mike (Michael? Mahakal? how many names do you use, young man?), you haven't yet demonstrated what you keep claiming. So far, you've pointed to a Fox-News-style TV segment with not one single solid scientific reference... not one name that can be checked out... and one article in a baldfacedly conservative opinion magazine, not by a medical researcher but by one of their political fellows. Where's the substance in what you're posting?
The real irony is that I think there is nonpoliticized scientific evidence for what you assert (e.g., the article ellroon cites), but for some reason, you seem averse to presenting it or citing it explicitly. And that in turn makes me think you have an agenda, or something to hide, or... you see where it leads when you rant and cite purely politicized sources?
It is never too much to ask that you support your work. Never.
I just spent a half hour reading CDC's site on H1N1 and vaccination (no, not all 20+ pages) and have decided, based on my specific risk factors, to seek the H1N1 "flu shot" (injected; inactivated virus). The site is quite explicit in recommending the vaccine for people with my condition, and I am comfortable with the vaccine that has the inactivated virus.
Mike, in my career doing programming for various public health projects for over 25 years at several major institutions in the Texas Medical Center, I have worked with a number of people from CDC. They were not merely honest, committed scientists: they had a passion for getting it right as if people's lives depended on it... which they do. No one knows the exact answers to the questions we are asking, but if the brightest minds in several fields conclude that I need a vaccine, I will take their word for it... yes, as opposed to your word against it. The chances are small that anything you say will persuade anyone who is at serious risk of 2009 H1N1 not to get the vaccine, but if that were to happen, and they got the flu, and they were among the unlucky few that suffer complications, you would be morally responsible. Politicizing public health issues has its consequences.
And who takes responsibility for the complications of the vaccine?
Wow, I go by Mike AND Michael. That's quite a list of aliases I have. I'm not hiding here, I link right to my Facebook page, so you can hold me as accountable as you like.
But I'm not going to have a debate about it with you further here, Steve. You've already made up your mind, had your shot and I wish you the very best of health.
Here you go you can use this thread so you don't have to go looking through all of my posts.
Mike/Michael/Mahakal, you flatter yourself that you are worth that much trouble.
Here's the short answer to your question: CDC takes responsibility... and the CDC scientists I have personally known and worked with (how many have you had contact with, M/M/M? any? you seem awfully quick to lambaste them and their work; how much contact with them is that based on? how much reading of their web site?) have already exhibited a lot more responsibility than you have, as you advance at great length a virtually science-free argument against a vaccine you've apparently been instructed to dislike by a political organization with an agenda.
M/M/M, you propose to toy with the public health of the nation for the political vindication of the New America Foundation. Well, good for you; maybe they'll find you a wingnut welfare position to reward your services. But don't go around pretending it's science, or medicine. I've spent decades providing technological underpinnings to medical research. It's awfully pretentious of you to assert you know how it's done based on a few political articles and a Fox-News-like TV segment.
ellroon, I am sorry this ended up taking place on your site. I love a good scientific argument more than most people do. Unfortunately, this was not one. We've all just suffered eight years of deliberate political subversion of the public health in the interest of right-wing politics, and I am... understandably, I think... more than a bit reluctant to tolerate any more endangerment of people's lives for political purposes. Who is right about the vaccine? I don't know. Neither does M/M/M. What I do know is that when someone advises people to ignore the best available medical and scientific advice, s/he must be actively opposed. These are scary times in which it is easy to advance an argument by subjecting the public to fear alone, and that is what M/M/M is doing. For opposing that behavior, I do not apologize.
Okay, Steve, whatever you say. I post an article from the Atlantic and therefore I am some kind of wingnut welfare recipient now? WTF are you on, dude?
word verification: flying
(yes, it really is!)
Ah, you're back into the fray, M/M/M?
The question isn't what I'm on... unlike you, I do not indulge in that sort of stuff (nor do I disapprove of it)... the question is why your primary source is utterly science-free. What is your problem with the scientific practice of medicine?
Steve, inject all the mercury into your eyeballs you want, I told you if you want to debate it I'm not doing so here.
And cut it out with your stupid M/M/M nonsense. Mike is fine.
Ooooh, he's sensitive about his name... I mean, his names. How old are you, Mike? My name offers opportunities, if you wish to mess with it. Not that you'll come up with anything I haven't heard since about 1960... but feel free.
You still haven't answered my primary objection, namely, that you haven't made one single scientific argument for your thesis. You've linked one political article and one nutso TV segment. Maybe you're right and our best epidemiologists are all wrong, and the vaccine is dangerous. But you haven't even come close to offering evidence for that.
C'mon, Mike; I gave your arguments a fair shot. I read one source and viewed the other. And I read more mainstream sources. Of course it matters to me what I am injected with. It's just that IMHO the best available evidence... handwaving, fearmongering and politically affiliated ranting aside... leads me to conclude the CDC is right on this one, and you are wrong. But hey, if you read the science (which clearly you haven't yet) and do not change your conclusion, well and good; H1N1 is typically not all that dangerous... to most people... so you'll probably survive it.
But for me, it's more than that. I happen to be a person afflicted with one of the five types of conditions CDC lists as being particularly risky for H1N1, and therefore I am in need of some sort of protection. Will your incantations about thimerosal protect me? Nothing is certain in this life, as you know; the primary difference between us is that I've chosen to place my bets on the science involved, not the magic. With your life, of course, it's your call... but it's not your place to go fearmongering to other people.
"Shut up," he explained.
Come talk to me if you like, I've told you where you can find me.
word verification: green
(Really!)
Ooooh, now he sets the non-negotiable terms of the dialogue...
Ex-plane all you want; just be sure you don your 'chute first.
I wish this wasn't a Fox affiliate, but you ought to at least watch this, Steve.
This has happened before.
I hear logical points from both of you, but still am completely torn between getting one and not. You'll have to admit this headline doesn't help:
Drugmakers, Doctors Rake in Billions Battling H1N1 Flu.
"Scientists believe they can create therapeutic vaccines that treat diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes after they have set in."
Why? Cannabis does this. What are they going to do, inject people with patented cannabinoids and call it a vaccine? It's not like Alzheimer's and diabetes are viral.
I hear you, Mike. But Cannabis doesn't make money for Big Pharma, so why should they allow it to become legal and safe?
Well it's legal and safe in California now, yippee!
Now I hope the poor local guy who sits by the side of the road with his Legalize Medical Marijuana signs will not get harassed by the cops.
Post a Comment