H1N1 - What's the Feeling in SL Community?

I have no idea your local criteria, but our vulnerable population is defined as this:

At risk groups include the following:

Pregnant women - from 14 weeks pregnant to 6 weeks after giving birth

And

Anyone aged over 6 months and under 65 years who has:
• Long-term Lung Disease (like Asthma and Cystic Fibrosis)
• Long-term Heart Disease
• Long-term Kidney Disease
• Long-term Liver Disease
• Long-term Neurological Disease that affects the lungs/breathing (like MS, Cerebral Palsy)
• Immunosuppression e.g. cancer treatment (and their household contacts)
• Haemoglobinopathies
• Diabetes
• Morbid Obesity (check with your GP)

Seems reasonable to me.

i disagree lauren ...priority should be given to the working populace, since they support through taxes the 'vulnerable' groups. If the working people stopped working through illness, then the country would grind to a halt. That seems unreasonable to me. The vulnerable criteria locally includes addicts, which is just basically wrong.

morbidly obese?...............*sighes I rest my case

In reply to the whole of post No. 68 and the rubbish presented in it:

The vaccine made no difference in mortality

• Lisa Jackson was not deterred. She and three other researchers began to study the widely-quoted vaccine statistics in an attempt to identify this "healthy user effect," if any. They looked through eight years of medical data covering 72,000 people aged 65 or older and recorded who received flu shots and who didn't. Then they compared the death rates for all causes outside the flu season.

• What she found blows a hole right through the vaccination industry: She found that even outside the flu season, the death rate was 60 percent higher among those who did not get vaccines than among those who do. [In other words, even when you take the flu season completely out of the equation, elderly people who don't get vaccines have other lifestyle factors that makes them far more likely to die from lots of other causes.]

• She also found that this so-called "healthy user effect" explains the entire apparent benefit that continues to be attributed to vaccines. This finding demonstrates that the flu vaccine may not have any beneficial effect whatsoever in reducing mortality.

• How well done were these particular studies? Quoted from the story: Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."

• Many pro-vaccine experts simply refused to believe the results of this study [because it conflicts with their existing belief in vaccine mythology]. The Journal of the American Medical Association refused to publish her research, even stating, "To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!" [Which just goes to show you how deeply ingrained the current vaccine mythology is in the minds of conventional medical practitioners. They simply cannot imagine that vaccines don't work, so they dismiss any evidence -- even GOOD evidence -- demonstrating that fact. This is what makes the vaccine industry a CULT rather than a science.]

• Jackson's papers were finally published in 2006, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

[And here's the really, really juicy part you can't miss...]

Vaccine shortage proves it never worked in the first place

• The history of the flu vaccine reveals some huge gaps in current vaccination mythology, essentially proving they don't work:

• For example: In 2004, vaccine production was low and there was a shortage in vaccines (a 40 percent reduction in vaccinations). And yet mortality rates did not rise during the flu season. [Clearly, if vaccines actually worked, then a year when the vaccine wasn't even administered to 40% of the people who normally get it should have resulted in a huge and statistically significant increase in mortality. It should have spiked the death rates and filled the morgues... but it didn't. You know why? Because flu vaccines don't work in the first place.]

• In the history of flu vaccines, there were two years in which the formulated flu vaccine was a total mismatch to the widely-circulating influenza that made people sick. These years were 1968 and 1997. In both of these years, the vaccine was a completely mismatch for the circulating virus. In effect, nobody was vaccinated! [Knowing this, if the vaccine itself was effective at reducing death rates, then we should have once again seen a huge spike in the death rates during these two years, right? Seriously, if the vaccine reduces death rates by 50% as is claimed by vaccine manufacturers, then these two years in which the vaccine completely missed the mark should have seen huge spikes in the winter death rates, right? But what really happened was... nothing. Not a blip. Not a spike. Nothing. The death rates didn't rise at all.]

• If vaccines really worked to save lives, then the more people you vaccinate, the lower death rates you should see, right? But that's not the case. Back in 1989, only 15 percent of over-65 people got vaccinated against the flu. But today, thanks to the big vaccine push, over 65 percent are vaccinated. And yet, amazingly, death rates among the elderly have not gone down during the flu season. In fact, they've gone up!

• When vaccine promoters (and CDC officials) are challenged about the "50 percent mortality reduction" myth, they invoke dogmatic language and attack the messenger. They are simply not willing to consider the possibility that flu vaccines simply don't work.

• Scientists who question the vaccine mythology are routinely shunned by the medical establishment. Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration is an epidemiologist who questions the claimed benefits of flu vaccines. "The reaction [against Jefferson] has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies" said a colleague (Majumdar).

• Jefferson is one of the world's best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the article: The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies [to these studies]."

Full story here:

http://www.naturalnews.com/z027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html

I must be missing something here because you also said:



Oddly enough, an awful lot of those vulnerable groups are paying taxes (diabetics, pregnant women, people with asthma....). The difference is, if they are immunized after people who don't fall into any high risk category, they are at a higher risk of death.

Your drug addict reference...seems like you are focusing on a small portion of a larger picture. For example, someone with RA (working or otherwise) steps onto a plane and is immunized. They are going to be hopefully less susceptible to being exposed to your otherwise healthy (working or otherwise) infected person who is unknowingly spreading Swine.

I don't see it as being a part of class war arguments, it is simply a medical matter of who is most likely to have a severe reaction getting first dibs because they may not be healthy enough to 'fight it off.'

I would imagine there is a reason for it. I, however, am not so presumptuous to say I know whether it is valid or not.

I have a heart condition and sailed through the Swine flu, more or less and won't get the jab. It got me out of not a damned thing, other than postponing an event till after midterm break which worked out to be a good idea since nearly all the participants are incapacitated with flu.

I don't know if you have followed this thread from the beginning or not, but a number of work force age people may have some resistance to the flu anyhow due to infection of a previous strain (myself included). Which just...uh...may have something to do with the ageism of some vulnerability lists.

Gary Null Exposes Deadly Vaccines at the NYS assembly hearing. If anyone still thinks they are safe or work after seeing this, you have to be insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gavenB_AJ9A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QEhPnlUlk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsyT3dN9gEY

Ooh, ooh, look at mine, it's graphic (and a special treat for gaeilge-ophiles)

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/swineflu/test_advert/Advert_in_Irish.html

Rubbish.

Statistically speaking, approximately five percent of US population is vulnerable enough to the flu for it to be potentially fatal. Vaccinate that five percent, and death rates from flu do not increase.

Also consider this: During times of shortage, the vaccines are triaged out to those who need it most - those whose pre-existing medical conditions make them very likely to react severely or fatally to influenza. By vaccinating even just 40 percent of the population, you remove *at least* 40 percent of the available vectors for the virus, thus significantly reducing anyone's chance of catching it in the first place. Since the ones who have not been vaccinated had been deemed healthy enough to fight off the virus on their own, there is no measurable increase in the death rate.

I'm also in the same age group as Des..and the few times I have gotten the yearly flu shot was sicker than if I would have gotten the flu. So I no longer get the normal yearly flu shot. BUT...that being said, my daughter is having a baby (my first grandchild ) within the next few weeks. Right now in Wisconsin there is no supply of the H1N1 vaccine available to the general public. And we have had whole school's close for up to a week it is so widespread. A friend of mine works in urgent care and told me that of the last 400 people tested with signs of H1N1....100% tested positive for it. And that the normal flu has not even hit Wisconsin yet.

My daughter who is one of the few that can actually get the vaccine will not get it while she is still pregnant, but as soon as she has the baby she will...in this case she feels she has no choice...it is just too widespread in this area. There are several hundred active cases of it at the UW alone.

Because of this...when the vaccine is available to the general public I am going to get one ...even though I hate the thought of it. It is too risky for a Baby under the age of 6 months to get it...and I plan on being around that baby as much as possible! They do NOT give the vaccine to babies under 6 months.

I have read all I can about this...but personally, the risk of the vaccine is (in my mind) worth it compared to taking the risk of my newborn Grandchild coming in contact with it.

Also..if you have not had the H1N1 test...try to avoid it at all costs. It is not pretty and the children around here are terrified of it! They stick a long thing down your throat that seems to go all the way down to your lungs...it is very painful!

I have rarely seem anyone so full of bull as you Katheryne. What I posted was proven, not rubbish. Now you prove what you wrote. Also, stop cherry picking and reply to the whole which also includes the rest by going to the site that the link points to. The dribble you post here just isn't good enough.

As ever, happy to fix things for you.

I can see why you idiots do this. Must be really difficult for pinheads like yourself to come up with anything better.

I'm going to add you to my ignore list where you belong now.

Good heavens. I'd have thought by now there'd be some fatigue, States-side, for conspiracy-theory hysteria, after all the Town Hall Comedy Theatre over healthcare reform.

I, for one, have no desire to be the local Typhoid Mary of H1N1. Yeah, with very high probability I'd get over it in three days of discomfort, but I'd be contagious for some time before I had symptoms bad enough to know better than to leave the house.

On the other hand, I'm certainly not going to try to get to the front of the line for vaccinations and deny one to a health care worker or somebody in a high risk group.

I really don't think any other course of action could be considered responsible.

Whats funny to me is the Hysteria of it.

Isnt this the same government that told us plastic wrap & duct tape on our Windows & Doors would protect us from Biological Warfare??

Isnt this the same government that told us in 1999 that we should stock up on supplies just in case all the nukes in the world launch because they couldnt handle the date '2000'???


Also, as a friend of mine put it, in terms of Biological stuff.... we're due for something. If a species becomes TOO numerous things like disease comes along to wipe out some of the population, to Cull the Herd.

I figure at least ONE of these viral thingies should at least start a Zombie Plague!!!

But what could be better than poking fun at the craziness, Debbo? Is a forum about a play pretend world really and truly the right place to discuss the lizard kings and their Illuminati pal's plans for world domination? Or the wicked drug companies who want us all to be ill all the time unless they want us to be dead? These ideas are bonkers, and that's the top and bottom of it.



I knew it! I just knew it!! Debs has a list. I'll be on her list - yay for me on a list.

You might be better off than we are then. Back in 2000 or so they sent all the households a box of Potassium tablets (I still have them mildewing somewhere) in case of a nuclear disaster. Then they said to sit tight and they'd tell us what to do after that in case of an event

god....someone get my valium

Damn, I can't believe I didn't think of that one.

Natural defense worked so well with Bubonic Plague, Cholera, Smallpox, Typhus, the 1918 Influenza, Tuberculosis, and Polio (which your Dr. Mendelsohn believes magically disappeared through better nutrition, but his gut appears to know more than extensive medical research which he denies ever happened). Modern immunizations may not be "natural" but the same is true of currant population densities and the greatly extended life expectancy that we now enjoy.

Both are probably more trustworthy than ANY government employee.

No such thing as free, Jig.
Do you mean is the government stealing the vaccine or the money to pay for it?

If the G had any brains...which of course they don't, they would get some of the celebs to do PSA's and such about this, instead of the dull eggheads and bereaucrats they keep trotting out there.

Bewbies would at least make them worth watching.