Swine flu, Bird flu, SARS, CJD and killer vaccines. Options

[Witless]

Ok, so Swine flu's no longer in fashion, Bird Flu's a distant memory and most people don't even remember SARS being the "in thing" to worry about back in 2002.
I am of the personal belief that the paranoia part of these paranoia outbreaks is mainly created by the media. I am not some crazy saying these illnesses don't exist. But let's put these things in context here using swine flu as an example since it's still fresh in people's minds and I am going by the UK statistics since I don't know the names of any "official" bodies doing statistics elsewhere, and if networks like fox news are to be listened to, then swine flu probably kills 99% of people infected and might have infected 75% of the world's population.

Between July 14th (the first UK swine flu death) and November 14th there were 214 deaths to swine flu in the UK according to the health Health Protection Agency, the statistics have been handily put together here. 214 deaths over four months Assuming the death rate was constant that makes a 642 deaths a year in the UK rate. That is rough figure since the swine flu death rate is far from constant, but lets use that for now for the next game I like to call "Things More Likely To Kill You Than Swine Flu!".

Falling in your own home (1650 people in 1998)
Accidental drug poisoning (649 people in 1998)
Road Accidents (3501 people in 1998)
Mental and behavioural disorders (14563 in 2005)
Smoking related (112,337 in 2002)

This isn't meant to be a morbid what will kill you type post, but that we know these things happen and are not running around everyday being worried about it (well perhaps some smokers are). I understand that papers are businesses like any other and have the primary purpose of selling as many copies as possible. So hyping how bad something is for the sake selling more copies is going to happen. But it is a worrying sign that people will believe papers more than trained doctors and medical professionals.
Ask your average person whether they believe their doctor or a journalist more and most people will say their doctor, yet oddly enough when faced with a big headline claiming one thing and a a doctor in the other. Most people will weirdly revert to feeling like the doctor is some distant figure that is not in touch with how things really are and that the papers are the real ones uncovering the truth of things. I find that bizarre personally. The media seem to use that power really badly too.

For example, one of the most irresponsible claims I have ever heard, the fear that the MMR jab causes autism. For those outside the UK that didn't hear the full crazy level that occured. One report made an observation (not conclusion) that every child in a 12 person case study showed signs of austism soon after receiving the MMR vaccine. Now bare in mind here that the original study took place in a school with a large number of autistic children. Since almost all children in the area had the vaccine, it wasn't particularly unluckily that going back in the kids records would show they took the vaccine before they started in that school. Many kids in the UK have the vaccine not long before nursery starting age. One random journalist saw the paper and drew his own conclusion that the MMR jab must be causing autism. 5 years of news paper headlines and parents refusing to get their kids immunised followed.

Some interesting things to note about the possible repurcusions of that. Firstly, the MMR jab vaccinates against Rubella. Rubella is known to increase the chances of a child developing Austism. Secondly, if you ever wanted statistical evidence for not being immunised causing problems then here it is. The MMR vaccine also immunises against measles. Adult on-set measles can cause blindness. In the early 90s there was a vaccine shortage meaning a lot of kids went un-vaccinated. 15 years later the measles rate shot up in the UK (remember all those measles adverts suddenly appearing on tv). 50% of people with adult on-set blindness in the UK in their 20s today have it because of that vaccine shortage (read Bad Science for more about that).

I find it scary that nowadays the media has the power to replicate such an event. If I believed for a moment that the media was merely reporting the currently believed evidence and therefore wasn't at fault it wouldn't be so bad, but sadly it's not.

The MRSA nonsence was a rediculous made up story. Now I am not so annoyed by the MRSA stuff as other invented stories. Since the MRSA story did genuinely get people to start paying attention to some of the bad hygiene in some UK hospitals. But I was very confused by it. MRSA is a bacteria that can lead you pretty ill. If you get it while your immune system is already in a bad way it can be fatal. But it's not too bad to a healthy person. Understandably it's not something you would want to get in hospital. People genuinely do die to it in hospitals around the world.
What is weird is that it is not a particularly big problem in the UK. There are plenty of other bacteria that kill people needlessly in UK hospitals, but MRSA isn't really a big one. But to read the papers during a 3 year period in the UK you'd be forgiven for thinking that the MRSA super bug was about to bring the world to it's knees through bad hygiene. The papers at the time reported that an independant lab found MRSA everywhere in UK hospitals. The lab was called "Chemsol Group Ltd". It turns out the lab was actually a shed in the garden of an MRSA Expert, Dr Malyszewicz. Or to quote his real title Mr Malyszewicz since his qualifications amounted to a non-accredited correspondence course PhD from America. Apparently the Chemsol Group always "gave positive results". Results that no other lab in the country managed to duplicate.

Like I said, in the MRSA case it's not so bad since there was a genuine problem in UK hospitals even if it was a different one from the one the media was trying to raise. I am willing to bet good money that medias around the world spout other nonsense that can actually do real damage to people if they listen to and follow. People will always make bad medical decisions, and doctors are not perfect, but when parents stop vaccinating their kids for poor reasons then I think then a discussion needs to be brought up.

Free media is great, I love it. But sometimes I think the media needs at least a little accountability when it can invent medical facts up fully in the knowledge that we live in an era where a great deal of people will listen to them. I know I do. I don't visit Iraq to see the situation, I have to hesitantly read/watch it through someone elses point of view. It's just in certain cases I either know from personal experience or the experience of someone I trust more than them how much crap they can invent.

So what do you guys think of the medias constant habit of making us feel like everything is going trash our health, and that all medications will as well.
.. and an additional point, how do you feel that it is only conventional medicines that get hammered, and never the alternative ones like homeopathy etc..

[CrazyFooIAintGet...]

but do you really believe they rushed something out on the market that is a huge threat to people's health?

Well, it kinda seems like it was. There was such a huge demand for it, and it was brought out so quickly that there's *no way* the long-term effects of the vaccination could have been studied. That said, I'm sure it's fine. I'm not getting it, because tbh, I don't think I need it (it's going around my school, I personally know maybe seven kids who have had it, they're all fine and say it's not a big deal), if I get swine flu I'll be fine, and I'd rather see the effects it has on other people first.

Um what? It was brought out so quickly because it's a friggin' pandemic! If they studied it any longer there wouldn't be any more of that strain left!

Flu vaccines as a whole are nothing new so the people making decisions related to distributing the vaccine are pretty aware of the risks. It's unlikely that they would see anything in a long term study that they missed in the clinical trials. It's also not in their interests to release a vaccine that is more dangerous than the disease it prevents.*

Regardless of whether you think you can handle not getting vaccinated and catching swine flu, to do so would be to knowingly infect the people around you. This is not very nice. There is also the additional strain on hospitals etc to think about, as twice as many people are getting the flu at this time of the year.

* Unless they part of Obama's secret socialist plan to murder old people of course

My mom works in a doctor's office, and out of the five (six?) doctors that work there, *one* felt brave enough to get it. They (the ones who didn't get it) think it was created too fast to meet all safety requirements

Proof that being a doctor doesn't make you immune from idiocy.

[Yannick]

Um what? It was brought out so quickly because it's a friggin' pandemic! If they studied it any longer there wouldn't be any more of that strain left!

Dude, swine flu *is not* a big deal. You're sick for a few days, oh noes, vomiting. I personally prefer being sick for a few days than injecting (getting the spray, etc.) something I personally don't know the effects of. I'm willing to take the swine flu risk.

The worst thing about swine flu, aside from the handful of people that have died, is that it's done away with exam exemptions in my county.

I did say that I don't actually think the vaccine is going to harm anyone. I'm just _not sure_, and since at this moment we can't actually know, I don't see why avoiding it is a problem. I mean, if swine flu actually got the way the media said it would, I'd probably get vaccinated. At this point, there's no need.

Regardless of whether you think you can handle not getting vaccinated and catching swine flu, to do so would be to knowingly infect the people around you. This is not very nice. There is also the additional strain on hospitals etc to think about, as twice as many people are getting the flu at this time of the year.

Knowingly infect the people that also have the choice of getting vaccinated. If they get vaccinated, they can't catch it. If they don't, we're infecting each other, so it's fair. Btw, it's not like you stay in the hospital. You go in somewhere, have like a 15 minute exam, get some meds prescribed, and then you chill at home for a week.

I mean, it's not different from the flu vaccine. Has everyone arguing so adamantly about getting vaccines gotten both of those?

[CrazyFooIAintGet...]

Um what? It was brought out so quickly because it's a friggin' pandemic! If they studied it any longer there wouldn't be any more of that strain left!

Dude, swine flu *is not* a big deal. You're sick for a few days, oh noes, vomiting. I personally prefer being sick for a few days than injecting (getting the spray, etc.) something I personally don't know the effects of. I'm willing to take the swine flu risk.

The worst thing about swine flu, aside from the handful of people that have died, is that it's done away with exam exemptions in my county.

I did say that I don't actually think the vaccine is going to harm anyone. I'm just _not sure_, and since at this moment we can't actually know, I don't see why avoiding it is a problem. I mean, if swine flu actually got the way the media said it would, I'd probably get vaccinated. At this point, there's no need.

Regardless of whether you think you can handle not getting vaccinated and catching swine flu, to do so would be to knowingly infect the people around you. This is not very nice. There is also the additional strain on hospitals etc to think about, as twice as many people are getting the flu at this time of the year.

Knowingly infect the people that also have the choice of getting vaccinated. If they get vaccinated, they can't catch it. If they don't, we're infecting each other, so it's fair. Btw, it's not like you stay in the hospital. You go in somewhere, have like a 15 minute exam, get some meds prescribed, and then you chill at home for a week.

1. It is not necessarily true that everybody has a choice of getting vaccinated. Doctors might not recommend it for some people if they have other health problems, and it's obviously not feasible to vaccinate everyone who wants one, which is why high risk groups are given priority. Nevertheless, healthy adults can and have died from this (and regular flu too), so the more people vaccinated the better. Btw, I'm not arguing that you in particular should get the vaccine, I just object to your reasoning and your (imo unjustified) suspicion of the vaccine, which many people seem to share.
2. "They brought it upon themselves" is a pretty crappy attitude to have no matter what the issue.
3. It doesn't matter that most people don't need to go to doctors. My point was simply that increase in patients = more work for doctors and if this isn't handled well then quality of care could suffer as a result. From this perspective it doesn't matter how much risk there is to an individual, if loads of people get infected it is a serious problem. This is why I don't think the mainstream media in general has blown swine flu out of proportion (although I don't doubt there are news sources that have done a crappy job of reporting it).

I mean, it's not different from the flu vaccine. Has everyone arguing so adamantly about getting vaccines gotten both of those?

I haven't got either of them simply because I haven't been offered them, and I'm not the kind of person who would go to my doctor demanding one. If I was offered the choice then yeah, I would - being sick's no fun. And yeah, nobodies saying seasonal flu is any less dangerous. But it's predictable. It happens every year and we're equipped to deal with it.

Hope your brother in law gets well soon and you manage to avoid catching it Hobbes.