All this talk about the Swine Flu makes me wanna puke.
Posted by SuperADDMom on November 3, 2009
When EVERYONE worries it makes the ones who really need to worry seem like part of the flock of sheep going nuts over H1N1 because the media is playing the public like a finely tuned fiddle.
I’m not addressing people who have other illnesses and get flu shots in past years etc… I’m talking about the general public who couldn’t have cared less before all this crap.
More people will die in Canada of the regular flu this winter, then the number of people who have died of H1N1 in all the world so far.
it’s the FLU PEOPLE! GET A GRIP!
Have you had the flu before? ya it sucks.
DID you worry this much and consider it worth the effort of going out to get a vaccine for the “regular flu” in years past? if your a regular healthy person, chances are no… then why in the hell are you flipping out now that you are gonna die of the flu THIS year? cause it has a cool name and the media is going apeshit over it purposely picking out cases to highlight to show how scary it is!? then sorry, you have a far worse ailment…. it’s called the UR1SHEEP Virus. the only cure is removing your head from your ass and actually TRYING to UNDERSTAND something about viruses in general and how your body works.
it doesn’t take a medical degree… before the H1N1 came along, anyone could get a flu virus and even possibly die from it, if THEIR body can’t fight it off. but it is rare by actual statistics!
More people will die in Canada this winter of the regular old flu virus, than ALL the people in the WORLD who have died of H1N1 so far…so…calm down!
People die from the flu all the time, but before this media frenzy, did you care? Did you think about washing your hands so much, or think twice about shaking someone’s hand? DID you think about NOT taking your kids out for Halloween? did you think about the fact that Halloween has ALWAYS been in the height of cold and flu season EVERY year before the swine flu got it’s 15 minutes of fame that bored media outlets decided was the next big thing?
Please…CALM DOWN!
Avoid touching lots of doorknobs in public places.. yuck! wash your hands often ( you should be ANYWAY) avoid touching your face with your hands as much as possible. SLEEP well, EAT well, drink lots of fluids, get some sunlight everyday and exercise, and go about your business. Just as you should ALWAYS do.
ok. before I get off my soap box…
Some info for you from BMJ.com ( a medical Journal)
ABOUT BMJ.COM :
The BMJ is an international peer reviewed medical journal and a fully “online first” publication. Our publishing model—”continuous publication”— means that all articles appear on bmj.com before being included in an issue of the print journal. The website is updated daily with the BMJ’s latest original research, education, news, and comment articles, as well as podcasts, videos, and blogs.
All the BMJ’s original research is published in full on bmj.com, with open access and no limits on word counts. We do not charge authors or readers for research articles, nor for other articles arising from work funded by open access grants. The BMJ’s vision is to be the world’s most influential and widely read medical journal. Our mission is to lead the debate on health and to engage, inform, and stimulate doctors, researchers, and other health professionals in ways that will improve outcomes for patients. We aim to help doctors to make better decisions. The BMJ team is based mainly in London, although we also have editors elsewhere in Europe and in the US.
Reach and impact
About 1.3 million unique users download 5.9 million pages from bmj.com each month (ABCe audit, October 2008). The BMJ’s Impact Factor is 12.827 (ISI Web of Science, 2008).
We audit the performance of BMJ research articles, using a wide range of indicators to assess their impact on readers and their dissemination to the wider world.
The print BMJ has a long history and has been published without interruption since 1840, when it began as the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal. The print BMJ is now published weekly in three editions that vary only in their advertising content. Together, their weekly circulation totals about 122 000 copies, of which 10 000 are distributed outside Britain. International editions reach another 55 000 readers. The BMJ is printed on 100% recycled paper and mailed in a recyclable wrapper.
In May 1995 the BMJ became the first general medical journal to launchitself into cyberspace as bmj.com going on to win Best Business Product or Service at the PPAi Interactive Publishing Awards 2000, Best Integration of Media at theAOP UK Interactive Publishing Awards 2002, and to be voted one of the web’s five most useful health sites by Guardian Online readers and contributors in 2004. Continuous daily publication on bmj.com started in July 2008, with all content appearing online before print publication. We abridge many articles for the print BMJ, including all research.
In July 2008 the BMJ was named Medical Publication of the Year at the Medical Journalist Association’s awards in London. BMJ News Editor Annabel Ferriman was jointly awarded Health Editor of the Yearaward, and Susan Mayor was named Medical Journalist of the Year.
Owner and publisher
The BMJ is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. The editor of the BMJ is Fiona Godlee.
The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of the BMJ. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BMA policy. The BMJ follows guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
The BMJ’s sources of revenue
The BMJ receives revenue from a range of sources, to ensure wide and affordable access while maintaining high standards of quality and full editorial independence. The sources of income include subscriptions from institutions and individuals; classified advertising for jobs and courses; display advertising for pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical products; events (exhibitions, sponsorship, and visitor fees); sale of reprints, rights, and royalties; and sponsorship.
Separation is maintained between the editorial team and the advertising and sponsorship sales teams. Where sponsorship has been obtained for any BMJ content—for example, as a result of an unrestricted educational grant—this is clearly indicated.
The BMJ archive
Every BMJ article published since the journal’s firstissue in October 1840 is available online from bmj.com.This was launched in 2009 and achieved by digitally scanning 824 183 pages of theprint journal. It cost about $1 (£0.68; Euros 0.76) a page andwas made possible by the extraordinary generosity of the USNational Library of Medicine (NLM) and the United Kingdom’sWellcome Trust and Joint Information Systems Committee. All BMJ research articles are openly accessible to all online and,on PubMed Central, allnon-research articles from 1840 until April 2006 are also availablefree, without registration. On bmj.com, all non-research articlespublished during this period are available free but requireregistration.
To see five films that explore and discuss the BMJ archive, please visit http://www.bmj.com/video/
The BMJ published the first centrally randomised controlled trial: Medical Research Council. Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. BMJ 1948;2:769-82. The journal also carried the seminal papers on the causal effects of smoking on health including: Doll R, Hill AB. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. BMJ 1950;221(ii):739-48; Doll R, Hill AB. The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits. A preliminary report. BMJ 1954;228(i): 1451-55; and Doll R, Hill AB. Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking. A second report on the mortality of British doctors. BMJ 1956;233(ii): 1071-6.
Eugene Garfield and colleagues searched the Science Citation Index for the 101 most cited papers 1955-1985, with the top slot going to Kay A W. Effect of large doses of histamine on gastric secretion of HCL. Brit Med. J. 2:77-80, 19.53, and the most highly cited from 1945 to 1989 with the same article still the winner. The most cited BMJ article since 1994 is: UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ1998;317:703-13.
The BMJ follows guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors (), the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (), and the EQUATOR network resource centre () for good research reporting.
Swine flu, better natural immunity than artificial one 22 October 2009 Juan Gérvas,
Rural General Practitioner
28730 Buitrago de Lozoya (Madrid) Spain,
Jim Wright
Send response to journal:
Re: Swine flu, better natural immunity than artificial one
SWINE FLU VACCINE (IF IT WORKS) MAY AVOID NATURAL IMMUNITY THAT LASTS FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS
FDA approved vaccines against influenza A (H1N1) (1) which gives support for government plans to provide mass vaccination programs for H1N1 later this year. Such plans are irrational and based on fear mongering and not on a “common sense and self control” policy (as proposed by Spanish physicians and other health professionals) (2).
We strongly disagree with mass vaccination, which is based on several false assumptions.
The first assumption is that the H1N1 pandemic will mimic the Spanish flu of 1919. This is highly unlikely as the Spanish flu was a pandemic flu in a very poor world, with no public health systems, no tap-water and no antibiotics for complications. In support of this the Spanish flu killed mainly poor people; for example, in India it killed soldiers (in warehouses, bad food, bad hygiene conditions) but not officers (good food, British style houses, etc.).
The second assumption is that H1N1 flu is severe and deadly. There is substantial evidence that that is not the case and in fact the mortality rate from H1N1 flu is much less than seasonal flu (3,4).
The third assumption is that the vaccine will work. The immunologic response is not a guarantee that the vaccine will reduce severe infections and mortality. Demonstration of that benefit requires large RCTs (randomized controlled trials), which are lacking for both H1N1 vaccines as well as for seasonal flu vaccines.
The fourth assumption is that the H1N1 vaccine will provide similar immunity to the natural infection. Immunity to viral flu has a very interesting peculiarity that is known as the “original antigenic sin” (5). This concept means that the first flu virus we are exposed to generates the strongest immune response and that immunity lasts for over 50 years. It explains the fact that people over 50 years of age appear to have some immunity to the H1N1 virus because a similar influenza A virus, circulated globally from 1918 to 1957. Thus it appears that natural infection creates immunity for 50 years at no cost as compared to influenza vaccines, which require one (or two) shots annually to achieve a lesser degree of immunity.
We therefore recommend that most if not all H1N1 vaccine be used as part of placebo controlled RCTs to establish whether the benefits outweigh the harms. Without such an approach, in September 2010 we will again be in a position of not knowing who to vaccinate. Similar RCTs are also badly needed for seasonal flu vaccine as the long-term effects of annual flu vaccination are unknown, and there is a good chance that the harms of annual flu vaccination as compared to no vaccination outweigh the benefits.
1. Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm181950.htm
2. Villanueva T, Gérvas A. Spain and swine flu. CMAJ. 2009. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/eletters/181/6-7/E102
3. Assessment of the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic on selected countries in the southern hemisphere: Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand and Uruguay. Department of Health and Human Services and other USG Departments for the White House National Security Council. 26th August 2009. http://flu.gov/professional/global/final.pdf
4. Collignon PJ. Mass vaccination against swine flu: could it cause more harm than good? http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/sep03_2/b3471#219801
5. Couch RB, Kasel JA. Immunity to influenza in man. Ann Rev Microbiol. 1983;37:529-49.
Competing interests: None declared
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/oct21_2/b4335#223220
