Reasons for Flu Vaccine Reluctancy - page 2

Hello, I'm a pre-nursing student who has a few questions about influenza vaccination for a class assignment. What are the reasons for reluctancy of receiving the influenza vaccination by nurses... Read More

  1. Visit  Pfiesty profile page
    0
    Right Wingnut - So, what is the difference between that vaccine and this one? I'm not able to find the differences! Maybe there is none.
  2. Visit  Wingnut09 profile page
    2
    As I understand it, the difference is in the development of vaccine now vs. 33 years ago-much more extensive attenuation, viruses are different.

    According to the state of NY Dept of Health:

    "The type of H1N1 that existed in the 1970's is not the same as the H1N1 that is currently circulating in the population. The vaccine that was created in the 1970's was made in a different way than the current H1N1 vaccine."
    http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseas...htm#comparison

    If you are concerned, I would contact the CDC. Further, in most cases, vaccination is a choice not mandatory.
    tewdles and indigo girl like this.
  3. Visit  Pfiesty profile page
    0
    Thank you for that link.

    The GBS incidences are much different than the ones reported by the authoritative sources of the time. And how is it "different?"

    It just didn't answer the questions and raised more. Why are they reporting different statistics?

    I think I will give up on this and decide not to decide. For now, I will not get the vaccine.

    Thank you again.
  4. Visit  indigo girl profile page
    2
    Quote from Pfiesty
    Right Wingnut - So, what is the difference between that vaccine and this one? I'm not able to find the differences! Maybe there is none.
    1)The most obvious difference is that each vaccine was targeting a completely different
    virus.

    2)The 1976 swine virus died out, never to reappear.

    3)The 1976 virus never caused even an epidemic much less a pandemic. What happened at Ft. Dix is best described as an outbreak of a novel virus. Over 30 years later, we have another novel virus but it is not the same virus. This one has gone on to cause a pandemic targeting otherwise healthy pregnant women, kids, teens, and young adults as well as people with prior exisiting conditions.

    4)The 2009 novel virus has spread more rapidly than any other pandemic in history.
    tewdles and Wingnut09 like this.
  5. Visit  Wingnut09 profile page
    1
    This is a 2006 article from Emerging Infectious Diseases. Not sure if it answers any of your questions Pfiesty, but it is interesting.

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reflec...am-a0141048444
    indigo girl likes this.
  6. Visit  Wingnut09 profile page
    0
    " 3)The 1976 virus never caused even an epidemic much less a pandemic. What happened at Ft. Dix is best described as an outbreak of a novel virus. Over 30 years later, we have another novel virus but it is not the same virus. This one has gone on to cause a pandemic targeting otherwise healthy pregnant women, kids, teens, and young adults as well as people with prior exisiting conditions. "

    Indigo girl, I agree that the main issue is that this is an actually pandemic and that the individuals getting vaccinated must consider the real risk of illness vs. the vaccine risks. All vaccines have some inherent risk, but the H1N1 vaccine thus far, both here and in the southern hemisphere, have minimal S/E.

    But again, this is a personal choice.
  7. Visit  Pfiesty profile page
    0
    Quote from Wingnut09
    This is a 2006 article from Emerging Infectious Diseases. Not sure if it answers any of your questions Pfiesty, but it is interesting.

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reflec...am-a0141048444
    Thank you Wingnut. Yes, I read that one in my research. I read the book, The Swine Flu Affair from the Harvard School of Public Health. So, my concerns are great.

    And there is still a lack of information now in 2009 about how this vaccine is similar or different from the last one.
  8. Visit  indigo girl profile page
    0
    Quote from pfiesty
    that link you sent from "60 minutes" http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9m...paganda_webcam is fantastic!

    short version: a 1980 60 minutes interview with a very nervous appearing head of the cdc vaccine program. a must see!


    if not, this video that ozoneranger found should be required viewing before informed consent for the vaccine

    thank you for this eye-opening report, ozoneranger. again, anyone know if this year's vaccine preparation is any different? we must hope that it is very different.
    i watched this video several times as well as part ii which continues with more of the same.

    they interview a dr. hatfield, saying that he was the head of the influenza surveillance team. he says that "a review of the literature" told him that influenza vaccines might be associated with neurological problems. we were left hanging, and wondering what did that review consist of?

    further, we hear mike wallace saying that x53a is the vaccine that was given to the public but that field testing was done on an entirely different vaccine, not x53a. has anyone ever found any real reference to the x53a vaccine in the scientific literature?

    this is astonishing. if this is correct, shouldn't there be something in the literature about this? this is huge, if it is true! i am looking for some serious scientific evidence that this is actually what happened.

    help me out here. all i am finding are antivaccine sites. where is the proof that this is true? this is rather amazing. did they really do this? there has to be something
    elsewhere about this other than a video?
    Last edit by indigo girl on Nov 6, '09
  9. Visit  indigo girl profile page
    0
    Quote from Pfiesty
    Wingnut,
    Thank you. I remembered that the '77 vaccine was dead virus, but so far I cannot find a credible source for either fact.
    Annual vaccines ideally have two strains, rarely 3 and this H1N1 would likely have been a separate vaccine anyway.
    Actually, they are being made simultaneously and would have been combined if it was possible. Thanks for your response.
    Annual vaccines have three strains which is why the current seasonal flu shots are called trivalent. They contain the strains of two type A influenzas , (H1N1 and H3N2), and a Type-B strain chosen by the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance Network.
    They are picked as the most likely to cause significant problems in the coming season.
    Last edit by indigo girl on Nov 6, '09
  10. Visit  indigo girl profile page
    0
    Quote from Pfiesty
    I found it! In the paper, "The Swine Flu Affair" 1978 by:

    But I still can't find any information citing DIFFERRENCES between that 1977 vaccine and the current one.
    Thank you for that reference. I have found this paper online as a PDF. I am going to take my time going thru it. It looks like a fascinating read.

    I was wondering why you kept referring to the 1977 vaccine as opposed to the 1976 vaccine which they started using in October of 1976, if I remember correctly. We may be talking about two entirely different vaccines, but until I have time to look at this further, I cannot tell. This could take some time, but I am in no hurry, and I do have to work this weekend.
  11. Visit  indigo girl profile page
    0
    Quote from Pfiesty
    Thank you for that link.

    The GBS incidences are much different than the ones reported by the authoritative sources of the time. And how is it "different?"

    It just didn't answer the questions and raised more. Why are they reporting different statistics?

    I think I will give up on this and decide not to decide. For now, I will not get the vaccine.

    Thank you again.
    So, there is an inconsistency in the data you are referring to which are "the authoritative sources of the time" which concerns you? Which sources are you looking at specfically, Pfiesty?
  12. Visit  indigo girl profile page
    0
    Quote from Pfiesty
    I have not yet found the time to compare the differences (if any) of the current H1N1 vaccine with the 1977 H1N1 vaccines. If it has not changed, I am extremely concerned about the safety.
    Are you asking for a comparson to the H1N1 included in the trivalent seasonal flu vaccines of our time or are you referring to the monovalent novel H1N1 swine flu vaccine? They are targeting two different type A influenza viruses.

    And, why target the swine flu vaccine for concern if that is what you are referring to?
    I get the strong feeling that you think that the novel 2009 H1N1 is the same as the 1976 virus, and along the same line of thinking that the vaccine must be the same. I don't have a clue as to why you would think this could possibly be true, but I am willing to look at the evidence if there is any.

    Quote from Pfiesty
    GB is more serious than it was in 1977 because of the increased potential of MDR infections as complications from hospitalizations for GB. I hope there is significant changes so that the potential of GB and other complications is much smaller now. The rates of complications in 1977 is not only unacceptable to me, it caused the termination of the vaccine's use in '77.
    You speak of GB as being more serious now but in the same sentence say it is because of the "increased potential" for more serious complications. So, do you have some information that this is ocurring or are you thinking of this purely as a possibility?

    Quote from Pfiesty
    Can anyone on this board help me research this?
    But, of course.
  13. Visit  tewdles profile page
    0
    I watched the 60 minutes video...what year was this video produced? It is not contemporary, right?

Must Read Topics



Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and find your dream job.

Top
close
close