Reasons for Flu Vaccine Reluctancy - page 3

by Kimberly111-13

Hello, Iím 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 and nurse assistants? ... Read More


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 0
    I watched the 60 minutes video...what year was this video produced? It is not contemporary, right?
  7. 0
    Quote from tewdles
    I watched the 60 minutes video...what year was this video produced? It is not contemporary, right?
    Does not appear to be contemporary. If you google it, it is linked to many, many antivaccine sites.

    I can find no references to this alternate vaccine anywhere and would welcome any info on it from
    a credible source.
  8. 0
    Reading the thread with great interest. Some good reason, and quite a bit of good research and links to sites/articles of interest, including the 60 Minutes interview.
    Of course, what is missing is any direct contact with the manufacturers. Before we received the vaccine, I called our Sanofi Pasteur rep, who gave me the number of someone at Sanofi who could answer my questions. This was a couple of months ago, and I don't have the name of the guy, but, briefly, he said:
    1. H1N1 vaccine is made the same way that regular vaccine is made (already knew that)
    2. Vaccine manufacturing has come a long way since 1977 (no surprise there, would you rather own, say, a car from 1977 or one manufactured today? Face it, we have better equipment, testing, and procedures than we did 30 years ago, that shouldn't be a surprise, especially in Healthcare...any of your hospitals still using 30 year old IV pumps...or would you even WANT to!).
    3. Much of the reason the vaccine is slow to the marketplace is precisely because of the extra testing that was done, not just on the vaccine in general, but on each individual lot. (as a Pharmacist, I know this is true. Used to be, drug manufacturers didn't have to do lot specific testing, could just submit "spot" data, but not anymore...that's why we see shortages of some drugs now, the testing before a lot is released to the market is much more stringent.

    Hey, I got mine (seasonal and H1N1), and I recommend it to anyone. Had a bad case of the flu lately?...trust me, it s**ks!
  9. 0
    larryh, have you ever heard that X53A was the vaccine that was given to the public but that
    field testing was done on an entirely different vaccine, not X53A as the video is saying? This
    would have been back in Oct 1976.

    Where do you suppose we could find this info if it exists?
  10. 1
    Indigo Girl..
    Short answer to your question: I don't know where you would go to find that information.
    Longer answer, if I had the time and the desire, I would:
    1. Contact CBS, ask for the transcripts of that particular 60 minutes, including any references, if available. They might or might not have information going back that far, but that would be where I would start. Might be able to get knowledge of what sources they got their information from. I've actually done this before, and you might be surprised what you would get. Of course, we are still talking about an show from
    2. Barring that, find a good Medical Library (brick and mortar or on-line) that will let you query their indexes (Medline search or similar). Take some time researching, I would bet that 60 minutes got the information right from some article in NEJM or something like that. Its back there somewhere, probably on microfiche, hopefully scanned to computer format, but who knows?)

    Would be nice if stuff from 25 to 30 years ago could all just be Googled, but that's probably going to take awhile.
    Sorry I couldn't be more help!
    indigo girl likes this.


Top