Scrub Monkey

Thank you too for the info and links. Having looked over these links and the information both you and HonestRN provided, I stand corrected on the point of the Novel A strain continuing to survive beyond the normal flu season period. I had previously been unaware of the continuation of the Novel A strain through the summer months, instead being made to believe from other sources that it was a southern hemisphere occurrence almost exclusively. A point which now frustrates me further about my original post concerning my employer only now requiring us to wear face masks if we decline the vaccine when available to us next month, when in effect, we should have already been wearing them given this logic that we pose some sort of risk without it. It was my employer who stated in the bulletin we received that we must wear the masks for the "duration of flu season" concerning H1N1, when it is apparently, year round. However, my previous point was that the CDC does report that pre-existing immunity on the part of older persons may be responsible for a difference in the age distribution for this virus as compared to the seasonal flu [non-Novel A (H1N1)] experience, which if true, results in what appears proportionately (not cause and effect) to be a higher degree of pediatric reported cases as compared to that of the older population. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/surveillanceqa.htm. But as I sated previously, I stand corrected, this virus is clearly killing a portion of those affected even during the traditional flu "off season." But getting back to my central point, do 302 fatalities out of 43,771 reported H1N1 cases as of 10/04/09 as compared to the CDC's statement of roughly 36,000 fatalities a year from seasonal flu, warrant the rush to vaccinate our youngest and most vulnerable population with a vaccine that has been rushed into production, and may at some point be imbued with potentially dangerous adjuvants to keep up with demand and to streamline cost? I'm frustrated too as there clearly are no simple answers. With the roll out of this new vaccine, I suppose we'll simply have to wait and see and hope that its effect is only positive and its becoming the panacea we all hope it to be.

Hold on, nobody's talking about conspiracy here, I simply am referring to a position that the government seems to be advocating for the possible use of adjuvants, cited even from your own provided source, the REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON U. S. PREPARATIONS FOR 2009-H1N1 INFLUENZA http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/doc...1N1_Report.pdf Precisely. Since they are currently being used in European vaccines, and have within our own military in the past (i.e. Anthrax vaccine as but one example) and now coupled with the information from even your own source, it seems as though there is now consensus that inclusion of adjuvants may be, or become, an acceptable practice. Obviously it would involve public disclosure, as there would be no way to hide it, so please let's not go off the deep end here, I'm not talking conspiracy, just bad science. However, for reasons cited in that paper, and with whatever necessity dictates at the time, could result in the use of adjuvants in the future. As for the current H1N1 vaccine, I've yet to find anything about the product insert info and a list of the included compounds in the current H1N1 vaccine being disseminated in the US, and am curious if you have. Can we at least agree that the use of adjuvants is a bad idea. We'll likely have to wait and see on whether they are, or become included, as this vaccine rolls out.

Rather presumptious of you really. You previously made a comment without providing a reference, by omission, I had to assume this was simply a statement of your opinion. Thank you for the links.

Is this simply your opinion, or would you care to cite references that support your claim by disclosing month-month reporting of Novel A influenza (H1N1) versus non-Novel A influenza. True, with this occurrence being suspected because "...epidemiological data supports laboratory serology studies that indicate that older people may have pre-existing immunity to the novel H1N1 flu virus. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/surveillanceqa.htm And for anyone wishing to comment, please cite sources, as unless you are a researcher presenting facts, opinions make weak arguments...

It makes no sense for us to carry on this discussion in two different postings, let's continue to address it in this forum: https://allnurses.com/pandemic-flu-forum/would-you-accept-412057-page11.html#post3903619

How is this more correct??? Your reference dates back to an article that was posted last May, and based on estimations of the spread of the virus at that time. And I quote directly from your reference: "The team made their estimates on the basis of information from an outbreak in a small Mexican community, early data on the international spread of the virus, and genetic sequencing data. "While these estimates are informative, it should be emphasized that some uncertainties remain regarding the denominator population," they said. "Household data would be particularly useful in reducing remaining uncertainty. Using epidemiological data collected since the beginning of the outbreak, the researchers estimated that 23,000 individuals (range 6,000 to 32,000) had been infected with the H1N1 virus in Mexico by the end of April" My statement is furthermore referenced in the following NIH sponsored article dated Aug. 28 and includes the following quote,"Dr. Peter Gross, chief medical officer at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, sees no reason for mass panic. "They've proven that the transmissibility is comparable to the seasonal flu and less than the horrendous 1918 pandemic," he said. Stating furthermore that, "the mortality is no worse than the seasonal flu and, if anything, might be slightly less." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_88726.html Wow, perhaps you need to re-read the material that you're referencing, as it certainly isn't helping to make your point. According to your own stated, "credible source," you cited in another forum post, the REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON U. S . PREPARATIONS FOR 2009 -H1N1 INFLUENZA http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/PCAST_H1N1_Report.pdf on p. 56 states,"The Working Group encourages DHHS to develop quantitative criteria (vaccine efficacy, severity of epidemic) that would trigger a decision to use adjuvants and to ensure that sufficient data are available for the FDA to grant an EUA." And, also on p. 60, "In addition to improving vaccine design and technology for vaccine production, efforts need to be undertaken to assess and license adjuvants that are compatible with influenza vaccines. Adjuvants can greatly increase the potency of vaccines and thereby extend the number of people who can be vaccinated with a given supply." And lastly, on p. 34: "In addition, it may be possible to augment the effectiveness of influenza vaccines through the use of adjuvants, substances that stimulate the immune response to viral proteins. Use of adjuvants with influenza vaccines has not yet been approved by the FDA, but is permitted in Europe. Depending on the outcome of clinicaltests, adjuvants could be added to 2009-H1N1 vaccines under the terms of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. And that has already begun: "The FDA announced that it issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that allows a 2009 H1N1 influenza virus test to be used to detect the virus in troops serving overseas. The EUA “allows the U.S. Department of Defense to distribute the H1N1 test to its qualified laboratories that have the required equipment and trained personnel to perform the test and interpret its results. An EUA authorizes the use of unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products during a declared public health emergency.” FDA Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. commented, “The FDA worked quickly with the Defense Department to authorize the use of this test to better protect our troops. The test will aid in more rapid diagnosis of 2009 H1N1 influenza infections so that deployed troops can quickly begin appropriate medical treatment.” http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm180153.htm Furthermore, "The European Medicines Agency report on GlaxoSmithKline's new swine flu vaccine called "Pandemrix" says on pg. 17 that it contains 10.69 milligrams of squalene. http://www.without-consent.com/media/EMEASqualeneDose.pdf What more proof do you need???? I know, the world is full of nothing but honest, hard working people, devoid of the influence of greed and dishonesty who have the best intentions of the masses in their hearts...c'mon, wake up, what world are you living in? Do I really need to cite yet more examples of corporate greed, one after another (although I already gave you one link to known maleficence on the part of some of the same companies developing the current vaccines). Certainly not with this vaccine. Why need I repeat myself, "as reported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for the US population up to 10/04/09 show 43,771 confirmed H1N1 cases of infection and a total of 302 deaths. This is equal to less than a 0.7% fatality rate among all confirmed cases. Seasonal flu by contrast results in the deaths of approximately 36,000 persons in the US alone each year." While novel influenza A (H1N1) may fit some of the definition of "pandemic" it certainly has not resulted in the fatalities that are associated with this term. http://www.flu.gov/season_or_pandemic.html Agreed. And btw, please know that I'd be very pleased if, and do hope everything that I suspect is wrong turns out to be nothing, for the sake of us all.

If you refer back to my post, I mentioned a "nice grouping of facts and reference linked info." Her opinions notwithstanding, there is a fair amount of well reported and referenced material just the same if you click on the links to the actual articles. I do notice however you seem to be guilty of the same, as I don't understand where you got the following info from below, as I have sources that speak to the contrary, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14851 whereas, am I to trust your opinion alone; afterall, you too could be an HHP that is guilty of, how did you put it, "distorting information deliberately." And if it's the opinions of MDs you want, here's a few: http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d6-Lifesaving-vaccine-information-Leading-health-experts-debunk-dangerous-vaccine-myths

Flu season is not a continuous occurrence as you suggest, with "flu season" regarded by the CDC to be winter months generally starting in October and concluding by May. Your information is incorrect, the two are almost equal in their transmissibility. http://www.emaxhealth.com/1272/90/33181/transmission-h1n1-swine-flu-equals-seasonal-flu.html Here is my take on the "big Pharma" thing: I suppose then the same argument could then be applied to all pharmaceuticals and no drugs would then exist due to cause and effect litigation. But of course this isn't the case. Instead, we have known and acceptable versus deleterious side effects. Also, the The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program only compensates individuals who are affected by those vaccines listed on the the NVICP's "Vaccine Injury Table," on which the new H1N1 vaccine is not listed. http://www.hrsa.gov/Vaccinecompensation/table.htm Really? Then why are "mock viruses" being used to fast track the H1N1 vaccine to pass FDA approval as well as use of previously banned in the US adjuvants like Squalene which has been implicated in immune-response disorders. http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2009/07/17/Squalene-The-Swine-Flu-Vaccines-Dirty-Little-Secret-Exposed.aspx Sorry, even Bernie Madoff loves his kids but that didn't stop him from screwing others. Although I in no way mean to vilify an entire industry, greed has a way of compromising the ethics of some, even if it is to the detriment of others. Please refer to the following, posted here as but one relevant example: https://allnurses.com/health-medicine-news/drug-firms-behaving-371848.html If as part of my job as an RN I am required to administer the new H1N1 vaccine, then it is my belief that I am risking the health of my patients given the current information out there and lack thereof regarding the safety and justification for this rush to vaccinate. And what pandemic? Although fatalities have been associated with this virus, the vast majority of experiences have been mild with short duration hospital stays by the majority of those having been admitted. As for statistics, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for the US population up to 10/04/09 show 43,771 confirmed H1N1 cases of infection and a total of 302 deaths. This is equal to less than a 0.7% fatality rate among all confirmed cases. Seasonal flu by contrast results in the deaths of approximately 36,000 persons in the US alone each year. http://www.cdc.gov/H1n1flu/surveillanceqa.htm But as for the safety of this vaccine, why not listen to what a board certified Neurosurgeon, Dr. William Blaylock has to say about it. http://connectivetissue.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/inconvenient-truths-about-swine-flu/ As for his credentials: http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

A nice grouping of facts and reference linked info on the H1N1 vaccine controversy, as well as a list of the Vaccine manufacturers' product spec sheets at the bottom. http://www.lifehealthchoices.com/swine-flu-alert-

My hospital is now requiring all employees in direct contact with patients who decline either the seasonal flu or new H1N1 vaccine to wear a mask while on the premises for the duration of the flu season, roughly 6-7 months. This is obviously more a tactic of intimidation than that rooted in science, as we at present are not required to wear these masks while we wait another month for the H1N1 vaccines to arrive all the while being within the window of the flu season. In addition, the CDC also refers to the wearing of an N95 mask as offering "imperfect" protection. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/masks.htm And my union sits by silent, ignoring my emails and calls to them, even when made aware of the Washington State Nurses Union coming to the defense of its nurses' right to decline vaccination and not be forced to wear a mask. I'm afraid these are dark times, when Big Pharm seems in control and immune from litigation from damages thanks to congressional protection. A time where as a health care professional, I have to risk my own health and that of my patients in the face of draconian mandates rooted in paranoia not science.