General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Flu Vaccine's Strength Worries Experts

Started by john · · Last activity · 38 posts · 652 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
10 December 2003
Last activity
15 December 2003
Original author
john
Posts
38
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
652
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 38
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. This is what all this "shortage" fuss was all about - it's simply a
    marketing strategy:

    All this "shortage" bull was/is simply intended to push FluMist -
    scroll down to the end of this story:

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031209_2285.html
    Flu Vaccine's Strength Worries Experts
    Health Experts Worry That Flu Shots Taken by Millions of Americans
    Will Offer Weaker Protection

    The Associated Press

    Dec. 9 - As flu sweeps across the country, many health experts are
    worried that the shots taken by tens of millions of Americans will
    offer considerably weaker protection than any flu vaccine in recent
    years.
    The flu shot available this year was formulated to protect against
    three strains of the virus. But the strain actually circulating this
    year is somewhat different from those three, and it is probably too
    late to develop a new formula.

    Even though one of the three is a close cousin of this season's bug,
    whether that will be enough to help people ward off the flu is simply
    unknown. Some experts expect the level of protection to be 50 percent
    or less.

    Most agree the vaccine will do at least some good. But the
    word "some" is about specific as scientists at the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention are willing to get.

    Even in the best of years, the flu shot is not foolproof. Ordinarily
    it is between 70 percent and 90 percent effective in healthy young
    adults and somewhat less effective in the elderly.

    The last time the vaccine missed the mark was in 1997, when a strain
    called A-Sydney appeared that was significantly different from the
    strain included in the flu shot. Doctors are still uncertain about
    how much good the shot did that season, although the CDC estimates it
    was 30 percent to 50 percent protective.

    Scientists say this year's mismatch does not seem to be as great as
    it was six years ago, but they cannot say with certainty how well the
    flu shot will work, or even whether it will.

    "With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might
    not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC
    epidemiologist. "That's very unlikely. Probably it will not be 90
    percent effective. But we just have no good sense of how it will work
    in humans. Biology is messy."

    The mismatch occurred when experts decided to include a strain called
    A-Panama in this year's shot, the same as last year. It turns out
    that the dominant virus this fall has been A-Fujian, which has two
    genetic mutations that make it different.

    A variety of studies using ferrets, the primary lab animal for flu
    experiments, and human blood suggest that the A-Panama shots should
    offer at least partial protection against A-Fujian. The most
    encouraging predictions come from the World Health Organization,
    which, along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, decides what
    strains of flu virus will be included in the shot.

    Dr. Klaus Stohr said blood taken from people who got this year's shot
    shows they have 41 percent fewer antibodies against A-Fujian than
    they do against A-Panama, and three-quarters of vaccinated adults
    have enough antibodies to protect against A-Fujian.

    "The data indicate that the vaccine in use does protect to a good
    extent against the currently circulating strain," Stohr said.

    However, Harper said human blood samples and ferret experiments
    cannot be reliably used to predict how well a vaccine will work. The
    CDC is doing several studies to estimate how well people are
    protected in areas where the flu is circulating, but the answer
    probably will not be known until the end of the flu season.

    Dr. Walt Orenstein, director of the CDC's National Immunization
    Program, said it is probably too late to create an additional vaccine
    for this season, although manufacturers are working with the A-Fujian
    strain. "I won't rule it out, but it's unlikely," he said.

    Meanwhile, doctors continue to urge people to get vaccinated, even
    though supplies are running short, because the vaccine may help make
    the flu less severe, even if it fails to give complete protection. It
    also protects against two other flu strains that could appear later
    in the season.

    Dr. Sandra Kemmerly, associate head of infectious diseases at the
    Oschner Clinic in New Orleans, said there is already anecdotal
    evidence that the shots are helping people escape the worst of the
    flu.

    "Of the people we are seeing who were vaccinated and have flu-like
    symptoms, it is much milder than if they had not been vaccinated at
    all," she said.

    Dr. Theodore Eickhoff of the University of Colorado, a member of the
    FDA advisory committee that chose this year's vaccine, estimated it
    will be less than 50 percent effective at preventing the flu. "It's a
    guess based on prior years' experience with variant strains," he said.

    Dr. William Schaffner, head of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt
    University, noted that even a vaccine that is 50 percent effective
    may turn a serious illness into a milder one and help protect those
    who are especially vulnerable, such as the elderly, against pneumonia
    and death.

    "There is no doubt that all of us are concerned," Schaffner said.

    Doctors said there is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the
    FluMist nasal spray vaccine, which uses a weakened live virus, may do
    a better job of protecting against a mismatched virus.

    Dr. Robert Belshe of St. Louis University said FluMist was tested in
    children during the season when A-Sydney emerged, and it still
    appeared to be 86 percent protective. More than 90 percent of
    children given FluMist that year made antibodies against the new
    strain, compared with less than a third who received standard flu
    shots.

    This year, manufacturers made 83 million doses of flu vaccine.
    Supplies ran short in some parts of the country as the early and
    intense outbreak in Western states increased demand. The CDC said
    Tuesday it is working to redistribute remaining U.S. supplies and may
    buy fewer than 500,000 more doses from a British maker.

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
    correspondent for The Associated Press.

    On the Net:

  2. "john" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    This is what all this "shortage" fuss was all about - it's simply a
    marketing strategy:

    All this "shortage" bull was/is simply intended to push FluMist -
    scroll down to the end of this story:

    [censored]! There is a shortage due to increased demand. The article includes
    two paragraphs reporting a study that shows that FluMist "may do a better
    job." The reporter quoted the doctor who actually did the research. It's
    quite a stretch to conclude from this that the CDC invented a fictitious
    shortage to "push" FluMist.

    Quoted message said:


    http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031209_2285.html
    Flu Vaccine's Strength Worries Experts
    Health Experts Worry That Flu Shots Taken by Millions of Americans
    Will Offer Weaker Protection

    The Associated Press

    Dec. 9 - As flu sweeps across the country, many health experts are
    worried that the shots taken by tens of millions of Americans will
    offer considerably weaker protection than any flu vaccine in recent
    years.
    The flu shot available this year was formulated to protect against
    three strains of the virus. But the strain actually circulating this
    year is somewhat different from those three, and it is probably too
    late to develop a new formula.

    Even though one of the three is a close cousin of this season's bug,
    whether that will be enough to help people ward off the flu is simply
    unknown. Some experts expect the level of protection to be 50 percent
    or less.

    Most agree the vaccine will do at least some good. But the
    word "some" is about specific as scientists at the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention are willing to get.

    Even in the best of years, the flu shot is not foolproof. Ordinarily
    it is between 70 percent and 90 percent effective in healthy young
    adults and somewhat less effective in the elderly.

    The last time the vaccine missed the mark was in 1997, when a strain
    called A-Sydney appeared that was significantly different from the
    strain included in the flu shot. Doctors are still uncertain about
    how much good the shot did that season, although the CDC estimates it
    was 30 percent to 50 percent protective.

    Scientists say this year's mismatch does not seem to be as great as
    it was six years ago, but they cannot say with certainty how well the
    flu shot will work, or even whether it will.

    "With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might
    not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC
    epidemiologist. "That's very unlikely. Probably it will not be 90
    percent effective. But we just have no good sense of how it will work
    in humans. Biology is messy."

    The mismatch occurred when experts decided to include a strain called
    A-Panama in this year's shot, the same as last year. It turns out
    that the dominant virus this fall has been A-Fujian, which has two
    genetic mutations that make it different.

    A variety of studies using ferrets, the primary lab animal for flu
    experiments, and human blood suggest that the A-Panama shots should
    offer at least partial protection against A-Fujian. The most
    encouraging predictions come from the World Health Organization,
    which, along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, decides what
    strains of flu virus will be included in the shot.

    Dr. Klaus Stohr said blood taken from people who got this year's shot
    shows they have 41 percent fewer antibodies against A-Fujian than
    they do against A-Panama, and three-quarters of vaccinated adults
    have enough antibodies to protect against A-Fujian.

    "The data indicate that the vaccine in use does protect to a good
    extent against the currently circulating strain," Stohr said.

    However, Harper said human blood samples and ferret experiments
    cannot be reliably used to predict how well a vaccine will work. The
    CDC is doing several studies to estimate how well people are
    protected in areas where the flu is circulating, but the answer
    probably will not be known until the end of the flu season.

    Dr. Walt Orenstein, director of the CDC's National Immunization
    Program, said it is probably too late to create an additional vaccine
    for this season, although manufacturers are working with the A-Fujian
    strain. "I won't rule it out, but it's unlikely," he said.

    Meanwhile, doctors continue to urge people to get vaccinated, even
    though supplies are running short, because the vaccine may help make
    the flu less severe, even if it fails to give complete protection. It
    also protects against two other flu strains that could appear later
    in the season.

    Dr. Sandra Kemmerly, associate head of infectious diseases at the
    Oschner Clinic in New Orleans, said there is already anecdotal
    evidence that the shots are helping people escape the worst of the
    flu.

    "Of the people we are seeing who were vaccinated and have flu-like
    symptoms, it is much milder than if they had not been vaccinated at
    all," she said.

    Dr. Theodore Eickhoff of the University of Colorado, a member of the
    FDA advisory committee that chose this year's vaccine, estimated it
    will be less than 50 percent effective at preventing the flu. "It's a
    guess based on prior years' experience with variant strains," he said.

    Dr. William Schaffner, head of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt
    University, noted that even a vaccine that is 50 percent effective
    may turn a serious illness into a milder one and help protect those
    who are especially vulnerable, such as the elderly, against pneumonia
    and death.

    "There is no doubt that all of us are concerned," Schaffner said.

    Doctors said there is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the
    FluMist nasal spray vaccine, which uses a weakened live virus, may do
    a better job of protecting against a mismatched virus.

    Dr. Robert Belshe of St. Louis University said FluMist was tested in
    children during the season when A-Sydney emerged, and it still
    appeared to be 86 percent protective. More than 90 percent of
    children given FluMist that year made antibodies against the new
    strain, compared with less than a third who received standard flu
    shots.

    This year, manufacturers made 83 million doses of flu vaccine.
    Supplies ran short in some parts of the country as the early and
    intense outbreak in Western states increased demand. The CDC said
    Tuesday it is working to redistribute remaining U.S. supplies and may
    buy fewer than 500,000 more doses from a British maker.

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
    correspondent for The Associated Press.

    On the Net:

  3. "john" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    This is what all this "shortage" fuss was all about - it's simply a
    marketing strategy:

    Do you think those deaths are a marketing stratagy too?

    Quoted message said:

    All this "shortage" bull was/is simply intended to push FluMist -
    scroll down to the end of this story:

    Actually, the shortage is because people became scared by the reports of
    deaths and serious illness, and decided to get the vaccine for the frist
    time in a while or the first time at all.

    Jeff

  4. In article <[email hidden]>,

    john said:

    This is what all this "shortage" fuss was all about - it's simply a
    marketing strategy:

    The shortage is no myth -- here in Massachusetts, the state health
    department is down to a couple of thousand doses. The virulence of
    one of this year's flu strains, especially the deaths of those
    children in Colorado, really has scared people.

    I suppose this will boost FluMist sales -- they'll be the only game in
    town once the injectable doses are all gone.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

  5. [email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    john said:

    This is what all this "shortage" fuss was all about - it's simply a
    marketing strategy:

    The shortage is no myth -- here in Massachusetts, the state health
    department is down to a couple of thousand doses. The virulence of
    one of this year's flu strains, especially the deaths of those
    children in Colorado, really has scared people.

    Someone at work had a 5 year old niece that died from it this morning.

  6. (Eric Witte) said:

    Someone at work had a 5 year old niece that died from it this morning.

    I'm sure John will tell us the child died of toxic vaccines since we all
    know influenza, tetanus, polio, and diphtheria are really just mild
    illnesses that never actually kill anyone.

  7. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Carey Gregory said:
    (Eric Witte) said:

    Someone at work had a 5 year old niece that died from it this morning.

    I'm sure John will tell us the child died of toxic vaccines since we all
    know influenza, tetanus, polio, and diphtheria are really just mild
    illnesses that never actually kill anyone.

    Measles, too. Don't forget measles. After all, John gave measles to
    his entire school, and nobody died, so we know it's harmless.

    A pity the kids didn't treat John to a blanket party -- or maybe they
    did; it would explain his brain damage.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

  8. Quoted message said:
    (Eric Witte) said:

    Someone at work had a 5 year old niece that died from it this morning.

    I'm sure John will tell us the child died of toxic vaccines since we all
    know influenza, tetanus, polio, and diphtheria are really just mild
    illnesses that never actually kill anyone.

    I'm equally certain Anth will have another flippant comment to make...

  9. Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all stopped.
    people developed natural immunities. Oh yeah...we didn't have autism or aids
    either and asthma was next to unheard of.

    "Carey Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    (Eric Witte) said:

    Someone at work had a 5 year old niece that died from it this morning.

    I'm sure John will tell us the child died of toxic vaccines since we all
    know influenza, tetanus, polio, and diphtheria are really just mild
    illnesses that never actually kill anyone.

  10. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Flu Vaccine's Strength Worries Experts
    From: Carey Gregory [email hidden]
    Date: 12/10/03 4:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    I'm sure John will tell us the child died of toxic vaccines since we all
    know influenza, tetanus, polio, and diphtheria are really just mild
    illnesses that never actually kill anyone.

    The only potentially fatal disease you listed is diptheria and then only if you
    allow the false membrane to form.

    However, in the hands of an allopath having a "black bag" full of poisons, all
    of the above dis-eases can become fatal.

    Dr. C. PhD.

  11. In article <[email hidden]>,

    DRCEEPHD said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Flu Vaccine's Strength Worries Experts
    From: Carey Gregory [email hidden]
    Date: 12/10/03 4:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    I'm sure John will tell us the child died of toxic vaccines since we all
    know influenza, tetanus, polio, and diphtheria are really just mild
    illnesses that never actually kill anyone.

    The only potentially fatal disease you listed is diptheria and then
    only if you allow the false membrane to form.

    You have to be one of the most staggeringly ignorant people on this
    newsgroup, which is really saying something. Influenza not
    potentially fatal? You ever heard of the epidemic of 1918-1919? Not
    all of the fatalities were treated by doctors, Chuck, you moron. And
    tetanus is frequently fatal. Polio usually isn't, but can be.

    Quoted message said:

    However, in the hands of an allopath having a "black bag" full of poisons, all
    of the above dis-eases can become fatal.

    not-really-a-Dr. C. PhD.

    Give it up, Chuck. You keep hitting new lows just when I think that's
    impossible.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

  12. Gymmy Bob said:

    Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all stopped.

    When do you think all this stopped, Bob? Better yet, what makes you think
    it has?

    Quoted message said:

    people developed natural immunities. Oh yeah...we didn't have autism or aids
    either and asthma was next to unheard of.

    Millions of years of evolution and natural immunity appears suddenly in the
    span of a hundred years.... Surprising, isn't it? Even more surprising is
    that only people in relatively wealthy countries developed this natural
    immunity.

    As for autism and asthma, what makes you think these are new?

  13. "Gymmy Bob" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all stopped.

    It didn't stop. There are many places in the world where this is status
    quo. Didn't know that, did you?

    le moo

  14. "Carey Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Gymmy Bob said:

    Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all


    stopped.

    Quoted message said:


    When do you think all this stopped, Bob? Better yet, what makes you think
    it has?

    Why do you assume he thinks?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    people developed natural immunities. Oh yeah...we didn't have autism or


    aids

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    either and asthma was next to unheard of.

    Millions of years of evolution and natural immunity appears suddenly in


    the

    Quoted message said:

    span of a hundred years.... Surprising, isn't it? Even more surprising


    is

    Quoted message said:

    that only people in relatively wealthy countries developed this natural
    immunity.

    If it were caused by natural selection, wouldn't it have been more likely to
    occur in those countries without vaccines?

    Quoted message said:

    As for autism and asthma, what makes you think these are new?

  15. Souless Reprobate & Steaming Bag of Feces said:

    Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all stopped.
    people developed natural immunities. Oh yeah...we didn't have autism or aids
    either and asthma was next to unheard of.

    The Chinese have had a term for Asthma, Xiao Chaun, for over 1000 years.
    Autism, a form of Dian Quan (withdrawal), dates back at least that far.

    Gymmie [censored], why must you _Always_ try to turn out Health Alternatives
    Newsgroup into a House of Lies???????

  16. It stopped when we became more medically literate. We stopped locking people
    in hot rooms when they had a fever and started controlling it with natural
    things like ice. We have anti-biotics that can wipe out a bacterial
    infection and save many children from pnuemonia deaths. Doctors stopped
    drilling hole in people's head to let out the evil spirits and we stopped
    believing in witches and burning them for religious gain.

    It stopped when we produced refrigeration that everybody can afford.

    "Carey Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Gymmy Bob said:

    Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all


    stopped.

    Quoted message said:


    When do you think all this stopped, Bob? Better yet, what makes you think
    it has?

    Quoted message said:

    people developed natural immunities. Oh yeah...we didn't have autism or


    aids

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    either and asthma was next to unheard of.

    Millions of years of evolution and natural immunity appears suddenly in


    the

    Quoted message said:

    span of a hundred years.... Surprising, isn't it? Even more surprising


    is

    Quoted message said:

    that only people in relatively wealthy countries developed this natural
    immunity.

    As for autism and asthma, what makes you think these are new?

  17. Gymmy Bob said:

    It stopped when we became more medically literate. We stopped locking people
    in hot rooms when they had a fever and started controlling it with natural
    things like ice.

    Huh? What period of history are you imagining? No need to be specific --
    plus or minus a few hundred years will do.

    Quoted message said:

    It stopped when we produced refrigeration that everybody can afford.

    No it didn't.

    Do you find that relevant?

  18. "Gymmy Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all stopped.
    people developed natural immunities. Oh yeah...we didn't have autism or aids
    either and asthma was next to unheard of.

    "Carey Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Thank God for killfiles, it sure makes for better reading when you
    can't even see pHARMa agents like this idiot "Carey Gregory" and Putz,
    Wright etc. Arguing with pharma politicians can be educational but
    when you have kicked their arguments into the stands one by one you
    need to make them vanish

  19. In article <[email hidden]>,

    john said:

    "Gymmy Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Years ago over half the children born did not make it to ten years old.
    Vaccines for most of these diseases were not around when this all stopped.
    people developed natural immunities. Oh yeah...we didn't have autism or aids
    either and asthma was next to unheard of.

    "Carey Gregory" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    Thank God for killfiles, it sure makes for better reading when you
    can't even see pHARMa agents like this idiot "Carey Gregory" and Putz,
    Wright etc. Arguing with pharma politicians can be educational but
    when you have kicked their arguments into the stands one by one you
    need to make them vanish

    It's a measure of John's lunacy that he thinks he's ever kicked
    anyone's arguments "into the stands." All he's able to do is post
    articles he doesn't understand, written by people who are better
    liars than he is.

    He's not kidding about his joy in killfiles, though. It keeps him
    from having to read refutations of the lame-o articles he posts.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

  20. (David Wright) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    john said:
    Quoted message said:


    Thank God for killfiles, it sure makes for better reading when you
    can't even see pHARMa agents like this idiot "Carey Gregory" and Putz,
    Wright etc. Arguing with pharma politicians can be educational but
    when you have kicked their arguments into the stands one by one you
    need to make them vanish

    It's a measure of John's lunacy that he thinks he's ever kicked
    anyone's arguments "into the stands." All he's able to do is post
    articles he doesn't understand, written by people who are better
    liars than he is.

    He's not kidding about his joy in killfiles, though. It keeps him
    from having to read refutations of the lame-o articles he posts.

    And we all know Johnny doesn't actually killfile anyone. He loves himself
    and his own posts so much he couldn't bear to miss what anyone has to say
    about him.

    But what I want to know is how come I get quotes around my name and you
    don't? I guess he's trying to suggest that's not my real name, which is
    kind of amusing considering that I've been openly posting under my own name
    since the mid-1990s, I'm listed in whois records, assorted other web sites,
    directories, etc. I'm so damn identifiable it's ridiculous. So how come he
    doesn't think your name is bogus? What's your secret?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.