Posted: October 19 2009 at 6:56pm | IP Logged

H1N1 Flu Shot: 3 Major Fears Debunked

Asia Johnson, 6, of Boston, receives an intranasal H1N1 vaccine at the primary care clinic at Children's Hospital Boston.
Photo: AP Photo/Lisa Poole

An Epidemic of Fear

How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

The Misinformants: Prominent Voices in the Anti-Vaccine Crusade

How to Win an Argument About Vaccines

What’s the Real Story on the Vaccine Debate? Learn More

It’s no surprise that the latest vogue in antivaccine demagoguery centers on the new H1N1 flu vaccine. Attacks on the vaccine boil down to three major arguments, each playing on different fears. These arguments may seem persuasive on the surface, but they’re not supported by the science.

The first major fear is that flu shots might actually give people the flu. In the case of H1N1, the concern is primarily with the nasal spray variation, which is made with live virus. (The injected vaccine uses dead virus.)

Even health care workers are falling for the pseudoscience behind this myth. A group of doctors and nurses in New York recently filed a federal restraining order to block administration of the vaccine — citing a fear that it could cause an H1N1 outbreak.

Though “live virus” sounds alarming, the fact is that the viruses are weakened to such an extent that they cannot grow or propagate at normal body temperature. Once these “cold-adapted” viruses leave the nose and are subjected to the higher temperatures inside the body, they’re goners. The track record speaks for itself: Live-virus nasal sprays have been widely used for flu vaccination in the US since 2003 — without incident.

Finally, the CDC estimates that the risk of someone who receives the live spray passing the virus to someone else is negligible — between 0.6 and 2.4 percent. And in any case, if the weakened virus is transmitted, it will not grow and propagate in the new host. They may inhale the virus, but they won’t become sick.

The second common concern about flu vaccine dates from a 1976 effort to vaccinate the American public against swine flu — though there was no pandemic at the time. More than 40 million people were vaccinated; of those, roughly 500 developed a potentially serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome. The fear is that another swine flu effort will bring another rash of GBS.

In fact, a 2003 Institute of Medicine study concluded that there may indeed have been a causal relationship between the vaccine and contraction of the disorder. However, vaccine production technology has changed significantly in the past 30 years; the IOM found no evidence that modern vaccines cause GBS. Also, the current H1N1 strain is not the same as the 1976 strain, and the vaccine is therefore different. (The CDC says it’s unlikely that anyone vaccinated in the late ’70s will be protected against the modern H1N1 strain.)

It’s also important to keep those numbers in perspective. Even if all 500 cases of GBS in 1976 were caused by flu vaccination, the incidence of the side effect was minuscule. Among those who received the vaccine, roughly 1 in 80,000 developed GBS. You’re at higher risk of being struck and killed by lightning (1 in 79,000).

The third and most frequently cited concern regarding the modern H1N1 vaccine is that it hasn’t been adequately tested and therefore can’t be considered safe. First, it should be noted that drug companies have been developing and administering flu vaccines for decades with very few side effects other then the occasional stuffy nose or mild allergic reaction. The H1N1 vaccine is made by the same manufacturers, employing the same methods they use to make flu shots and nasal sprays every year.

Second, the National Institute of Health has been conducting clinical trials of the vaccine since July, and early data indicate that the vaccine is well tolerated. Additionally, at least 44,000 people have already been vaccinated in China with reports of only 14 adverse cases — and it’s not certain that those adverse outcomes are even linked to the vaccine.

What is certain is that deaths from H1N1 infection are on the rise. According to the CDC, almost all diagnosed influenza cases in the US so far this year are from H1N1. So far, more than 40,000 confirmed and probable cases have been identified, 5,011 people have been hospitalized, and 302 people have died. The flu has become so widespread that the CDC has stopped counting individual cases.

Though it’s true that no vaccine is 100 percent effective, vaccination significantly reduces the odds of contracting influenza. A study of children aged 15 months to seven years found that the standard nasal flu spray reduced their chance of getting sick by 92 percent. In studies among people younger then 65, the standard flu shot was found to prevent the disease in 70 to 90 percent of cases.

Of course, the flu vaccination isn’t mandatory. Everyone has to decide for themself whether or not to get an H1N1 vaccine. But vaccination is our best, and safest, line of defense.

Posted: October 19 2009 at 8:00pm | IP Logged

The only thing I"m going to say is that if the PACKAGE INSERT that the vaccine manufacturer includes with the vaccine says that it can cause Guillain-Barr and other neurological disorders, then they will.  The Gardasil vaccine alone is causing cases of GB syndrome at an astonishing rate.  The vaccine insert that comes with the flu mist states that the virus will SHED and the vaccinated individual will be contagious after receiving it.  There was also a study done in Canada, a bona fide, peer reviewed study that showed that people who were vaccinated for the seasonal flu were more likely to get the H1N1 virus.  The CDC released information earlier this year or late last year that children who received the seasonal flu shot were more likely to be hospitalized with the flu than children who had not.

The article you posted is clearly propaganda designed to get as many people as possible to take the flu shot.  WHY? Well, we can all have our opinions on that. 

Let me ask you something, Autti?  Are you on a mission to see more children suffer adverse reactions to vaccines?  Because I think you forget that alot of the children here HAVE suffered regressions after vaccines, and had adverse reactions to them yet you do EVERYTHING you can to urge people to vaccinate their children and potentially damage them further...WHY?  Are you on the payroll of a pharmaceutical company?  That's the only reason I could figure that you would read statements from parents that their children had reactions to vaccines, and NOT LET IT REST.  You continue to push it.

Taken straight from the CDC- people who SHOULD NOT get the flu mist:

BTW- this link was courtesy of the article that YOU posted.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm

Who should not be vaccinated with the nasal-spray flu vaccine LAIV (FluMist®)?

• People less than 2 years of age
• People 50 years of age and over
• People with a medical condition that places them at high risk for complications from influenza, including those with chronic heart or lung disease, such as asthma or reactive airways disease; people with medical conditions such as diabetes or kidney failure; or people with illnesses that weaken the immune system, or who take medications that can weaken the immune system.
• Children <5 years old with a history of recurrent wheezing
• Children or adolescents receiving aspirin
• People with a history of Guillain–Barré Syndrome that occurred after receiving influenza vaccine
• Pregnant women
• People who have a severe allergy to chicken eggs or who are allergic to any of the nasal spray vaccine components.

Should the nasal-spray flu vaccine LAIV (FluMist®) be given to patients with chronic diseases other than those specifically listed above?

No. The nasal-spray flu vaccine is approved for use only in healthy* people 2-49 years of age who are not pregnant.

My, my, my...would you look at that?  The information from the CDC that your article linked to specifically says that people with asthma, diabetes, children with wheezing (likely caused by asthma) pregnant women, anyone with a compromised immune system or who is NOT HEALTHY, should not get the vaccine. 

If the flu vaccine doesn't cause GBS, then why, oh why, does it state that you should not get it if you've ever contracted GBS from the flu vaccine?

And why, for God's sake, are they on the news constantly and posting all over the net that the people who should be first in line to get vaccinated (kids with health problems, asthma, pregnant women, etc.) when they have clearly stated that these are the people who SHOULD NOT get vaccinated? 

Something to think about, huh?  If you actually READ the inserts that come with the flu vaccines, most people will see that they shouldn't get it at the direction of the manufacturer and the CDC.  What's going on here?

Posted: October 19 2009 at 9:13pm | IP Logged

Wow, I think your being pretty hard on Autti, she is trying to help people who may be interested in info on the vaccine. When people post information I think it is with the best of intentions and look at it in a positive way, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't reply to many topics, I try really hard to keep things positive, but when I read this I was surprised at how harsh your reply was toward Autti...most people here seem really supportive, and I thought that was the whole point of these boards...

Posted: October 20 2009 at 6:51am | IP Logged

Unfortunately, the anti-vax crowd is just as manic as the let's vaccinate everyone for everything no matter what crowd; and there's a lot of disinformation and misinformation out there.  The only reason they discourage the flu-mist for the group mentioned above is that this is a LIVE virus (attenuated, yes, but still live).  Those who have immunity issues or previous medical issues should not have any vaccination that contains a live virus.

The reference to GBS is a nod to the anti-vax group.  They don't have a clue which component of the flu vaccine actually caused the GBS outbreak in the 70s, but they believe it was more likely due to the adjuvant (which the US flu vaccine no longer contains, but others do).  There's another group that thinks it was the actual viral component; and another that believes it was mercury-related.  Still others feel there was some underlying health condition.  Make your own decisions based on your child's specific situation. 

You and your child have a higher likelihood of injury in the bathtub or crossing the road; but that's a rather limited statistical perspective.  Speak to your doctors.  If the benefits outweigh the risks, do it.  If not, think twice.

GMom's point is very valid, however.  This is a supportive network.  All points of view should be welcome (pro vax, middle of the roaders, anti-vax).

Posted: October 20 2009 at 8:18am | IP Logged

i have top nuro in thr country they have debunk the vaction thing ,i just post new info i get from other autism site were i guss those people are more into everyone info ,autism has been around  along time .it not new .alot of my friends that i gre up with that have kids have kids now with autism or ld it more gentic ..