OT-Influenza

[Wyldnwoody44]

 

 

No, our stuff is more a mix of basic and translational research (no clinical studies). We're looking at the differences in T-cell immune responses in allergic vs non-allergic people to allergic and inflammatory stimuli to try and find therapeutic targets.

 

I dabble a bit in allergy/immunology, but more on the medical side of things, any interesting findings in the inflammatory cascade in allergic people?

[biodork]

I dabble a bit in allergy/immunology, but more on the medical side of things, any interesting findings in the inflammatory cascade in allergic people?

 

Still pretty early stages of the research, so for now it's just been confirming that we're getting the expected Th2 immune response to the allergen by cytokine expression and then doing microRNA profiling to look for potential targets that are dysregulated. Once we have some targets we can start testing what they do and whether they're useful in diagnosis and/or trearment.

[Wyldnwoody44]

 

 

Still pretty early stages of the research, so for now it's just been confirming that we're getting the expected Th2 immune response to the allergen by cytokine exp<b></b>ression and then doing microRNA profiling to look for potential targets that are dysregulated. Once we have some targets we can start testing what they do and whether they're useful in diagnosis and/or trearment.

That's some pretty cool stuff.... It's better to be behind the scenes doing that stuff, some days patients drive me to the brink and I wish I was in research lol... Where is the lab that you work out of?

[biodork]

 

That's some pretty cool stuff.... It's better to be behind the scenes doing that stuff, some days patients drive me to the brink and I wish I was in research lol... Where is the lab that you work out of?

 

Sent you a PM since I kinda hijacked Ink's thread (oops). :)

[Eleven]

If you say so. Nowhere did I say they weren't beneficial. I've said that it is completely blown out of proportion for the sake of profitability.

 

I feel sorry for you, I really do. Stop looking down your nose and consider others' inputs, it makes for a much better discussion. And you might learn something.

 

I don't know who is profiting. I know that my health insurer didn't even require a co-pay for me to get a flu shot (it requires co-pays for EVERYTHING), which leads me to think that my insurer has a profit motive in preventing me from getting the flu, rather than in supporting the pharma industry (which it routinely avoids, like most insurance companies, by requiring generics). Maybe Pharma is profiting--but wait...

 

Wouldn't Big Pharma profit more if fewer people got flu shots and needed even MORE expensive drugs while in the hospital? Oh--and that hospital, and the doctors affiliated with it--wouldn't they profit more with more in-patients? Even the out-patients, their doctors profit more by having them come in for a number of flu appointments than they do by giving a scrip for one shot.

 

So the profiteering angle doesn't work for me.

[JJFIVEOH]

90% of flu deaths are by those over 65.

 

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features/top-13-flu-myths?page=2

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

 

Those over 65% make up 12.8% of the US population.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

 

317,000,000 people in the US. 40,576,000 are 65 and over.

 

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

 

Since 1976, the Center for Disease Control states the number of flu related deaths was 3,000 at it's lowest and 49,000 at it's highest.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm#how-many-die

 

Which means 384-6,272 people have died per year under 65 years old. If you're under 65 you have a 1:44,073 chance of dying from the flu this year (that is based on the HIGHEST estimate from the last 37 years.). Not to leave the elderly out in the cold, even when they are included in the statistics, death from the effects of the flu barely ranks in the top 10. I would venture to guess that most die because they didn't properly treat themselves while sick.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf

 

Per the National Vaccine Information Center "Effectiveness of Flu Vaccine Raises More Red Flags"

 

In particular: "However, the growing number of studies showing low overall effectiveness, waning immunity and a negative effect of prior-year vaccination cast doubt on influenza vaccine policies and strategies, especially when influenza vaccinations now are being required as a condition of employment for health care workers."

 

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx

 

I know, according to you everybody is in it for the good of the people. They're in it to make sure you're safe, there is no ulterior motive even though any other corporation jumps at every opportunity to make a buck. But those profits sure seem to be pretty damn high. $3.7 BILLION

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-flu-vaccines-idUSBRE98I0M720130919

 

Which leads to my point that scare tactics whip everybody up into a flu epedemic frenzy.

 

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2013/expert-says-influenza-vaccine-marketing-misleads.aspx

 

Since you said my numbers were 'random', I believe I'v already covered the 'deaths per year' number I posted. That one was accurate. I mentioned that two thirds of Americans don't get a flu shot. That appears to be accurate as well. I'd like to know what has been 'random' about everything I've posted.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/12/why-64-8-percent-of-americans-didnt-get-a-flu-shot/

 

Oh, here's another one for your entertainment. Apparently the US isn't the only place where it's sensationalized.

 

"Michael Osterholm, director of CIDRAP and professor of Environmental Health Sciences, said: “I have been a strong proponent of vaccination in general and flu vaccine in particular for many years. I still recommend its use as the best we have. But we have over-promoted this vaccine. For certain age groups in some years its effectiveness has been severely limited relative to what has been previously reported.”

 

Tom Jefferson, an author of the Cochrane reviews, said: “We have conducted four reviews since the late 1990s. We calculated that you need to vaccinate between 33 and 99 people to prevent one case of flu, depending on the match between the vaccine and the circulating strains of the virus. I want people held accountable for wasting taxpayer’s money on these vaccines. The reviews have been available for years and nothing has been done.”

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/scientists-urge-ministers-tell-truth-on-overhyped-flu-vaccine-8336184.html

 

I've got better things to do with my time, Claude, or else I'd post more. I'm questioning why I went through the trouble in the first place. I hope this is to your satisfaction, I'm sorry you can't take my word for it. You might work in the biomedical field, your knowledge of the field isn't in question. However, neither is the science itself. What is in question are the motives. If you can't figure it out from the level of manipulation towards an easily duped public in comparison to the actual minute risks involved........... I don't know what to tell you.

 

Still interested in that swampland?

[Eleven]

https://en.wikipedia...ormation_Center

 

Look, I think Jenny McCarthy is hot, too, but I was ordered to get a flu vaccine by the oncologist for someone for whom I care. That doctor, by the way, had no financial interest in me getting a flu shot. To the contrary, his financial interest would be in someone getting sicker.

 

It was my first flu shot in about forever, because previously I not only thought it was a sham, but, also, I (mistakenly) thought that it would give me a "slight flu." (That didn't happen.)

 

The posters above have convinced me to do it again in the future because of the crowd immunity thing.

[JJFIVEOH]

https://en.wikipedia...ormation_Center

 

Look, I think Jenny McCarthy is hot, too, but I was ordered to get a flu vaccine by the oncologist for someone for whom I care. That doctor, by the way, had no financial interest in me getting a flu shot. To the contrary, his financial interest would be in someone getting sicker.

 

It was my first flu shot in about forever, because previously I not only thought it was a sham, but, also, I (mistakenly) thought that it would give me a "slight flu." (That didn't happen.)

 

The posters above have convinced me to do it again in the future because of the crowd immunity thing.

 

Good for you. I'm not one to judge your decision, I'm just presenting the other side. I see no benefit to me, if anything I've read flu shots are known to make people a little tired, nauseous and lethargic for several days. I certainly don't want to feel like that every year, especially when I have only had the flu once in my lifetime. There are many conflicting reports about long term effects to go along with the flu itself. If it were clear cut, the scientific community would be more in agreement. I've got a real problem having a needle stuck in me for 'preventative measures' with a serum that is questionable. In the last month I know four people who went to their doctors for physicals. Two of them their doctors said there is no benefit in getting a shot, the other two were asked by their doctor whether or not they wanted a flu shot while shaking their head 'no'.

 

So many more lives could be saved if all this time, effort and money were put to better use for more preventable deaths.

 

As far as crowd immunity, if people around me cared about my life, they would put down the damn cell phones while driving. Their texting will kill me long before their flu virus will.

[Eleven]

For the record, I've never texted while driving. Don't make me start!

[SwampD]

JJ, it would have taken you less time and effort to just go to your local CVS and get a shot, than it has taken you to defend not getting one in this thread.

[Wyldnwoody44]

For the record, I've never texted while driving. Don't make me start!

Well... That's just simply unamerican

[darksabre]

JJ, it would have taken you less time and effort to just go to your local CVS and get a shot, than it has taken you to defend not getting one in this thread.

 

Obtuse.

[Andrew Amerk]

So, am I supposed to get a flu shot or not?!?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Good for you. I'm not one to judge your decision, I'm just presenting the other side. I see no benefit to me, if anything I've read flu shots are known to make people a little tired, nauseous and lethargic for several days. I certainly don't want to feel like that every year, especially when I have only had the flu once in my lifetime. There are many conflicting reports about long term effects to go along with the flu itself. If it were clear cut, the scientific community would be more in agreement. I've got a real problem having a needle stuck in me for 'preventative measures' with a serum that is questionable. In the last month I know four people who went to their doctors for physicals. Two of them their doctors said there is no benefit in getting a shot, the other two were asked by their doctor whether or not they wanted a flu shot while shaking their head 'no'.

 

So many more lives could be saved if all this time, effort and money were put to better use for more preventable deaths.

 

As far as crowd immunity, if people around me cared about my life, they would put down the damn cell phones while driving. Their texting will kill me long before their flu virus will.

 

I am 100% with you on the whole deal. I even was going to post about if you are under 65, you are much more likely to die from a car accident from someone using a cell phone than from the flu.....

 

Nice work on this.

 

I hear both ways from professionals. All I know is that I've seen people go septic, 3 days after getting the shot. F-That!

 

I also don't want to say it's the devil.

[...]

Last year, a little girl at my kids' school died from the flu. I can't imagine how a parent would feel if they placed their conspiracy theories and medical ignorance above the survival of thier children.

 

My allergies compromise my respiratory system and, it seems, I got the flu every couple of years since I moved back north (ages ago, now).

 

In fact, I have missed several Christmas days because of the flu. When you have kids, missing a Christmas sucks.

 

I was one of those who believed that my body was better off without a flu shot and I tend to avoid all medicines when possible. Several years ago, I finally gave into my GP and let him give me a shot. I haven't had the flu since. I could kick myself for not listening sooner.

[JJFIVEOH]

Last year, a little girl at my kids' school died from the flu. I can't imagine how a parent would feel if they placed their conspiracy theories and medical ignorance above the survival of thier children.

 

My allergies compromise my respiratory system and, it seems, I got the flu every couple of years since I moved back north (ages ago, now).

 

In fact, I have missed several Christmas days because of the flu. When you have kids, missing a Christmas sucks.

 

I was one of those who believed that my body was better off without a flu shot and I tend to avoid all medicines when possible. Several years ago, I finally gave into my GP and let him give me a shot. I haven't had the flu since. I could kick myself for not listening sooner.

 

Tell me, what is the conspiracy theory?

[That Aud Smell]

If you're under 65 you have a 1:44,073 chance of dying from the flu this year (that is based on the HIGHEST estimate from the last 37 years.).

 

Since you said my numbers were 'random', I believe I'v already covered the 'deaths per year' number I posted. That one was accurate.

 

In much the same way that you completely distorted the 'flu shots save 1 out of 500 children' figure, your citing of a stat on the chances of dying from the flu misses the point. Badly. That sort of misguided and results-based analysis characterizes your view of this issue (and, I'm betting, other issues).

 

As I said before, I wasn't even sure what your point was. Your point now appears to be that there are dissenters in the field of public health who posit that, while the flu vaccine is among our best means of preventing the spread of the disease, its utility is over-sold.

 

That is a very, very different point than the hand grenade you were rolling down the aisles up thread. I'd love to look at that swampland, assuming your legs aren't too tired from all the walking back you've done. (Ha - a joke.)

 

A deeply and firmly held distrust of the role of profit motive in public health is understandable. I just don't think it bears on flu shot policies -- Eleven covered that quite well.

 

I'm on a mobile, on a bike at the gym - please excuse typos and such.

[North Buffalo]

I don't know who is profiting. I know that my health insurer didn't even require a co-pay for me to get a flu shot (it requires co-pays for EVERYTHING), which leads me to think that my insurer has a profit motive in preventing me from getting the flu, rather than in supporting the pharma industry (which it routinely avoids, like most insurance companies, by requiring generics). Maybe Pharma is profiting--but wait...

 

Wouldn't Big Pharma profit more if fewer people got flu shots and needed even MORE expensive drugs while in the hospital? Oh--and that hospital, and the doctors affiliated with it--wouldn't they profit more with more in-patients? Even the out-patients, their doctors profit more by having them come in for a number of flu appointments than they do by giving a scrip for one shot.

 

So the profiteering angle doesn't work for me.

 

Oh you think too small, though not of the tin foil hat society, and of the economics background, and only recently to the healthcare model on the clinical side, even this is readable.

 

Yes, insurance cos have a motive, but one could argue pharma does too because of the predictability of revenue stream for the flu shot. What I don't know is the input costs in developing flu shots and that maybe where the rub is. I think it was biodork, but it could have been CV or another that mentioned certain strains were untenable for inclusion into the any vaccine. That strikes me as much an economic issue as a biomedical. The cost in research dollars to make those strains useable or others of similar efficacy is got to be the rub. The old cost benefit analysis at work.

 

I do believe that many researchers are hard at work on solving these issues, but just not enough is being done. That being said the U.S. spends more money on healthcare including R&D etc than any country in the world which is why our health care cost are so high and if you can afford it the best in the world.

[superdave]

I had the flu shot this year, and I have been in bed with the flu since Monday. Obviously, the strand I got wasn't on the list covered by my shot. It has been bad. Fever, chills, and sweating profusely for days now. Body aches, intense headache, coughing up stuff from a horror movie, and overall feeling like crap. In 26 years at my job, I haven't missed 4 days sick in a row unless I had surgery.

 

Of course my wife says I don't have the flu since I was vaccinated. I have been quarantined to one of the kids rooms.

[Claude_Verret]

I can't remember if it was in this thread or the other where I stated quite clearly that for normal healthy adults, the flu likely isn't going to kill you. If you don't get the shot (or sometimes even if you do like superdave) then you might get really sick and miss a lot of work, and probably nothing more. If you are healthy and have young children or attend to or an elderly or otherwise immunocompromised family member then you are doing them a tremendous disservice by not getting vaccinated. Flu kills an estimated 30-40,000 people annually and causes hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, lost work time and all the other associated costs. It's not blown out of proportion.

 

Also, the only way someone can go septic from getting a flu shot is if the healthcare worker who administers the shot contaminates the syringe, needle or vial, and they would need to be stupendously incompetent to do that. The shot is sterile. The virus strains in the shot are dead, killed, inactivated, non-infectious, kaput.

 

Here is a well balanced review on Influenza vaccine economics

 

http://www.rti.org/p...neconomics.pdf

 

These companies make decisions about whether to produce for the U.S. influenza vaccine market and how many doses to produce based primarily on profit considerations— whether they can sell influenza vaccine for more than it costs to make it. As one industry informant described, “We are a for-profit, publicly traded company. What I like to tell people is that neither Santa Claus nor UNICEF is listed on the NYSE.”

 

Why this is shocking to anyone, I'm still not sure.

 

One other question everyone who says they have had the flu needs to answer is, did you go to your doctor and get a nasal swab to confirm you actually had influenza? If yes, did they prescribe an antiviral?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Worrying about flu shots as a major priority is like getting excited the Sabres are going to waste 2 years for a 25% chance at Connor McDavid.

 

Let's take on something much more pressing, like the fact estrogen is a main driver in most cancers. There are dozens of artificial estrogen means added to our bodies each day in the food we eat, containers and packaging, etc. However there are no daily occurring artificial means of testosterone to offset.

 

A $0.79 Glad Tupperware container that you put in a microwave next Friday with some leftover turkey in it is a trifecta of cancer causing sources that has a much better chance of killing the average person or making life for them and theirs miserable for years. And don't worry. As you wait for it to heat up, you can check the price of your Dupont stock on you IPhone that you keep in your pocket all day, and it will work even faster because of the wifi beaming through the place, while Uncle JimBob tells you the score of his fantasy football matchup from his laptop and Aunt Ethel watches the DVR recording of the Macey's Day Parade on the 65" LED because she was too busy Thursday morning picking up Gluten Free stuffing in her F350 and getting a flu shot.

[superdave]

I had to get one since I have a daughter who is on a chemo regimen right now and her immunity is compromised. I still got sick, it happens. I would have gotten one anyway and I'll get one next year.

 

I wonder if Jenny McCarthy would like to give it to me?

[wjag]

Worrying about flu shots as a major priority is like getting excited the Sabres are going to waste 2 years for a 25% chance at Connor McDavid.

 

Let's take on something much more pressing, like the fact estrogen is a main driver in most cancers. There are dozens of artificial estrogen means added to our bodies each day in the food we eat, containers and packaging, etc. However there are no daily occurring artificial means of testosterone to offset.

 

A $0.79 Glad Tupperware container that you put in a microwave next Friday with some leftover turkey in it is a trifecta of cancer causing sources that has a much better chance of killing the average person or making life for them and theirs miserable for years. And don't worry. As you wait for it to heat up, you can check the price of your Dupont stock on you IPhone that you keep in your pocket all day, and it will work even faster because of the wifi beaming through the place, while Uncle JimBob tells you the score of his fantasy football matchup from his laptop and Aunt Ethel watches the DVR recording of the Macey's Day Parade on the 65" LED because she was too busy Thursday morning picking up Gluten Free stuffing in her F350 and getting a flu shot.

 

 

Glad to see Ethel upgraded from LCD. Macy's Day parade floats just don't have the same pop on LCD TVs.

[Claude_Verret]

Worrying about flu shots as a major priority is like getting excited the Sabres are going to waste 2 years for a 25% chance at Connor McDavid.

 

Who said anything about it being a major priority for most of us? Much of this debate came about from a lot of the wacko anti vaccine talking points coming up in the thread. If you're healthy and don't get the shot then no big deal, you might get sick (and then wish to God that you had), but odds are (edit: in most flu seasons) you probably won't. But for a shot that is essentially risk free, there is NO HARM in getting one as a healthy adult. That's the point.

 

Let's take on something much more pressing, like the fact estrogen is a main driver in most cancers. There are dozens of artificial estrogen means added to our bodies each day in the food we eat, containers and packaging, etc. However there are no daily occurring artificial means of testosterone to offset.

 

 

A $0.79 Glad Tupperware container that you put in a microwave next Friday with some leftover turkey in it is a trifecta of cancer causing sources that has a much better chance of killing the average person or making life for them and theirs miserable for years. And don't worry. As you wait for it to heat up, you can check the price of your Dupont stock on you IPhone that you keep in your pocket all day, and it will work even faster because of the wifi beaming through the place, while Uncle JimBob tells you the score of his fantasy football matchup from his laptop and Aunt Ethel watches the DVR recording of the Macey's Day Parade on the 65" LED because she was too busy Thursday morning picking up Gluten Free stuffing in her F350 and getting a flu shot.

 

I'm sure that these are attitudes you've arrived at from your extensive review of the scientific literature pertaining to cancer research. <_<

[That Aud Smell]

Let's take on something much more pressing, like the fact estrogen is a main driver in most cancers.

 

from what i read, estrogens are a real issue (and one that doesn't get the attention should (like, say, federal regulation concerning dangerous (if legal) substances)). i also enjoyed the irony of the rant/hypothetical that followed.

 

I'm sure that these are attitudes you've arrived at from your extensive review of the scientific literature pertaining to cancer research. <_<

 

of course, i can't claim that i am reading scientific literature on the subject -- but reputable publications nonetheless.