OT-Influenza

[cdexchange]

As a pre-PA student who is currently taking Microbiology, I just want to say that this thread is awesome and I appreciate everyone's contributions.

 

I also think that it is absolutely hilarious that Jenny McCarthy presumably sees no irony in being both the de-facto leader of the anti-vax crowd due to the supposed health risks, while at the same time pimping these new e-cigs because of course we can all just trust that the manufacturers would never put any toxic chemicals into them. :lol:

 

[Claude_Verret]

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

 

When it comes to cancer research I don't either, bio could probably chime in on that. I've got a stack of virology and microbiology papers three feet high on my desk, so I don't have time to read much other stuff. I was just making an educated guess based on GoDD's misguidance when it comes to influenza, but who knows maybe he subscribes to Nature and PNAS but just skips the virology content.

[MattPie]

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.

 

Just make sure it isn't an LG TV, otherwise it'll be sending your viewing habits and filenames from local and you network storage to the LG mothership to be sold to the highest any bidder.

http://www.amazon.com/FIGURE-FAMILY-Delicious-Nobody-Sticker/dp/B00EI6CKVE/ref=sr_1_5?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1385137846&sr=1-5

[biodork]

When it comes to cancer research I don't either, bio could probably chime in on that. I've got a stack of virology and microbiology papers three feet high on my desk, so I don't have time to read much other stuff. I was just making an educated guess based on GoDD's misguidance when it comes to influenza, but who knows maybe he subscribes to Nature and PNAS but just skips the virology content.

 

Actually our work had more to do with genetic variations in vitamin D metabolism that may influence cancer risk, so unfortunately I'm equally unfamiliar with the scientific literature on estrogens in cancer.

 

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?

 

Sending well-wishes for a full recovery by both you and your daughter.

[LTS]

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.

 

So, my response here is definitely not based in any proof but more from exploratory questioning.

 

1. Could your insurer offer no-charge flu shots as part of their package for perhaps some preferential government treatment in other areas? In the same vein, insurers offer free routine checkups (physicals, etc.). It sounds well and good and there's no doubt that preventative medicine can reduce overall medical costs by catching situations early, but it also allows them to catch situations early and thus drive more revenue.

 

2. Pharma profits by selling drugs, period. The question is.. which drugs pay more? So, keeping a person out of the hospital for the flu does not keep them out of the hospital for other reasons. If a bed is occupied for the flu it might not drive the same revenue that another illness would. The same question for favoritism also applies here as well. I'll discount the flu vaccine if you just don't look to closely at my trials for this other drug.

 

3. Doctors are overbooked. Again, I don't believe the flu is going to drive much office revenue. I would think they want other people in there.

 

Now, I think that's pretty narrow minded question wise. I know the economics and politics of medicine are far reaching. This is what makes a discussion on escalating health care costs so difficult. There are a lot of factors and it's easy to just narrowly focus on one and say "That;s it!".

 

Again.. there are definite profit motives. We've seen some intricate corporate scandals and I'm assuming pharma is no different. It's happened in health care. How widespread is it? Hard to say at this point.. I'd like to think it's rare but given the amount of behind the scenes stuff that is coming out these days the less I have faith in myself to believe that.

[JJFIVEOH]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

Funny, I gave you everything you wanted to continue a civilized discussion, not only did you not address I anything I responded with but you continue with the attacks. You could have just told me yesterday that I was wasting my time.

 

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.

 

Distorted? Are you really going to tell me that 1:420 is distorting the 1:500 numbers you posted? Did you not see me say that my numbers were rounded based on what I've heard over time? Considering that was off the top of my head, I thought that was pretty damn close.

 

I'll file you along with Claude in the 'completely ignoring the point while attacking the messenger' file. Try addressing the meat of my post instead of grasping at straws.

[biodork]

I think it's absolutely fair to realize that pharmaceutical companies are for-profit institutions, but from my understanding (and I think Claude might've already mentioned this) the flu shot does not generate much revenue for them. Unfortunately that means there's little incentive on their part to invest in developing additional vaccines and antivirals like Tamiflu, and we have the same problem with new antibiotics because they cost a lot of time and money to develop but don't generate much revenue to cover those costs. So maybe insurance companies, hospitals, etc need to push for vaccinations to ensure there is enough of a market for the companies to continue investing in those products? I'm just guessing here, and even though it's a back-asswards way to go about it, it's a real problem.

[Claude_Verret]

Funny, I gave you everything you wanted to continue a civilized discussion, not only did you not address I anything I responded with but you continue with the attacks. You could have just told me yesterday that I was wasting my time.

 

Did you read the paper I linked about the economics of influenza vaccination? That was an even handed review that touches on most everything you linked to. Just because vaccine companies make a profit (that their shareholders demand) doesn't automatically disqualify it as a good public health policy.

[JJFIVEOH]

I think it's absolutely fair to realize that pharmaceutical companies are for-profit institutions, but from my understanding (and I think Claude might've already mentioned this) the flu shot does not generate much revenue for them. Unfortunately that means there's little incentive on their part to invest in developing additional vaccines and antivirals like Tamiflu, and we have the same problem with new antibiotics because they cost a lot of time and money to develop but don't generate much revenue to cover those costs. So maybe insurance companies, hospitals, etc need to push for vaccinations to ensure there is enough of a market for the companies to continue investing in those products? I'm just guessing here, and even though it's a back-asswards way to go about it, it's a real problem.

 

I posted about that last page. $3,700,000,000 is pretty significant.

 

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

[biodork]

I posted about that last page. $3,700,000,000 is pretty significant.

 

http://www.reuters.c...E98I0M720130919

 

It might be the antiviral I'm thinking of that has a low-profit margin rather than the shot... or I could be totally off-base.

[Claude_Verret]

I posted about that last page. $3,700,000,000 is pretty significant.

 

http://www.reuters.c...E98I0M720130919

 

1.) That article is from September so those are estimates/projections for this flu season that we are currently still in.

 

2.) it's largely based on the introduction of a new quadrivalent vaccine, which of course costs more to produce than the traditional trivalent vaccine.

 

3.) Since they estimate the number of doses, we won't know what profits they made until the season is over, because they may have to eat some costs if doses go unused.

 

4.) From the article you linked,

 

It should help a business with a patchy profit record.

 

Although drugmakers benefit when there is a flu pandemic like the 2009/10 outbreak of H1N1 swine flu - returns from non-pandemic seasonal vaccines have been falling, particularly in Europe.

 

edit: 5) that number is for global influenza vaccine revenues, not profit.

[cdexchange]

Also, without the profit motive for these drug companies, almost none of these drugs or medical treatments would even exist and the average human would live to a ripe old age of about 30 if they're lucky. No thanks.

[That Aud Smell]

Distorted? Are you really going to tell me that 1:420 is distorting the 1:500 numbers you posted? Did you not see me say that my numbers were rounded based on what I've heard over time?Considering that was off the top of my head, I thought that was pretty damn close.

The issue was not the 500 versus 420. I said "distortion" because you posited initially - in your "the numbers don't add up" post - that there were claims from shot-proponents that the flu shots save 1 out of 500 (420) lives when it comes to children. That is simply an inaccurate statement of what the statistic is and a complete distortion of what it's intended to signify. Epidemiologists have published papers that say (I will try to get this right), for every 500 (or 420) children who are immunized, 1 death is prevented. Again: The statistic is not, as you stated, that 1 out of 500 kids' lives are saved by virtue of the shots. No one is claiming that, except you. I've concluded that you are not grasping the epidemiological implications of the statistic, when accurately iterated.

 

And did you read the link to the abstract that I sent you regarding the 420 number? To wit:

 

The excess mortality from pneumonia and influenza and that from all causes were highly correlated in each country. In the United States, these rates were nearly constant over time. With the initiation of the vaccination program for schoolchildren in Japan, excess mortality rates dropped from values three to four times those in the United States to values similar to those in the United States. The vaccination of Japanese children prevented about 37,000 to 49,000 deaths per year, or about 1 death for every 420 children vaccinated. As the vaccination of schoolchildren was discontinued, the excess mortality rates in Japan increased.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The effect of influenza on mortality is much greater in Japan than in the United States and can be measured about equally well in terms of deaths from all causes and deaths attributed to pneumonia or influenza. Vaccinating schoolchildren against influenza provides protection and reduces mortality from influenza among older persons.

 

I posted about that last page. $3,700,000,000 is pretty significant.

 

Pretty significant to whom? To you? Or to the senior officers of Pfizer, Novartis, etc.? What's the net operating profit margin on that figure? And how does that number contribute to overall net revenue?I also trust you've not reviewed the minutes of the 2011 GSK board meeting where a committee report mentioned that vaccinations are a fading revenue engine, but that they continue to be an important product line because they engender goodwill and are an important part of the company's contribution to the greater good of the markets they serve.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

When it comes to cancer research I don't either, bio could probably chime in on that. I've got a stack of virology and microbiology papers three feet high on my desk, so I don't have time to read much other stuff. I was just making an educated guess based on GoDD's misguidance when it comes to influenza, but who knows maybe he subscribes to Nature and PNAS but just skips the virology content.

 

No, actually have had it multiple times and was a once in a lifetime case for having to be treated because of the variables. Have been treated at 2 major cancer centers in the country, and the second time around, had suggested my plan of action given all the variables and risk/reward factors. I actually brought up statistics and factors that the team didn't know, and the lead doctor who is on the board that sets the guidelines on treatment for the NCCN ended up going with my plan after consulting multiple institutions and the most respected doctor in the world on the matter.

 

I am not nearly as versed in influenza. As I have said though, I have seen someone comprised, close to me, go down the crapper because of the shot. The medical community is also at odds about the potential benefit. People I trust and know go both ways on it. Nature eventually always wins. The more you try to fortify things, the craftier she gets.

 

I am not saying not to get the shot and am not disrespecting your field or research. Just personally it isn't a slam dunk to me.

[Claude_Verret]

I've been getting more reports here in NC in recent weeks about flu infecting and killing a disproportionate number of healthy young adults. A colleague forwarded this sad story to me this morning. We are at or near peak flu season so be vigilant..cover your cough with a tissue or sleeve and wash hands frequently.

 

Healthy Texas Mom Dies of Flu at 29.

 

and this isn't meant to open up the vaccination debate once again, just a PSA that everyone can take steps to prevent getting flu whether you've received the shot or not.

[biodork]

That's so sad! :(

[SarasotaSabre]

The flu shot is not free. You might not have any out of pocket, but trust the pharmas have cost to study, manufacture, and distribute, and health care providers have cost to inventory and administer it, and none are performing those services under "good will". Most of the associated revenue is likely either buried in government subsidy or removed from individual wallets via health insurance. Either way, it costs you. Good marketing by the pharmas, but the primary driver is the media who tee it up every year with their "shortage!" story and "it's been a predicted bad season!". Fear me!

 

A bit of conspiracy theory in play here .....If I have to pay $25 (which I don't have to ) it is a small price to pay to avoid the flu. My wife and I did not get flu shots this year, out of sheer laziness (and I should, because I don't have a spleen and I am more susceptible to getting sick)....I did not get the flu this year, but she did.....BIG TIME; 2 strains at once, including H1N1, plus pneumonia & an acute bronchial infection.

 

I just don't agree that this is a big pharma/media scare tactic. This shot might have helped my wife this year, and based on how I have seen her suffer, I can tell you I don't need the mass media to scare me into getting a flu shot.