OT-Influenza

[darksabre]

 

Trolling? :huh:

 

I doubt it. And he's right about big Pharma. C.R.E.A.M., brother.

[Claude_Verret]

Ugggh. i want to call the ignorance unbelievable, except its not.

[LGR4GM]

I doubt it. And he's right about big Pharma. C.R.E.A.M., brother.

Well ya Pharma is in it for the Money... they are a business.

[That Aud Smell]

I doubt it. And he's right about big Pharma. C.R.E.A.M., brother.

Well ya Pharma is in it for the Money... they are a business.

 

big pharma is an absolute behemoth of the markets around the world (free and otherwise). and its members do all sorts of shady stuff - 8-figure dollar settlements seem to be announced on a weekly basis.

 

doesn't change the fact that the PhD-eddie-bauer-outfitted-balding-middle-aged-dad-of-three-lovely-children who lives in greater atlanta and heads up a CDC action team concerning influenza control is dropping real science when he writes a white paper that gets incorporated into federal policy about how everyone needs to be gettin' they flu shots.

 

decrying the science behind the policy of flu shots because big pharma is all about money is ... i dunno. the best i can do is liken it to the people who presumably scoffed at the people/firms that made what was then a small fortune providing the means for efficiently and (more) safely disposing of the bodies of the dead during the black plague (y'know - rather than have the bodies pile up in the streets monty python style and spread more of the disease). good policy, necessary public health intervention -- but, wait, here's the middle age's version of fox mulder to cryptically note that the parish priest's brother is making money hand over fist because he's got the land, wagons, and needed laborers to dig and fill the plague pits.

 

there is nothing new under the sun. nothing.

[LGR4GM]

...see now I had to

 

[SwampD]

Ugggh. i want to call the ignorance unbelievable, except its not.

If it really is just ignorance, then don't you think the CDC or Big Pharma (said with lots of reverb) has a public relations issue? That's on them, not us.

[biodork]

Nobody is in it for your health.

 

Vaccines cause virus to evolve at a more rapid pace.

 

Pharm companies are only in it for the money.

 

I'll pass.

 

NO... just, no.

[inkman]

I doubt it. And he's right about big Pharma. C.R.E.A.M., brother.

Dolla dolla bills yall

[Claude_Verret]

If it really is just ignorance, then don't you think the CDC or Big Pharma (said with lots of reverb) has a public relations issue? That's on them, not us.

 

If you go to the CDC Flu website it is all laid out there pretty clearly in layman's terms.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/index.htm

 

As far as BIg Phrama is concerned, vaccines in general are nowhere near the money makers that drugs are for them. If you understood what goes into making the vaccine every year in terms of short time lines, sunk costs, having to estimate how many people will actually get the vaccine, and facing the prospect of having to eat the cost on millions of doses if estimates are incorrect, then you might begin to get an understanding of what truly goes on.

 

But really, this discussion can't go much further than it has gone without people having a basic understanding of immunology/ virology. Without that we will just continue to talk past each other.

[LTS]

Ugggh. i want to call the ignorance unbelievable, except its not.

 

Which ignorance though? I think there are some misguided statements but there are absolutely noted instances of pharma cutting corners, shading the truth, buying people off, etc. It's a huge deal. They spend billions on R&D and if a drug fails on the market or is not approved by the FDA the stock goes into the toilet. It's a huge risk. They do their best to insulate against it. Perhaps even worse in the medical device industry however.

 

Of course this doesn't always happen but it's like any other business. I know for a fact that doctors can play a significant part in the deal as well. I've watched more doctors be whisked away on a two week trip to Italy for a "product review" than one could believe.

 

Even with an emphasis now on conflict of interest it still happens. During an evaluation of systems in response to an RFP we engaged in site visits. Site visits that included all-expense paid airfare, limo travel, high end restaurants, etc. It amazed me how self-indulgent the doctors could be on those trips. Knowing that those same doctors wouldn't spend $99 to upgrade their own phone but would gladly choose a $900 bottle of wine from the wine list.

 

As far as ignorance around vaccines? I think there are anecdotal situations that panic people. The problem is that many people panic over possibility and not probability.

 

 

But really, this discussion can't go much further than it has gone without people having a basic understanding of immunology/ virology. Without that we will just continue to talk past each other.

 

It's OT thread.. you should share knowledge. My experiences come from where I was. I wouldn't mind hearing about other experiences from elsewhere.

[Claude_Verret]

It's OT thread.. you should share knowledge. My experiences come from where I was. I wouldn't mind hearing about other experiences from elsewhere.

 

Here is a nice review of much of the recent literature on influenza vaccine efficacy, and the problems associated with such studies.

 

http://www.scienceba...ccine-efficacy/

 

A little bit of the intro...

 

The flu vaccine is not out best vaccine for at least three reasons.

 

First, every year they have to make an educated guess which influenza strains will be circulating 9 months in the future. The better the guess, the better the protection the vaccine should provide. Some years they choose better than others. But often the match between the vaccine and the disease is not optimal, so vaccine efficacy can be decreased. The vaccine works best when there is a good antigentic match between the vaccine and circulating strain of influenza.

 

Second, response to the vaccine is not 100%. The older and more immunoincompetent are the least likely to develop a good antibody response to the vaccine. In a bit of medical irony, the more likely a patient is to need protection from the vaccine, the less likely they are to get a protective antibody response from the vaccine.

 

Third, vaccination rates are often suboptimal to get benefit in populations, i.e. herd immunity. The elderly will more likely benefit if they are not exposed to influenza at all rather than relying of vaccine mediated protection. It may be more important if those around them, say their health care provider or family, receives the vaccine and as a result does not pass flu on to more vulnerable people. But we rarely (never, ever, never) get vaccination rates at levels for herd immunity to kick in.

 

So it’s a suboptimal vaccine. And that’s a problem. One, because it will make it more difficult to prove efficacy in clinical studies and two, there is a sub group of anti vaccine goofs who seem to require that vaccines either be perfect, with 100% efficacy and 100% safe, or they are not worth taking.

 

The influenza vaccine is not 100% efficacious in preventing disease, but it is as close to 100% safe, and much safer than the disease.

[LTS]

Great read. Thanks for sharing.

 

Perhaps the one aspect of the government marketing on the flu vaccine is that they try and tell people that they are protecting themselves. Were the message switched to show that by getting it you are protecting yourself and others who might not be able to build up the antibodies it would lead to greater adoption.

 

It seems the biggest task is getting everyone to buy in. Most people look at it and say, well, why should I do it if no one else is. It's almost like voting. My vote doesn't count so why bother. So, the trend swings away from feeling as though there is efficacy in the action.

[Claude_Verret]

Great read. Thanks for sharing.

 

Perhaps the one aspect of the government marketing on the flu vaccine is that they try and tell people that they are protecting themselves. Were the message switched to show that by getting it you are protecting yourself and others who might not be able to build up the antibodies it would lead to greater adoption.

 

It seems the biggest task is getting everyone to buy in. Most people look at it and say, well, why should I do it if no one else is. It's almost like voting. My vote doesn't count so why bother. So, the trend swings away from feeling as though there is efficacy in the action.

 

Don't do it for yourself, do it for grandma!

[JJFIVEOH]

Trolling? :huh:

 

Not sure how you came up with that.

[JJFIVEOH]

 

 

big pharma is an absolute behemoth of the markets around the world (free and otherwise). and its members do all sorts of shady stuff - 8-figure dollar settlements seem to be announced on a weekly basis.

 

doesn't change the fact that the PhD-eddie-bauer-outfitted-balding-middle-aged-dad-of-three-lovely-children who lives in greater atlanta and heads up a CDC action team concerning influenza control is dropping real science when he writes a white paper that gets incorporated into federal policy about how everyone needs to be gettin' they flu shots.

 

decrying the science behind the policy of flu shots because big pharma is all about money is ... i dunno. the best i can do is liken it to the people who presumably scoffed at the people/firms that made what was then a small fortune providing the means for efficiently and (more) safely disposing of the bodies of the dead during the black plague (y'know - rather than have the bodies pile up in the streets monty python style and spread more of the disease). good policy, necessary public health intervention -- but, wait, here's the middle age's version of fox mulder to cryptically note that the parish priest's brother is making money hand over fist because he's got the land, wagons, and needed laborers to dig and fill the plague pits.

 

there is nothing new under the sun. nothing.

 

Here are some rounded numbers I have come across that stick out in my mind. I don't have cold hard facts in front of me, but simple searches will confirm they are in the ballpark.

 

2/3 of Americans won't get a flu shot

Claims that 1 in 500 child lives are saved every year because of flu shots

Approx 10,000 Americans will die yearly from the flu

 

..........those don't quite add up.

[JJFIVEOH]

NO... just, no.

 

You disagree?

[biodork]

You disagree?

 

Unless you replace the words "vaccines" and "viruses" with "antibiotics" and "bacteria", yes.

[josie]

Unless you replace the words "vaccines" and "viruses" with "antibiotics" and "bacteria", yes.

Yup. I think a lot of people mix the two up. They hear/read about mutating "super bacteria" and assume it applies to viruses as well. Very different things, pathologically speaking. Bacteria live and evolve, viruses.. well, no one can agree what they are. Antiviral drugs DO exist, but I haven't found anything on them having the same effect as the antibiotic/bacteria situation.

Because that theory doesn't apply, we've been able to "eradicate" (except in small quantities) smallpox.

I could be wrong on some of this, call me out. It's been awhile since I brushed up on my viral pathology!

[JJFIVEOH]

Viruses have the ability to evolve just as much as bacteria, just not by the same means in which they evolve.

[That Aud Smell]

Here are some rounded numbers I have come across that stick out in my mind. I don't have cold hard facts in front of me, but simple searches will confirm they are in the ballpark. 2/3 of Americans won't get a flu shot Claims that 1 in 500 child lives are saved every year because of flu shots Approx 10,000 Americans will die yearly from the flu ..........those don't quite add up.

 

if you're saying that it's more rational to take some rounded, self-selected numbers and draw your own conclusions (and, based on that, decline the shot) rather than carefully consider the summarized positions and recommendations articulated by thousands of highly educated scientists who've devoted their lives to studying how best to control and contain influenza (and, based on that, get the shot), welp - then. yeah. godspeed.

[Eleven]

Unless you replace the words "vaccines" and "viruses" with "antibiotics" and "bacteria", yes.

Viruses have the ability to evolve just as much as bacteria, just not by the same means in which they evolve.

 

Isn't this what biodork does for a living?

[biodork]

Yup. I think a lot of people mix the two up. They hear/read about mutating "super bacteria" and assume it applies to viruses as well. Very different things, pathologically speaking. Bacteria live and evolve, viruses.. well, no one can agree what they are. Antiviral drugs DO exist, but I haven't found anything on them having the same effect as the antibiotic/bacteria situation.

Because that theory doesn't apply, we've been able to "eradicate" (except in small quantities) smallpox.

I could be wrong on some of this, call me out. It's been awhile since I brushed up on my viral pathology!

Isn't this what biodork does for a living?

 

I've never taken a course on it and it's not my area of expertise, but to my understanding Josie is essentially correct. I'll defer to Claude to confirm, though.

 

Viruses have the ability to evolve just as much as bacteria, just not by the same means in which they evolve.

 

No, they don't. Yes, both are capable of evolution and change over time, but bacteria are much, much better and faster at this because of their ability to transfer disease resistance between cells. Essentially, once one bacterium figures out a way to survive an antibiotic, it's able to tell other bacteria how to do it and thus bacterial antibiotic resistance can come about much more quickly than simply waiting for a strain with a slight advantage to become more prevalent.

[Eleven]

Ok, just what the hell DO you do then?

[biodork]

Ok, just what the hell DO you do then?

 

lol I'm a Molecular Biologist, which is not the same as a Microbiologist or Virologist. Much of my expertise and research has been on genetics and cancer, and I work almost exclusively on human samples (cells / disease) and know very little about virology.

[That Aud Smell]

Microbiologi[cally speaking]

Dr. Funkenstein!