It raises some interesting questions. When pandemic strains become endemic, they (usually) replace the previously circulating strains, which then go extinct. So competition between strains is a really important issue. No one knows what would happen if we had universal vaccination. Could it make pandemics more frequent? We don't fully understand how often those strains jump species and then DON'T become endemic. That was the focus of my dissertation research, but we have a long way to go in understanding how influenza jumps species. I think it's worth considering that universal vaccination could actually encourage more frequent pandemics, if competition between strains is reduced. BTW, I am very much pro-vaccine, so I'm not saying that with an anti-vax agenda. Now, if we were able to develop a truly universal influenza vaccine, meaning a vaccine that prevented *all* subtypes of influenza A, it would be a moot point. People have been attempting that for years but have been unsuccessful so far.

Katsu Donburi

It would greatly diminish influenza epidemics, but since there is an animal reservoir (bird and pigs, among others) pandemics can't be prevented. Influenza pandemics occur when the virus jumps species and enters the human population, so influenza can never be eradicated by human vaccination. They were able to eradicate smallpox (and could theoretically eradicate polio) because there is no animal reservoir for those viruses.

What Natural News prints isn't evidence, it's uninformed speculation and fear mongering. It's true that vaccines often don't cause as robust of an immune response as natural infection. That's why we need tetanus boosters every 10 years, for instance. But it doesn't make you any more susceptible to tetanus. Their explanation doesn't make sense.

I know. I think they're making a mistake.

Can you point me to this study? I'm aware of the Canadian "study", but since it hasn't been published and no one seems to know anything about the methods, it's much too early to make any policy changes or recommendations yet. I don't know of any biological reason that annual flu shots would make someone have more adverse reactions to flu. I would not be surprised though, that if you simply compared 2 groups of people (one with annual flu shots and the other with no flu shots) you might find the vaccinated group to have more problems. I would guess (although I can't back this up with data) that people with medical problems are more likely to get the flu vaccine. They see their doctors more frequently, are at higher risk, and would be more likely to have the vaccine offered to them. Those factors that make it more likely that they are vaccinated are the factors that would make it more likely they would have more flu-related complications. This kind of bias, or confounding, is always a problem in observational studies. The groups being compared are different to begin with on very important factors, and if you can't control for those factors, it makes any associations you find suspect. There isn't any reason to think that the vaccine itself would cause more adverse effects.

CDC has an extensive surveillance system, with samples collected and tested from designated locations all over the US. WHO has a similar program worldwide. I can't copy the table correctly, so go to CDC and scroll down to US Virologic Surveillance. During week 40, almost 14,000 specimens were tested. Specimens are only taken from patients with ILI (influenza like illness), usually defined by fever and cough or sore throat. Of those 14,000, about 30% were positive for influenza. Of those 30% over 99% were influenza A and less than 1% were influenza B. Of the A viruses, NONE were seasonal influenza A. Not all were subtyped, but of those that were, virtually all were 2009 H1N1. About 1/3 weren't subtyped, but it doesn't matter- the numbers are large enough and representative of the entire US, so if there were seasonal flu going around, they should be able to detect it. One caveat: if they only collect samples from people with fever, they are missing mild cases of flu. However, it doesn't seem likely that seasonal flu is any more likely to cause illness without fever, so they shouldn't be underestimating the number of seasonal strains. It's interesting that 70% of the samples were not positive for influenza. I don't know what test they use for surveillance. The rapid tests are notorious for high rates of false negatives. I can't say more about it without knowing what test they use. Hornblower, do you know? There is more information here about the surveillance system.

I've sort of changed my mind. Before, I said we wouldn't be first in line, but we'd get it sooner than later. Now, I'd be first in line if we had the opportunity. Unfortunately it isn't available here yet, and no word on when it will be.

As Julie of KY says, the single dose vials don't have thimerosal, but the multidose vials do. If the single dose vials aren't available, lifting the limit allows people to choose to be vaccinated with the other.

I agree that it's a concern, but it seems to me that they should have consulted their lawyers and had that discussion months- or years- ago.

From my very narrow experience, the families I know are far stronger than the families I knew growing up. Parents seem to be more involved with their kids, and more aware of what they're doing. I see lots more dads involved with their kids now than when I was growing up. But I realize I have a bias. My family of origin was extremely dysfunctional.

For NJ, go to NJDHSS for the vaccine locator page. Maybe you'll find something there.

I think his point is that having already been sick is not a contraindication to having the vaccine. I don't believe he is stating the vaccine is risk free. Many people are worried that if they've already (unknowingly) been infected with the flu that having the vaccine will somehow cause a problem, and there isn't any evidence or biological reason that would be true. So I agree with his statement. I got a phone call this morning that my 58 year old neighbor died of flu yesterday. He probably got it from his high school daughter. I'm all for the vaccine clinics, the sooner the better.

Dolores Hiskes, who wrote Phonics Pathways, used to post on the old board years ago.

Couldn't happen fast enough, for me. By the time they get around to it here, it will probably be too late. Two of mine have it now, and most of their friends are sick.

I had always planned to send the kids back to ps for high school, unless they wanted to stay home. My oldest was homeschooled 4th thru 8th grade, and dual enrolled for the last half of 8th grade. She started high school full time this year, and loves it. She's on the pom squad, has lots of friends and a very active social life. Way too active. She's doing okay in school, but could be doing better. She just isn't very motivated, which was an ongoing problem while we homeschooled. I was hoping that ps would demand more accountability, but it isn't really working out that way. She's in honors classes, does the bare minimum, and gets As and Bs. She's very happy, although she does recognize that the academics are weak. I am not happy with the academics, but it's not bad enough to bring her back home. Yet.

It's like this here too. Last week, my dd came home from the homecoming dance and related a long list of kids that were there with high fevers. They'd looked forward to homecoming for so long they just couldn't bear to miss it. :glare: These kids thought it was funny that they were sharing drinking glasses. Last week, several of her friends that were at the dance were hospitalized with flu. One had no health problems, one was diabetic, and one had asthma. They are all out of the hospital and seem to be doing fine now. Another friend came to school Thursday with a fever of 104. Dd said she looked awful and could barely sit up. But she refused to go to the nurse's office, because she had a cheer competition Saturday, and wouldn't be allowed to participate if she stayed home. My girls' facebook pages are covered with people posting "high fever, feel like cr*p, see you at school". It's infuriating.

I would assume that the more kids that are vaccinated, the higher the likelihood of vaccine virus transmission. The study that determined the rate of <2% came from a daycare study, where about 100 kids were vaccinated, and about 100 were not. So that low transmission rate occurred when large numbers of kids were vaccinated. Study Also, these were kids under 3, who are obviously challenged when it comes to personal hygiene. I'd expect lower rates in older kids and adults, but I don't think it's been studied.

Looking back at this thread, I realize we're really talking about different groups of people. I agree that severely immunocompromised patients should not receive or be exposed to the live vaccine. I was thinking more about people that don't qualify for the mist because they aren't "completely" healthy or in the right age group. When I hear people express concern about being in contact with someone who received the flumist, it's usually because they are pregnant, have a child with asthma, etc. It's that group of people that I wanted to reassure that the risk is very, very low. And I have heard *repeatedly* that doctors won't give flumist to family members of asthmatics. This is what I meant by the doctors having prerogative, but it isn't backed up by evidence.

First, I made a correction in my above post. I meant to say this: Flumist is currently only recommended for healthy patients, and I didn't mean to suggest it should be given to anyone else. I inadvertently left out the bolded words. Sorry. I am not talking about SEVERELY immunocompromised patients. I am responding to the concern that vaccinating people with flumist is going to put everybody else at risk for catching influenza which is just not accurate. I have heard this many, many times, and I believe I've read it on this board. Apologies if I'm wrong. I'm not familiar with the COG, but that policy is certainly a reasonable one. However, I would be willing to bet that that policy is based on the theoretical possibility of risk, not actual data. And that is fine! If my kids were immunocompromised, I wouldn't want them to be around kids vaccinated with the mist either. But it doesn't change the fact that the actual risk to people coming in contact with mist-vaccinated kids is very, very low. If transmission is less than 2% in daycares, it's going to be less than that in the community. And then the risk of actually getting sick from that infection is lower still. So yes, I think the risk is blown out of proportion. Not by the oncologists, but by the general public.

There is likely a risk, but I believe it's being blown way out of proportion. Medimmune Obviously, everyone should take the advice of their doctor. But I just want to reassure people that the chance of their child having some terrible reaction because a classmate or friend was vaccinated with flumist is very, very unlikely.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the mist. It contains live virus, but is attenuated (or weakened) and it does not cause flu. In order to cause flu, it would have to revert back to the original strain, and this hasn't been shown to happen. But you can be infected with the *vaccine* virus (which is not the same as the influenza virus that causes the influenza illness). In most people, it causes no symptoms or very mild flu-like symptoms (runny nose, headaches, etc.) But remember, it's not actually influenza. The concern is that in severely immunocompromised patients, even the vaccine virus infection could be severe for them. The vaccine virus is only rarely transmitted from the vaccinated patient to others. From CDC Many doctors don't think it's worth the risk to vaccinate family members of immunocompromised patients with the flumist, and they aren't willing to take the chance that family members can pass it on to others. That's certainly their prerogative. You're going to hear different information from everyone you listen to. But it is inaccurate for them to say that it causes influenza, or that it *will* be passed to others.

If you're healthy, I'd go. That rule is more to protect the patients from the visitors than the visitors from the patients.

I agree with having his thyroid checked, but those symptoms can all be caused by depression. It sounds like he's had a pretty thorough evaluation, and If everything else seems to be okay, I'd consider having him go on an SSRI for a couple months.

Sure.