hornblower Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 "It is unprecedented for this time of year to have the whole country having such high levels of activity," Schuchat said. She also said more children had died in the space of a few weeks than usually die in an entire influenza season. "There are now a total of 86 children under 18 who have died from the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus," Schuchat said http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59F3U920091016?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomLovesClassics Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 One teacher coughed so much with this flu that she broke her ribs. i can not imagine. This seems to be one nasty flu. I have never heard of so many deaths in my time from the flu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I went and researched this type thing a few nights ago. I am really starting to wonder what is RIGHT and what isn't anymore. The issue I am having is that the numbers just aren't matching up. The CDC says that 86 kids have died since APRIL. That is a bit above the number of kids that die in a year of the seasonal flu. 7 months have passed. If you assume that number will double, then you are looking at aroun 160 or so kids by the time this season is over. That IS higher than what we have seen in the last few years with flu...but the year my son had the flu, back in 2003, the number of kids that died was 153...MANY of them were kids with no underlying health issues. These numbers are terrible, but NOT unheard-of. Not yet anyway. The problem is that the season stopped at the end of August here in the US...yet they are still counting flu deaths by adding them on to last season's H1N1 count. It should have started over at 1 on Sept 1 and then we would have a much better idea based on seasonal statistics. Right now, we just have a reporting nightmare! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59F3U920091016?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews I just made the appt. to get my kids the vax. I usually don't vax for seasonal flu, and we selectively vax for other stuff. Meanwhile, we were all sick the past few weeks - who knows if we already had it - but it could've just been a cold. H1N1 doesn't seem to be as prevalent here (yet) as it seems like it is some places in the south(?) My one dd tried really hard to get pneumonia, but she does that almost every September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The CDC says that 86 kids have died since APRIL. That is a bit above the number of kids that die in a year of the seasonal flu. 7 months have passed. If you assume that number will double, then you are looking at aroun 160 or so kids by the time this season is over. ....... yet they are still counting flu deaths by adding them on to last season's H1N1 count. You're missing the point. There wasn't a 'last season' H1N1 outbreak. It's a novel outbreak and is being counted totally separate from last years flu because it occured during a time when there is virtually no flu. During a time when there are *no* deaths from flu. There have been 86 pediatric deaths from H1N1. And 70 or so of them occured during a time when there are 'supposed to be' no deaths. The number won't double...it'll be at least 3-4x the 'normal death rate. It's very possible, perhaps even likely that the increase curve will be geometric. Just from H1N1......then there is the consideration the 'normal' death rates from regular seasonal flu. It's not typical. It's simply not a typical flu season in any way. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I'd be curious to know whether or not the children who died were healthy or had other pre-existing health issues. Anyone know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutor Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Does anyone know if these deaths are in children who were considered healthy before getting H1N1 or if the deaths are occurring in children who had chronic health conditions or otherwise had compromised immune systems? I just feel like these reports are composed of incomplete information which makes it difficult for a parent to make an informed decision regarding the vaccine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soph the vet Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 There have been 7 pediatric deaths here in MN. The one I know details about involved a presumably healthy 6 yr. old who was being treated at home. He died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was found to have developed myocarditis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Please let us know how she does with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You're missing the point. There wasn't a 'last season' H1N1 outbreak. It's a novel outbreak and is being counted totally separate from last years flu because it occured during a time when there is virtually no flu. During a time when there are *no* deaths from flu. There have been 86 pediatric deaths from H1N1. And 70 or so of them occured during a time when there are 'supposed to be' no deaths. The number won't double...it'll be at least 3-4x the 'normal death rate. It's very possible, perhaps even likely that the increase curve will be geometric. Just from H1N1......then there is the consideration the 'normal' death rates from regular seasonal flu. It's not typical. It's simply not a typical flu season in any way. Katherine I never said it was typical. Trust me, I am a total hypochondriac and I *get* that it is not typical. However, it may also start to taper off once it is finished spreading like wildfire. We just don't know...and to me, the "not knowing" is what makes it so tough. You can't say, nor can anyone else, with certainty that 4x the normal number of kids will die. No one can say whether seasonal flu will really even pack a punch. They have stopped counting as as of this week, they are going to start counting seasonal flu deaths in with H1N1 deaths and not trying to discern the difference (according to what I read on the CDC site 2 nights ago). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The statistics I have seen very recently are that about half the people who are dying had no underlying illnesses or special risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 about 1/3 of the deaths are occuring in folks with no underlying medical conditions. the pregnancy this is very concerning....if I were pregnant, I'd absolutely get the H1N1 vaccine. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabelen Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 We have the appointment for our children for October 28th. They didn't have anything else sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 Have a look at the Dead Children threat on flutrackers http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124781&page=6 Currently the CDC is saying 20-30% of the pediatric fatalities had NO underlying conditions. For all age groups combined, about 45% had NO underlying conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 TreeHouseAcademy, so far so good. They said she might get a stuffy nose tomorrow, but other than that, they have not had any issues. They did a study for kids under 36 months a week or so ago, and no problems as of now (that I know of). Good! I have a friend whose kids got the vaccine last Friday and they have still had no ill effects. Her daughter is under 9, though, and she has to have another dose in a month from the first one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarana Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Just saw this http://health.yahoo.com/email-to-friend/?title=H1N1+flu+causes+unusual+damage+to+lungs%3A+studies+%28Reuters%29&type=news+article&cid=&cp=&back=http%3A%2F%2Fhealth.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Freuters%2Fus_flu_clots.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Have a look at the Dead Children threat on flutrackers http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124781&page=6 Currently the CDC is saying 20-30% of the pediatric fatalities had NO underlying conditions. For all age groups combined, about 45% had NO underlying conditions. I don't understand the number descripancies Hornblower. Unfortunately, I have looked at the Dead Children thread more than once. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarawatsonim Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The part I find completely confusing is that most of the cases aren't documented because these people don't go to the doctor. I think we (daughter and I) may have had it about a month ago, but we never went to get it checked out because we were only moderately ill. How can they get an accurate percentage when the number of deaths is not compared to the actual number of cases. If all the cases of h1n1 were able to be taken in to account, wouldn't the number of deaths seem low in comparison to cases? I don't know, but it is this type of unknown information that is making my vaccination decision hard. We don't get the vaccine here until mid November, so I will have to wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 I don't understand the number descripancies Hornblower. Well, if you lump in all the fatalities of all the ages & look at their rate of underlying conditions, you find that roughly 45% had none. If you split apart the various age groups and check just those pediatric death with no underlying conditions/total pediatric death, you get 20-30% with no underlying conditions. To balance it out, it must mean that the non-pediatric rate of no underlying conditions must be a bit higher than 45 but probably not much because pediatric deaths are a small fraction of the total. Clearer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The part I find completely confusing is that most of the cases aren't documented because these people don't go to the doctor. I think we (daughter and I) may have had it about a month ago, but we never went to get it checked out because we were only moderately ill. How can they get an accurate percentage when the number of deaths is not compared to the actual number of cases. If all the cases of h1n1 were able to be taken in to account, wouldn't the number of deaths seem low in comparison to cases? I don't know, but it is this type of unknown information that is making my vaccination decision hard. We don't get the vaccine here until mid November, so I will have to wait and see. Mathematical computer modeling. There is good data on how contagious it is and how many typically won't see a doc for it, how many are out from schools..... Having said that, usually when numbers are reported, they're talking actual cases not estimated. K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex-mex Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Sounds like it is hard hit with the young under 25? I have 2 small cousins (ages 5 and 2) who just got diagnosed with H1N1. Sad thing is, they infected everyone in their pre-school and it closed down. My concern is the lung damage the recent study is saying H1N1 is causing. Did you know the Spanish Flu of 1918 did the same type of lung damage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Well, if you lump in all the fatalities of all the ages & look at their rate of underlying conditions, you find that roughly 45% had none. If you split apart the various age groups and check just those pediatric death with no underlying conditions/total pediatric death, you get 20-30% with no underlying conditions. To balance it out, it must mean that the non-pediatric rate of no underlying conditions must be a bit higher than 45 but probably not much because pediatric deaths are a small fraction of the total. Clearer? Oops...sorry...not THOSE numbers. LOL I mean the fact that the CDC says 86 kids have died since the start of H1N1 and the Dead Children thread says over 150 have died. Sorry, should have been more clear in my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex-mex Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You're missing the point. There wasn't a 'last season' H1N1 outbreak. It's a novel outbreak and is being counted totally separate from last years flu because it occured during a time when there is virtually no flu. During a time when there are *no* deaths from flu. There have been 86 pediatric deaths from H1N1. And 70 or so of them occured during a time when there are 'supposed to be' no deaths. The number won't double...it'll be at least 3-4x the 'normal death rate. It's very possible, perhaps even likely that the increase curve will be geometric. Just from H1N1......then there is the consideration the 'normal' death rates from regular seasonal flu. It's not typical. It's simply not a typical flu season in any way. Katherine Exponentially, the curve will be dramatic in next year's (Winter/Spring '10) flu season and worse in the year after that. I heard it takes 2 cycles of a novel strain to make its impact on a population. That is 2 years of mutation. Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Exponentially, the curve will be dramatic in next year's (Winter/Spring '10) flu season and worse in the year after that. I heard it takes 2 cycles of a novel strain to make its impact on a population. That is 2 years of mutation. Yikes. I think we will move underground. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabelen Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Where are you getting yours? I would like to find somewhere for my boys (so they can get it earlier). At their pediatrician's. Honestly, it didn't occur to me they could get it anywhere else! We are in Southern California, where are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yeah, all three of mine will have to have two of them. After looking at the thread with the poor children, I am confident with my decision to go ahead with the swine flu vaccine. I hope my boys can get theirs very soon. We are trying to wait on the shot...but my younger will have to have it twice as well. :( By then, we are looking at him not having full immunity until December or later. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex-mex Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yeah, all three of mine will have to have two of them. After looking at the thread with the poor children, I am confident with my decision to go ahead with the swine flu vaccine. I hope my boys can get theirs very soon. Right now the vaccine available is the mist spray via nose... son and I don't qualify for this vaccine as it is a live virus. We have a compromised immune system and have to wait for the dead virus (shot) vaccine. Who knows how long THAT will take? :confused: If I were healthy and had little ones... I'd do the mist vaccine in a heartbeat. We got our regular flu shot -- it was in short supply. But we are on a priority list for it due to our rare liver disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MommyX8 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) : Edited October 17, 2009 by ustasmom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabelen Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 We're in TX, and the pediatrician doesn't have any swine flu vaccines, and don't think they are getting any! They barely had any seasonal flu shots, either, and definitely aren't getting any more of those. What a shame. I had to pay $75 to get the seasonal flu shot (for my kids) at a medical clinic. Wow! They don't have any and are not having any or they don't know when they are getting them? I hope you can get them soon. I was actually surprised the "waiting list" for an appointment was so long... They are only giving the vaccine on very specific days and times. By the way, we are talking flue mist. I know the wait for the shot would have been even longer, especially because my kids are not in the group that must have the shot versus the mist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I hear ya! I was planning on waiting for the shot, but the PA really felt like my daughter should get it while they had it (the mist). She knows how quickly they run out and did not want my daughter to miss out. I was hesitant, but I'm glad we went through with it. Does your dd have bad allergies? I do, but mine cause shortness of breath occasionally (called Mild-Intermitent Asthma) and that has been the reason I wouldn't get the mist myself. My kids - my older would be fine with the mist. My younger had a hard time with RSV when he was about 3 and the doctors said that we may be looking at mild asthma down the road. That is why I hesitate with him as well - because he hasn't been diagnosed but he seems to have a propensity toward upper respiratory issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Health departments will have it sooner than private practices, generally speaking. I'm in DeKalb County in Atlanta. Right now there is *only* nasal mist and *only* for ages 2-4. Nothing for anyone else. I wish I could somehow stress though just how signficant the protection from vitamin D is. Vitamin D deficient persons are dying at higher rates. Europe has noticed. Canada has noticed. The CDC has their collective head in the sand. Persons with dark skin are dying at higher rates. Persons on meds that lower D levels (mood stabilizers, epilepsy meds etc) are dying at higher rates. Just a little D won't help. Might even make things worse. For adults, 1000 or 2000 won't be very helpful....please take enough D to raise your serum levels to optimal. That tends to be about 1000 IU per 25 lbs body weight. Daily. Translation for little kids? 400 IU per 10 lbs body weight. Including infants and toddlers. Always use d3. Those doses are for maintenance. To quickly ramp up from deficient levels, it's very reasonable to take 4x that dose for a period of weeks or months. iherb.com has two products that are drops (great for kids or adults) and many capsule products. :) Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Health departments will have it sooner than private practices, generally speaking. I'm in DeKalb County in Atlanta. Right now there is *only* nasal mist and *only* for ages 2-4. Nothing for anyone else. I wish I could somehow stress though just how signficant the protection from vitamin D is. Vitamin D deficient persons are dying at higher rates. Europe has noticed. Canada has noticed. The CDC has their collective head in the sand. Persons with dark skin are dying at higher rates. Persons on meds that lower D levels (mood stabilizers, epilepsy meds etc) are dying at higher rates. Just a little D won't help. Might even make things worse. For adults, 1000 or 2000 won't be very helpful....please take enough D to raise your serum levels to optimal. That tends to be about 1000 IU per 25 lbs body weight. Daily. Translation for little kids? 400 IU per 10 lbs body weight. Including infants and toddlers. Always use d3. Those doses are for maintenance. To quickly ramp up from deficient levels, it's very reasonable to take 4x that dose for a period of weeks or months. iherb.com has two products that are drops (great for kids or adults) and many capsule products. :) Katherine When I mentioned this to my son's doctor, she FREAKED out and told me that there was absolutely no way she would recommend this because it can cause terrible side effects. That said, I have noticed that what you said is true - darker skinned people dying more often, it seems. I actually saw a pattern there just in my state with the reported deaths and searched it out further. I looked at the CDC site and all I could find was a report on the first 36 children to die of swine flu and out of those 36, it was split with 45% or so of deaths among caucasians and the other 55% being of other races. Is that significant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 My daughter has food allergies that she is being treated for (she's in the food desensitization program for milk and will be doing peanut next). She has minor seasonal allergies (just needs a nasal spray). Other than that, no problems. She was borderline preemie (right on 36 weeks, but perfectly healthy and larger than they expected for 36 weeks, at 6lbs. 3oz... maybe the timing was off a little). Um, she did have RSV as a baby (2 mos.), and was hospitalized for it, but then didn't need much help... just clearing the nasal passages. The doctors and I were very happy b/c she did so well... didn't need any oxygen or anything. The doctors used to think my son might have asthma (issues when he got sick), but that all cleared up, so it might be the same with your son. I would definitely check with your doctor to see what they think about it. I have noticed that, in the last 2-3 years, he doesn't seem to have the lung involvement when he is sick that he used to have as a baby when he got sick. I am hopful, but I'd hate to take a chance. :( KWIM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 When I mentioned this to my son's doctor, she FREAKED out and told me that there was absolutely no way she would recommend this because it can cause terrible side effects. LOL. Or not. That's kind of concerning that she's able to practice medicine and be that unaware. The data available indicates that with doseages up to 10,000 IU per day for months, there is no hypervitaminosis D. Even the ODS sets the upper limit of D at 2000 IU *for infants* One study: elderly pts were given a single injection of *a million* IU's of D. What happened? Suprisingly, their levels went up to normal. Not high, not excessive, not extreme. Just normal. It took two weeks for them to get up to optimal levels. After six weeks, the majority were back on the borderline of deficiency again This isn't about megadosing on a vitamin. This is about getting physiologically appropriate amounts of a steroid hormone b/c we no longer live in a manner befitting our biological needs. (per creation or evolution depending on your views) vitamindcouncil.org has all of the data you'd ever like to read, over 1,000 studies. Your doc is living, unfortunately, in the D dark ages. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 LOL. Or not. That's kind of concerning that she's able to practice medicine and be that unaware. The data available indicates that with doseages up to 10,000 IU per day for months, there is no hypervitaminosis D. Even the ODS sets the upper limit of D at 2000 IU *for infants* One study: elderly pts were given a single injection of *a million* IU's of D. What happened? Suprisingly, their levels went up to normal. Not high, not excessive, not extreme. Just normal. It took two weeks for them to get up to optimal levels. After six weeks, the majority were back on the borderline of deficiency again This isn't about megadosing on a vitamin. This is about getting physiologically appropriate amounts of a steroid hormone b/c we no longer live in a manner befitting our biological needs. (per creation or evolution depending on your views) vitamindcouncil.org has all of the data you'd ever like to read, over 1,000 studies. Your doc is living, unfortunately, in the D dark ages. Katherine I will have to check out that site. Thanks for the link. It is something I want to do. I even bought the vitamins. My doctor just scared the crap out of me about it with her reaction. The pharmacist said the same, though. That it would cause issues with the heart if you take too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 it was split with 45% or so of deaths among caucasians and the other 55% being of other races. Is that significant? Yes. And when considering the pattern in the rest of the world it becomes even more significant....mexico....chile..... K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yes. And when considering the pattern in the rest of the world it becomes even more significant....mexico....chile..... K So the pasty pale skin I was born with may, for once, be an actual advantage? :lol: In all seriousness, though, why do people with darker skin have a lower vit D level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I will have to check out that site. Thanks for the link. It is something I want to do. I even bought the vitamins. My doctor just scared the crap out of me about it with her reaction. The pharmacist said the same, though. That it would cause issues with the heart if you take too much. They're basing their opinion on theory not fact. And it's an erroneous theory. One that's seriously a good 30 or more years outdated in medicine. One of D's many functions is to regulate calcium levels in the blood - true. But your doc and pharmacist are concerned that normal physiological doses of D will will either raise or lower serum Ca+ to dangerous levels. It won't. D *deficiency* absolutely will and is probably the cause of idiopathic heart failure in infants. Again, we're not talking about 'mega' dosing. We're talking about dosing sufficient to optimize serum D levels based on a massive body of well designed scientific literature. No one's levels this time of year are optimal without major supplementation. Most don't have decent levels even in the summer. Depeding on the study, up to 85% of the US is vitamin D deficient. If she's concerned, have her monitor the kids blood levels......or if you're concerned, sign one of more of them up for the grassrootshealth.net study. I'm tracking D levels for approx 100 people. No one is getting optimal levels on less than 1000 IU/25 lbs body weight (ie 400 IU/10 lbs body weight). No one. Some need more. My doc has been testing and treating D levels for three years now. She has exactly 2 clients who do okay on 2000 IU. They sun (unprotected) in the summer and don't take D at that time. In the winter, they travel to tropical locales and sun unprotected. The rest of her clients are mostly taking 4,000-8,000 IU per day of D3. A few very large clients are taking much more. The evidence is there. We need only read it. And act. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 So the pasty pale skin I was born with may, for once, be an actual advantage? :lol: In all seriousness, though, why do people with darker skin have a lower vit D level? For the reason you just stated:tongue_smilie: Darker skin=more melanin=less UVB is able to penetrate=less D produced in skin. But even the pasty pale among us are seriously D deficient this time of year....and even in the summer unless getting some midday unprotected exposure on most of the body....to the point just before a burn would occur. Any and all sunscreen blocks D production completely. K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I have a bad reaction to vitamin D pills and I don't know why. I am having trouble fighting off an infection and since people keep saying vitamin D boosts your immune system, I thought it would be good to try. I noticed that after taking it a couple time my infection got way worse. I went off of it and it calmed down. I've tried that 3 times now and I get the same reaction within a day or so. Anyone have an explanation? Could it really be the vitamin D or something else in the pills? It doesn't happen if I go out in the sun all day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I and my two children (ages 11 and 8) have gotten our H1N1 vaccines and our seasonal flu vaccines. I personally would NOT let my children of anyone in my family get the flu mist which is a live form of H1N1 but I am a big advocate for getting the actual injected killed vaccine. I just believe that the risk of the H1N1 itself is much greater than the very minute risks associated with the vaccine as long as you get it in the "killed" injectible form. I'll be honest, it was like a weight was lifted off of my shoulders after we got our flu shots. I have been debating this decision for months but now that we have gotten them I am so relieved that we did. It gives me a lot of peace of mind knowing that we have some protection now. BTW... We have had absolutely zero complications from the shots. Our arms weren't even really sore afterwards. If your still debating getting vaccinated I personally would recommend that you do. HTH.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I and my two children (ages 11 and 8) have gotten our H1N1 vaccines and our seasonal flu vaccines. I personally would NOT let my children of anyone in my family get the flu mist which is a live form of H1N1 but I am a big advocate for getting the actual injected killed vaccine. I just believe that the risk of the H1N1 itself is much greater than the very minute risks associated with the vaccine as long as you get it in the "killed" injectible form. I'll be honest, it was like a weight was lifted off of my shoulders after we got our flu shots. I have been debating this decision for months but now that we have gotten them I am so relieved that we did. It gives me a lot of peace of mind knowing that we have some protection now. BTW... We have had absolutely zero complications from the shots. Our arms weren't even really sore afterwards. If your still debating getting vaccinated I personally would recommend that you do. HTH.... Where in the country do you live that you were able to get the injected form? No one here has it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiffanyl Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Exponentially, the curve will be dramatic in next year's (Winter/Spring '10) flu season and worse in the year after that. I heard it takes 2 cycles of a novel strain to make its impact on a population. That is 2 years of mutation. Yikes. Here's an interesting article by an M.D. that addresses this subject. http://www.drjaygordon.com/development/news/h1n1update.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Here's an interesting article by an M.D. that addresses this subject. http://www.drjaygordon.com/development/news/h1n1update.asp oh dear. jay gordon. Love him but he's infamous for his lack of evidence based medicine. He seriously just makes things up quite regularly and this article is full of them. new vaccine? please. it's the same vaccine that's used every year for the flu, just with the H1N1 virus in it. I could go on and pick apart the article but that's 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I have a bad reaction to vitamin D pills and I don't know why. I am having trouble fighting off an infection and since people keep saying vitamin D boosts your immune system, I thought it would be good to try. I noticed that after taking it a couple time my infection got way worse. I went off of it and it calmed down. I've tried that 3 times now and I get the same reaction within a day or so. Anyone have an explanation? Could it really be the vitamin D or something else in the pills? It doesn't happen if I go out in the sun all day. It's unlikely that it's the pills. There is nothing else in them that is problematic. It sounds like you're only taking them when sick? Why not try when healthy so that you don't have the confounding variable of illness? Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiddenJewel Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I have a bad reaction to vitamin D pills and I don't know why. I am having trouble fighting off an infection and since people keep saying vitamin D boosts your immune system, I thought it would be good to try. I noticed that after taking it a couple time my infection got way worse. I went off of it and it calmed down. I've tried that 3 times now and I get the same reaction within a day or so. Anyone have an explanation? Could it really be the vitamin D or something else in the pills? It doesn't happen if I go out in the sun all day. Were you taking D2 or D3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 It's unlikely that it's the pills. There is nothing else in them that is problematic. It sounds like you're only taking them when sick? Why not try when healthy so that you don't have the confounding variable of illness? Katherine Oh I am sure it's the pills. The infection is slowly but consistently getting better. If I take the vitamin D it gets quite visibly larger/worse, so much so that it shocked and scared me the first time. I've tested it out twice since the first reaction with the same exact results. I may try them when healthy again, in a few months, if the infection is gone by then. It'll take awhile to get there. I'm worried though. Maybe my body has some sort of weird reaction to these. Maybe I should just lay off them, just in case. The form you take in pills isn't the exact form your body makes anyway when exposed to the sun, so maybe that's why I react to the pills and not the sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Here's an interesting article by an M.D. that addresses this subject. http://www.drjaygordon.com/development/news/h1n1update.asp My kids' doctor shares this sentiment - except he does recommend the vaccine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 oh dear. jay gordon. Love him but he's infamous for his lack of evidence based medicine. He seriously just makes things up quite regularly and this article is full of them. new vaccine? please. it's the same vaccine that's used every year for the flu, just with the H1N1 virus in it. I could go on and pick apart the article but that's 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Katherine But he said this: "This is, obviously, a difficult public discussion because it touches on the concept of benefits and risks, again, of morbidity and mortality. Few public officials have the courage or inclination to present all facets of this difficult decision. I give vaccines to my patients every single day, but I always err on the side of caution. Implying that this is a dangerous new shot is not scientifically or statistically correct and represents hyperbole and even dishonesty on the part of the so-called "anti-vaccine" camp. It sure isn't "sexy" to suggest handwashing, good nutrition, hydration, extra sleep and so on. It's not conventional to suggest astragalus, echinacea, elderberry and vitamin C. Adequate vitamin D levels are crucial, too." ...which sounds a lot like what you have been saying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 The form you take in pills isn't the exact form your body makes anyway when exposed to the sun, so maybe that's why I react to the pills and not the sun. It is *exactly* the same form that we make on exposure to the sun. Exactly. There is not one iota of difference in the chemical composition. It's the same made in our skin, made in sheeps wool, or made in the fish. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.