Concern for swine flu vaccination - from BMJ - (Aug/31/2009 )

I understand you have nothing to offer swanny either technically or conceptually, and that doesn't stop you. Keep up the simple minded insults - it's entertaining.

No casandra - "pandemic" is not regulatory policy in any regard. It is a technical definition of epidemiologists. Apparently not you so make it 1 cent worth - the term refers to an epidemic in human populations across a wide geographic area - person-to-person transmission has nothing to do with it. Neither term - pandemic or epidemic - has a quantitative definition, so SARS, nvCJD, H!N5 were all fairly called pandemics, tho case numbers of some are so small that logic protests. The CDC and WHO have not criticized - in the last 20 years - tho your point has validity re. AIDs. Even there, the political administration was primary target. And even if they were - they screwed up in each of the previous solemn projections of doom - projections that they themselves offered or those they allowed to be blown up by the media.

Of course it is in the lexicon with definition at CDC and WHO and the details of definition are lost in news reports. It doesn't have to be in the public policy vocabulary.

Who cares what one of your MP's offered? If i weren't such a gentleman, I'd offer a quote from Tennessee Williams.

Please explain your grudge against your "big pharma." I'm not sure who would supply vaccines but big pharma and without that lawsuit immunity - they wouldn't develop vaccines. If CDC and WHO were better scientific org's, we'd not develop so many vaccines - but that's my bias. Back to the 400 million - that's not an unusual cost in the pharma world, but what do you think would be an appropriate cost? Please justify.


Oh - and for the sensitive homebrew, allow me the elaborate.
You've obviously never managed anything in a large organizational sense. Wringing ones hands in anticipation of another hard decision is hardly the mark of a good manager. Again evidenced in your inability to comprehend the need to translate scientific terminology to public policy. My experience is in pharma managing global groups - yours?
Either I was obscure or you obtuse - the "predictions" referred to - for example that H1N5 would mutate to allow facile person-to person transmission. The Hopkins publication offered a technical models that offered why swine flu early in this century did and by which H1N5 would not. I'm too many years from the lab and literature to dissect the wrk and its concept - but so far the general comment to H1N5 has been correct. Assume you're unaware of the work. Here's a link for you: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/index.htm

Sorry for your hurt feelings - but have a nice day.

...hmmm...here we go again......


For someone who’s got all this knowledge and experience in “pharma managing global groups” (I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it), you still don’t get it, don’t you, eberthella? You’ve no right to run around this board demeaning members serially and offering mostly insults and ad hominem. And I don’t freakin care if you’re the master of the universe. If humility is too much to ask for considering that in your delusion you think you’re all “that”, then how about a modicum of civility? If you think you’re so above us, then what are you doing here? You can go to other forums full of arrogant like-minded individuals who wipe each other other out for pure sports but fortunately (and unfortunately for you) this is not that kind of place.

Honestly, I for one am interested to hear what you have to say but if I have to wade through all your nasty crap first before I can get a tiny nugget of insight, then it’s no thanks for me. So far what I’ve learned from you is how to polish my claws and sharpen my fangs and it’s not only getting to be tiresome but I don’t want to end up being like you. If you persist with this attitude, you’re giving yourself more rope to hang yourself with. So far, bioforum and the moderators and the members you've insulted have been very patient but you’re testing that limit so don't push your luck.

And oh, that WHO classification of a pandemic, I don’t care who defined it..but what we have now is a pandemic or are you still refuting this? If it’s the label that gives you grief, then too bad that you’re not in a position to change or improve anything so get over it.

I quoted this MP because that’s precisely their justification for whatever move they’re doing right now. If you have a problem with that then it’s too bad that you’re not in legislation so get over that one too. With the 400 million, that’s how much Canada is coughing up..how much is your bill and the EU’s…it’s practically the global market and it would be a constant yearly supply from now on, and oh, sure they’re doing this for purely altruistic reasons. If we have the resources, I actually don’t give a darn if it will cost us 400 billion as long as it will save lives and help people but it’s a pretty hefty windfall for Big Pharma which I’m pretty sure did not lobby for this campaign nor influence the media in playing on the fear of the public. And finally, please spare us your heartfelt creative apologies.

Btw, probably your only redeeming feature (at least for me) is that you read Tennessee Williams so I dare you to post that quote......

eberthella on Sep 4 2009, 05:45 AM said:

Nice dodge. None of this has anything to do with whether or not you would announce a pandemic if faced with one as defined by currently accepted definintions while head of WHO or CDC.

As to my leadership experience, all you've done is "obiviously" stick your foot in your mouth again. For about ten years, I was in direct charge of a group of 250 people, and directly responsible for the health and well-being of about 2,500 more. I was recognized many times with high honors for my leadership abilities and skills, and was for many years an instructor in leadership and management.

You guys can argue about the size of your (imaginary or otherwise) groups - surrogate for whatever you may or may not have elsewhere. I do wonder at a moderator feeling it so necessary to boast his credentials and ignore the central discussion.

The issue I hoped to raise was that the health care profession itself would in large part refuse the vaccine. The immediate issue of concern stated was safety - and I had added my belief that safety and necessity were the factors.

How many here would take the vaccine if it were available tomorrow?

GeorgeWolff on Sep 4 2009, 05:06 PM said:

No boast, just facts -- when attacked directly, I respond.. Sorry to disappoint you, George.

GeorgeWolff on Sep 4 2009, 05:06 PM said:

Finally…and you’re one to talk George. I wonder what you’d do and how you’d react if it’s your turn to be attacked by eberthella, unnecessarily and initially unprovoked like he did to me, Homebrew and all the others (with the list still growing). I don’t see you being a martyr and turning the other cheek or perhaps you think that what he did (and will do) is totally justified? This thread was right on track until he started his MO (try to read his posts in the other threads) and see how now it’s been disrupted.

I’m not saying that we should all be a one big happy family but couldn’t we at least be more civil and try to get along like in any other community..…actually, for the most part we do, but someone like him comes along so should he be allowed to run roughshod over anyone he targets and then has the nerve to accuse that person of being sensitive for showing the instinctive response of defending himself? So what do you think and what would you do if it were you? And please don't tell us that you would ignore the insults or be logical/unemotional about them or you'd just stick to the initial discussion etc. cos I might be tempted to put this to the test ...sorry, just teasing you...it's much better than whining about this whole thing....

Anyways, back to your OP, the CDC has already released the initial safety results- i.e. two weeks after vaccination and side effects are the usual- redness, swelling, soreness etc. For long term, who the heck knows but I guess they’re gonna predict based on the past record of the other seasonal flu vaccines. We have a greater concern up here bec we’re gonna get an adjuvanted one….I read somewhere that it's squalene-based…I don't know much about it but the people responsible always assures us that it's proven technology so we shouldn't worry so much about it...….but people are wary and some parents are torn up about it. It would be a wide-scale field trial but how would you think the parents would feel if they decide not to vaccinate and then their child gets infected? And they’ve already started the media campaign….so now it's a wait and see.....

GeorgeWolff on Sep 5 2009, 07:06 AM said:

Probably wouldn't bother for myself, but as one of my daughters has a propensity to throw febrile convulsions with viral infections, I'd consider it, if only to reduce the risk to her (we're over the spectacle (?) of her fitting in the middle of the night).

I don't think swine flu is severe enough or sufficiently deadly to demand vaccination; most (all??) of the deaths have been in immunocompromised people, yes? As you can guess, it's not really been very high on my personal list of concerns... my bad.

I'm back children, rejoice!
I feel like I'm playing a game of liar's poker with homebrew - no way to call his bluff. I do enjoy seeing that this "moderator" functions in such a pompous manner tho looking at other strings, I don't see to many examples of such behaviour. Also, interesting he measures his alleged importance by the size of his group - after the 1st hundred or so, most experienced managers see it in the responsibility and objective. I'll offer that my groups haven't numbered over 200 - so homebrew's alleged egotism has me numerically. It still surprises me that such an important(!!) manager is so challenged to translate technical terms are translated to public policy.

Casandra do try to stay on subject and please understand safety here. The "safety determination" was established in context of perceived urgency of the situation and is a risk assessment that looks at risk/benefit - it is not an absolute and would never pass FDA considerations if it were offered out of this context.

I'm with sad swanny this time - I'd not take the vaccine.

….. I guess I popped the cork prematurely <sigh>. But I promise to stay on track, eberthella, if you would too but I’ve to recognise that your tsunami tone has lost most of its magnitude and intensity…I guess the time-out did you a lot of good, eh? Perhaps I can still learn something else from you after-all… but please do stop whining about HomeBrew and swanny, it’s detrimental to beauty (it's a wrinkle-generator, doncha know?) and to your physical and mental well-being as well. Besides, you can still turn this discussion around and give some of us, the flu vaccine fence sitters more fodder to chew on.

The “safety” I was referring to is the one that is uppermost in the public’s mind (weren’t you harping so much about how technical/scientific terminologies should be translated to public policy?). So when the average joe gets a jab in the arm, he’s not thinking of risk assessment or weighing costs and benefits nor of “perceived urgencies” …the only urgency for him is the possibility of dropping dead or coming down with the disease or suffering severe side effects from the vaccine..hmm....or getting something like the Guillain-Barre Syndrome. So the safety results released by the CDC last week are probably good enough to ease some of the public fear.

I’ve just started reading a book about the early days of the FDA so my knowledge about it is so meager (that saves you pointing out to my ignorance, ok) They’re the superpower that controls the life and death of a new drug but when it comes to the annual flu vaccines, isn’t the advisory panel closely involved (together with the WHO and the CDC) in the planning and the design (at least in determining which strains to be included) of the vaccines that Big Pharma are supposed to manufacture for a particular year? So I guess all the rigorous safety and efficacy trials for licensing are skipped, isn’t this an indication of “urgency”, they’ve assessed that the benefits far outweigh the risks? The seasonal vaccines have a good record, right...so why must we put up such a resistance for the H1N1? My gosh, if the people can’t trust the WHO, the FDA, the CDC, our government health agencies, even our own doctors (most of then are recommending to get it) then who can we trust? Otoh, why decide to develop a monovalent vaccine instead of just including it in the seasonal cocktail-…bec it was already too late or bec it’s just another cash cow but that’s probably just a conspiracy theory…...

Casandra - there's no need to show your inexperience and usual hatreds further. This discussion was for vaccine for a pandemic flu - and I hope at least you've learned the meaning of the term - pandemic.

Please - would you or would you not take the vaccine.