Sandy Chase / The Brunswickan
The Opinionator
The negative press about the H1N1 vaccine springs from two sources: 1) a lack of understanding of influenza viruses and vaccines, and 2) the media’s love for exciting and sensational stories. The truth is far less exciting and much safer and more reassuring than the debate would lead us to believe. A little bit of research revealed the ridiculousness of most people’s concerns about the vaccine. I have been hearing all too often around the UNB campus that people are considering opting out of the H1N1 vaccine that our federal government has paid for in full. In the following paragraphs I hope to lay to rest, using fact and simple logic, many of the strange and ludicrous ideas about the vaccine which have found their way into mainstream media. Please, if you are not planning to get the vaccine read on; this is not just about your health.
• What is the H1N1 virus or swine flu and how is it different from the regular flu?
Influenza (flu) is a virus. Viruses are infectious agents made of either DNA or RNA (think DNA with only one strand, not the double helix). The flu is an RNA based virus; RNA is less chemically stable than DNA, and since the virus has no way of checking for errors in its RNA the flu virus is prone to changes or mutations, or something medical professionals call “drift”. These changes mean that your body is less able to recognize the virus and neutralize it. To adapt to this drift, a new flu vaccine is created every year in Canada and around the world, to aid the body in recognizing the virus’s new mutations. It is also possible for the flu virus to “shift”. The flu “shifts” when two different types of flu combine to create an entirely new type; this is what happened to create the H1N1 flu virus. So, H1N1 is still a flu virus, just a new and different type, which means that it responds to vaccines like every other flu virus. One of the major differences created in the H1N1 shift of the influenza virus is the age group it tends to infect in humans. Where seasonal influenza generally affects the more susceptible segments of the population-- the very young and very old-- H1N1 has also been affecting people aged six months to 25 years old.
• Isn’t the vaccine dangerous? Can’t you get sick from the vaccine?
Vaccines are some of the safest and most effective drugs in the world today. They work with your body’s immune system by allowing your body to develop antibodies to a specific virus. Antibodies are produced by a white blood cell called a plasma cell; they identify and neutralize harmful foreign objects in the body – the H1N1 virus for example. In a healthy body with a healthy immune system, as most 20-25 year olds have, there already exist antibodies to defend against the flu and a host of other infections. These have been passed down through your genes, or your body developed them when Johnny sneezed on you last week, passing on just enough of an infectious agent to allow your plasma cells to create infection-specific antibodies. Vaccines are necessary when a virus is dangerous enough, or new enough, that your body cannot adequately protect itself fast enough. In the case of H1N1, since the virus is a new type, our bodies haven’t had the chance to build up antibodies. Vaccines work similarly to Johnny’s sneeze, but in a safer and more controlled way. The H1N1 vaccine contains dead H1N1 virus, a sterilization material called thimerosal and something called an adjuvant (a material which provokes a general immune response, allowing the vaccine to use less H1N1 virus but still get the body to produce effective antibodies).
• The Virus
The H1N1 virus in the vaccine is dead and poses no threat for contraction. It is impossible to be infected by the H1N1 virus through the vaccine.
• Thimerosal
Thimerosal is a mercury- based compound which is used to ensure that the vaccine is sterile. It is used to kill all living organisms in the vaccine. The vaccine contains five micrograms of mercury. A can of tuna, on the other hand, can contain anywhere from 25 to 52.7 micrograms of mercury – maybe even more. Forgo one can of tuna and get the vaccine if you are worried about mercury levels.
• The Adjuvant
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer of the H1N1 vaccine, used a substance called an adjuvant to provoke an immune response to the vaccine. Because the vaccine had to be created quickly, GSK could not produce enough of the H1N1 virus to use as antigens (dead virus) in the vaccine. The use of the adjuvant (called AS03) ensures that the body produces antibodies to even the small amount of dead virus contained in the vaccine. The adjuvant contains shark liver oil (squalene), vitamin E and polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier used in ice cream which ensures that the parts of the vaccine do not separate). The controversy around the vaccine revolves primarily around the use of the adjuvant AS03 and the squalene component in particular. In very rare cases the vaccine can cause autoimmune disorders such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). This, however, is not specific to the H1N1 vaccine, GBS can be caused by any vaccine. The Centre for Disease Control says that instances of Guillain-Barré or similar autoimmune disorders from vaccines are one in one million. Though AS03 was approved in the EU and some Asian countries for use in the H5N1 (avian flu) vaccine, it hasn’t been thoroughly tested for use with the H1N1 strain, though it has been approved based on some testing data and on the data received from AS03 in H5N1. In addition, the similar adjuvant MF-59, which also contains squalene, has been approved by the EU for use in H1N1 vaccinations in Europe. Forty million of these vaccines have been dispersed in EU countries. The Canadian government has ordered 50.4 million doses of the vaccine, 1.8 million of which do not contain the adjuvant. The non-adjuvant doses will be given to pregnant women to avoid any possibility of complication.
The decision about whether to get the H1N1 vaccine should be based on an understanding of the vaccine and the principles of risk management, not on media sensationalism. Whether you get the vaccine or not is a choice which can affect many people. The fewer people who are vaccinated, the greater is the chance for widespread illness. For healthy, young immune systems infection with H1N1 may not be a question of life or death (though H1N1 has been affecting younger people more seriously). But, for those with compromised or underdeveloped immune systems, death from H1N1 may be a serious issue. It is everyone’s responsibility to protect their fellow citizens; a safe opportunity to stop the virus before it can reach vulnerable populations is being offered to us by our government. Now that you have an understanding of the virus and the vaccine, unless you’re immunocompromised, there is no reason not to be vaccinated against H1N1.
Click the images below for larger versions:
First of all, there are many reasons not to get the vaccination! It is EXTREMELY unsafe.
How is it logical that a 6 month old baby and a 280 pound man get the exact same amount of the vaccination?
Also the pregnant women are to get a different vaccination - containing adjavant. This means that there is less mercury with healthy squalene - which is good for your nervous system. However, squalene is consumed in a lot of foods you eat. When it is given through the vaccination the body doesn't recognize it and fights against the natural squalene enhancing autoimmune diseases - arthritis etc. And now that they have run out of the vaccination for pregnant women they can have the regular vaccine. And guess where this is going - yes straight to your baby doing what? Increasing the risk of autism, etc.
A 65 year old doctor who practiced holistically had over 35 000 patients. So none of them got vaccinations and none of them had autism. Autism now affects 1 in 500 persons!!
Another scary fact:
In order for the H1N1 vaccination to pass 3 out of 10 persons given the vaccination must not develop flu systems! Wow thats a lucky 30 %!!
I am sure you've all heard of the Gulf war syndrome. Most of the men who fought in the Gulf war were vaccinated against anthrax, but sadly now a majority of these men have autoimmune diseases! WHY? ...from being vaccinated!. I am very curious, but scared as to what effects this H1N1 will have!!
the saddest thing is the pharmacy companies are pushing this vaccination so much to get rich. They don't care about whether or not it helps!
The media is on a big hype about this thing, but the swine flu is much better to get than the H1N1 shot!
I urge you all not to get this poisonous shot!
1) Pregnant women are getting a vaccine WITHOUT adjuvant. Check the GNB flu info website if you disbelieve me.
2) The immune system can see no difference between 'natural' squalene and artificial squalene, if it's the same chemical. Antibodies either recognize something or they don't. They don't magically recognize fructose as bad if it comes from manufactured syrup as opposed to a fruit. Even a basic biology course will tell you that.
3) Vaccines have been shown to have NO - repeat, NO - link with autism, as reported by Discover Magazine. http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/vaccine-autism-link-debunked Also, the Times of London ran an investigative piece to show that the original study that made the claim was flawed, with an extremely small sample size and no control group. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ec...
4) "Gulf war syndrome" is attributed to parasites, fuel, chemical weapons, biological weapons, diseases, depleted uranium exposure, nerve gas, smoke, and toxic chemicals the gulf war vets were exposed to, not just the vaccines they recieved, for one, and for two, the only vaccine they recieved that has since been linked with ill health is the anthrax vaccination. http://www.ei-resource.org/illness-information/environmental-illnesses/g...
5) Finally, flu vaccine is a very, very bad way for a pharmaceutical company to make money: First of all, it still has to pass expensive clinical trials, and second, flu shots are one-time deals. Unless this swine flu continues to be a major strain in the future AND doesn't mutate significantly, they'll never use this formula again. So they expended a huge amount of resources developing and testing it (even if it did get fasttracked, it's still an expensive process) for something that the price of is regulated and that they can't keep using for money for the next fifteen years or however long it would take their patent to run out. Given the cost, they'd be much better off to develop another cold medicine or something like that and milk the royalties and exclusive rights to it as long as they could.
Full disclosure time: Since I'm in a high-risk group, I will be getting the shot as soon as it is available to me. It's up to everyone else to make their own decisions, but do your own research and make an informed decisions - don't just dismiss it based on anti-vaccine disinformation like this (may I remind people that before vaccines were invented, smallpox used to kill 1/4 of those who caught it, according to the WHO http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/ ).
I found the article informative to a degree, but I am a little worried by the reason for using the adjuvant, i.e. that they couldn't make enough vaccine in time.
Yes, there seems to be some urgency to protect people from an uncertain threat, (the virus), (better safe than sorry), but the same logic should apply to thorough testing of the vaccine and adjuvant, which apparently has not been the case. Again, the same logic should apply to the use of mercury, in any form. It seems that it has been banned from European vaccines, and so if there's any validity in the 'everyone is doing it' argument, we should look at what others are banning as well.
I got the vaccine today, and so obviously, I'm doing my research a little late. So far, I don't have a clear idea from what I've read, just a lot of what seem to be agenda-driven opinions.
Nick,
Great job on the research. Very thorough and informative. However while you present a lot of facts and information, I don't think that the link between that and an obligation to get the vaccine is clear. In fact I still think there are many reasons why I wouldn't get vaccinated.
The vaccine contains only one strain of the H1N1 virus. As the flu season goes on the virus will mutate into many more strains. In a 2005 study, only 15% of the cases of seasonal flu that were examined were of the same strain people were vaccinated against. In other words, the vaccine's effectiveness is extremely limited by a virus' ability to mutate.
Additionally, simply due to time constraints this vaccine has not been researched with the same scrutiny as usual. That is why a separate vaccine has been made for pregnant women.
Finally, I think you blur the line around rights and responsibilities. If the vaccine is as effective as you would lead us to believe, and other people at high risk get it, than I would only be endangering myself by choosing not to. If I choose not to get vaccinated, I would only be a threat to others if they make the same choice (because the vaccine will be offered to all Canadians, with those at high risk getting priority).
Although the article contains many facts about viruses, and is overall informative, it doesn't contain one statement that bothers me: "Whether you get the vaccine or not is a choice which can affect many people." In reality, there is contradicting evidence as ti whether or not a higher percentage of the population is vaccinated is correlated with a lower infection rate.
In the end, the choice to get vaccinated, or not, is yours and affects you the most.
Great article! I think it's also important to point out that Guillan-Barre syndrome is much more likely to be caused by a viral infection than by a vaccine. Basically, it occurs when the immune system has been triggered, and instead of only attacking the virus, it attacks the nerve cells. It is a very rare condition - and if it is the maint hing that worries you, you're actually better off getting the vaccine than a virus.
For such a strong-stanced article that quite blatantly recommends vaccination, there is little scientific evidence to support the recommendation.
Yes, there are scientific descriptions of what a virus is and the contents of the vaccine, but that is where the validity ends.
Posing as an evidence-based argument for vaccination, the argument is supported by pointing to the fact that, well, "everyone else is doing it" (i.e. the fact that the Canadian government has ordered vast quantities of the vaccine).
Second-grade journalism indeed.
I do not find your inflamitory comments to be effective in offerring contsructive criticism to this article. Neither do I get the sense that she is "posing" or hyping readers up with a bandwagon approach, as you suggest. It seems to me that she is working in the opposite direction of hype and excitement.
I appreciate the article and how it's written with calm presentation information. It does not require the reader to make a leap of faith. It guides one to a conclusion through use of scientific knowledge.
Also, it is not an exhaustive article meant for a medical or scientific audience. It is consice and accessible, which I believe was probably the intention.
The point of my article is not to point out the fact that "everyone else is doing it". In fact, I wrote this article because I was hearing too often that students were NOT planning to "do it" (as I say in the introductory paragraph). The point of the "posing as an evidence-based argument" was to attempt to clarify what is in the vaccine and what some of the current arguments are against it. All of the evidence I present in the article comes from legitimate sources - The Brunswickan wouldn't publish it otherwise. As an OpEd columnist I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours; except you haven't really offered your opinion.
Aside from offering some very generic criticisms (i.e. second-grade journalism) you really haven't specified any quandary with the piece. I don't feel as though I tried to manipulate people into getting the vaccine, I simply placed the risks (which I outlined in the article as well) in context. The ultimate decision lies with each person.
Informed debate is useful, unsupported criticisms are not.
Hello:
Just wanted to say that this is a great article.
It really cleared up alot of questions that were of a concern to me.
The information is very clear and easy to understand.
I just wanted to say thank you.
I feel alot more comfortable about all this now.
Jessica
Thanks for making things so crystal clear! The media really has a horrible ability of blowing things right out of the water!
Thx
Diane
Post new comment