re: H1N1 (Swine flu) informational resources

Quoting Colleen13:“ I believe they tell you two weeks but they have seen significant antibodies as early as 7 days. I will try to look up the effectiveness, I thought it was abput 80% but I will have to check.”

ok thanks mama. so my LO isn't completely immune to it until he gets the next shot? why do babies need 2 shots?

Quoting usagi:“ BTW where did you see this hypothesis? Just curious!”

From the Mercola link, it's under "Pregnant Women Given Vaccine Have Babies with More Health Problems"

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/03/What-We-Have-Learned-About-the-Great-Swine-Flu-Pandemic.aspx

Quoting Mason's Mommy ♥:“ ok thanks mama. so my LO isn't completely immune to it until he gets the next shot? why do babies need 2 shots?”

Vaccines aren't guarenteed 100%... so there is no way to make sure that your LO is "completely immune." However, chances are he willmount a perfectly fine immune respose after the first dose of vaccine; yet,some kids don't so a second dose of vaccine has been shown to increase the odds for protection further.

Quoting Rebecca [+ Aiden&Rian]:“ From the Mercola link, it's under "Pregnant Women Given Vaccine Have Babies with More Health Problems" ... [snip!] ... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/03/What-We-Have-Learned-About-the-Great-Swine-Flu-Pandemic.aspx”

*sigh* I figured but I didn't see it at first glance. This might take a while....

dude i aeriously have 2 very ugly bruises. one way up on my arm from the h1n1 shot and the other a little lower from the seasonal. damn needles and my body that bruises so freaking easy

Quoting Rebecca [+ Aiden&Rian]:“ From the Mercola link, it's under "Pregnant Women Given Vaccine Have Babies with More Health Problems" ... [snip!] ... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/03/What-We-Have-Learned-About-the-Great-Swine-Flu-Pandemic.aspx”

Well, I'm already hung up on the the claim right before that about Gardasil: "When the HPV vaccine Gardasil was first released the CDC and the manufacturer (Merck Pharmaceutical Company) recommended that it be given to pregnant women. Shortly after beginning this dangerous practice it was ordered halted because a number of women were losing their babies and babies were being born with major malformations."

Then Mercola references a report from the CDC(reference #26) to back up his claims. So of course I checked it out:
"Overall, pregnancy outcomes among subjects who received Gardasil or placebo in comparative studies were similar: a comparable proportion of pregnancies with live births (Gardasil, 62% and placebo, 60%) and spontaneous abortions (app. 25% in each group) was noted. A similar pattern of adverse events and occurrence in pregnant subjects were noted in the Gardasil group (N=40, 4.2%) and placebo group (N=41, 4.3%). The events in each treatment group were related to conditions leading to C-section, premature labor, and conditions associated with pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia. [...] Among women who conceived within 30 days of vaccination, there were 5 cases of congenital anomalies in infants born to mothers who received Gardasil and none in infants born to mothers in the placebo group. The five diverse anomalies included the following: hip dysplasia, ankyloglossia with pyloric stenosis, congenital hydronephrosis, congenital megacolon, and club foot. As of 1/25/06, there were 17 congenital anomalies in infants born to Gardasil recipients and 19 to placebo recipients. The pattern of 15 anomalies does not suggest an association with the vaccine. Pregnancies that occurred in Studies 013 and 015 that had not been completed at the time of the BLA submission will be followed to completion for the close out reports. In addition, a pregnancy registry study is planned as a post-marketing commitment to continue follow-up of pregnancy outcomes. The vaccine is not recommended for use in women known to be pregnant. "

Anyone else NOT seeing what Mercola claims? Is he really that dumb to think that we won't check the reference? This report outlines the studies (clinical trials) that went into Gardasil being licensed in May 2006 to determine its safety and efficacy.... NOT a study done post-licensure.

Also, from where this data was in the reference, it looks like these pregnancies happened either just before (within 30 days) or after vaccination... the data was reported after a section on changes in medical history of the recipients. So I doubt that pregnant women were sought after to get this vaccine.

Quoting Rebecca [+ Aiden&Rian]:“ Of the different theories on autism, I've never head this one: It is known that stimulating a woman’s ... [snip!] ... the risk that her baby will develop autism during childhood and schizophrenia sometime during the teenage years and afterward.”

Here is Mercola's reference for that claim... it is a study on mice!

"Schizophrenia and autism are thought to result from the interaction between a susceptibility genotype and environmental risk factors. The offspring of women who experience infection while pregnant have an increased risk for these disorders. Maternal immune activation (MIA) in pregnant rodents produces offspring with abnormalities in behavior, histology, and gene expression that are reminiscent of schizophrenia and autism, making MIA a useful model of the disorders. However, the mechanism by which MIA causes long-term behavioral deficits in the offspring is unknown. Here we show that the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) is critical for mediating the behavioral and transcriptional changes in the offspring. A single maternal injection of IL-6 on day 12.5 of mouse pregnancy causes prepulse inhibition (PPI) and latent inhibition (LI) deficits in the adult offspring. Moreover, coadministration of an anti-IL-6 antibody in the poly(I:C) model of MIA prevents the PPI, LI, and exploratory and social deficits caused by poly(I:C) and normalizes the associated changes in gene expression in the brains of adult offspring. Finally, MIA in IL-6 knock-out mice does not result in several of the behavioral changes seen in the offspring of wild-type mice after MIA. The identification of IL-6 as a key intermediary should aid in the molecular dissection of the pathways whereby MIA alters fetal brain development, which can shed new light on the pathophysiological mechanisms that predispose to schizophrenia and autism."

So, don't get an infection, or inject yourself with IL-6, and your baby should be fine.  

Quoting amanda_mommy:“ dude i aeriously have 2 very ugly bruises. one way up on my arm from the h1n1 shot and the other a little lower from the seasonal. damn needles and my body that bruises so freaking easy”

  Boo bruises.

That Mercola site could keep me occupied for hours... if I had hours.

Anyways, the part that makes me laugh the most is his dismissal of the threat of H1N1 to pregnant women. First, he takes the CDC stats and twists them to say it's no big deal to pregnant women. Okay, if you want to use the stats that way to make it less scary, more power to you.

Then he goes on to say that ifH1N1 were a threat, those pregnant women are probably obese, obese with medical conditions (he has a source for this data; I didn't look into it), smoking or doing illegal drugs (no source cited, just a hypothesis)! And, of course, "one must keep in mind, at this age [pregnant women], (age range of 15 to 39 years) many would have had numerous childhood vaccines and booster vaccines." So it's the vaccines from childhood that are offing pregnant women infected with H1N1!!!!! Evidence? None of course!

Okay, my last comment I swear.  

Mercola says this:
"Number of People Admitted to the Hospital each Year with Viral Pneumonia (ref 5)

57 people in 2005
33 people in 2006
69 people in 2007
69 people in 2008
37 people in 2009

So we see that in 2009 they had 32 fewer people admitted with actual viral pneumonia. The CDC and other public health agents of fear like to imply that mass numbers of people are dying from “flu”, that is, actual influenza viral pneumonia, when in fact, most are dying from other complications secondary to underlying health problems"

Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't we still in 2009? And if you look at reference 5 that he cites, these are numbers through June 2009. So he is looking at half a year's worth of deaths. And keep in mind that novel H1N1 didn't emerge until the Spring of 2009. And nice way to discount deaths from complications of the flu.

Tina - most people probably don't check the references they believe everything they read!

You and your info is awesome! Thank you for clearing it up!

Quoting James Mama:“ Tina - most people probably don't check the references they believe everything they read! You and your info is awesome! Thank you for clearing it up!”

It was easy to pick apart those things since he provided the references LOL!

 Mercola....if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...quack quack quack 

Quoting James Mama:“ Tina - most people probably don't check the references they believe everything they read! You and your info is awesome! Thank you for clearing it up!”

 

Quoting usagi:“ Vaccines aren't guarenteed 100%... so there is no way to make sure that your LO is "completely immune." ... [snip!] ... dose of vaccine; yet,some kids don't so a second dose of vaccine has been shown to increase the odds for protection further.”

oh ok. so is it the same for adults?