From Patricia Doyle, PhD - Do Not Take A Swine Flu Vaccine!

[scibuff]

I'm not 100% sure what to make of this ... it seems to be spreading around blogosphere faster than the swine flu just try googling "patricia doyle" do not take swine flu vaccine

... It has conspiracy theory/antivaxxers written all over it although it is not directly against all types of vaccines ... it presents no evidence for it claims whatsoever but makes quite a few serious judgements

anyone cares to comment / give more info?

thank you

[Gillianren]

There doesn't seem to be much information that I can find on exactly what that PhD is in, which is surely relevant.

[geonuc]

There doesn't seem to be much information that I can find on exactly what that PhD is in, which is surely relevant.
Business Administration, apparently. Although she also holds a veterinarian degree.

http://www.rense.com/general85/vacc.htm

[ToSeek]

Moved from Bad Astronomy Stories to OTB.

[Swift]

just try googling "patricia doyle"
Well, when I Google "patricia doyle", the first link is to an antique auction house, so I'm guessing, that's not it. ;)

The second hit is to Dr. P. Doyle's Emerging Disease Website (http://drpdoyle.tripod.com/), which is mostly "under construction", but has a link to some message board, and this piece of information.

I do a monthly radio interview every third Thursday of the month on the Jeff Rense Radio Program. Jeff Rense also has a very informative website at:
rense.com

I'm not sure I would describe Jeff Rense as "very informative". Maybe more like conspiracy nut. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Rense) is what wikipedia has to say:
Rense's radio program and website, Rense.com,[2] cover subjects such as 9/11 conspiracy theories,[3] UFO reporting, paranormal phenomena, Holocaust denial,[4] Zionism, tracking of new diseases and possible resultant pandemics, environmental concerns (see chemtrails), animal rights, possible evidence of advanced ancient technology, geopolitical developments and emergent energy technologies, complementary and alternative medicine among other subjects.

Renses's show has been noted as being among "conspiracy-oriented Internet radio shows that often feature anti-Semites and extremists" by the Anti-Defamation League, a non-profit organisation that opposes anti-semitism.[5]


Lastly, since there is no vaccine for the Swine Flu, I guess not taking it is pretty easy. :rolleyes:

[Lurky]

I think the trick to assessing the quality of vaccines is to look at each vax's risk vs benefit. Not all vaxes work the same nor do they 'protect' the same.

And since there is no vax yet for this particular strain of swine flu it's going to be a 'wait and see' sort of thing.

One thing that is concerning is that there will be no to very little 'trials' since there will be no time to do so.

When/if the vax does arrive you'll have to make a personal 'risk vs benefit' analysis at that point and time.

[Swift]

One thing that is concerning is that there will be no to very little 'trials' since there will be no time to do so.

Do you actually have any basis for this information or this concern? My understand is that the issue with new influenza vaccines is not whether there is a risk of harm to the person, but that the new vaccine might not be effect against the new strain of the virus. Such vaccines have been made and used for years and the risks to people are quite well established.

Here (http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/protect/keyfacts.htm), for example, is the CDC's information about seasonal influenza vaccines.
Who Should Not Be Vaccinated
There are some people who should not be vaccinated without first consulting a physician. These include

People who have a severe allergy to chicken eggs.
People who have had a severe reaction to an influenza vaccination.
People who developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) within 6 weeks of getting an influenza vaccine.
Children less than 6 months of age (influenza vaccine is not approved for this age group), and
People who have a moderate-to-severe illness with a fever (they should wait until they recover to get vaccinated.)


I found this article (http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/CT-Company-Making-Swine-Flu-Vaccine.html) on current work to develop a vaccine for the current swine flu.

[geonuc]

Do you actually have any basis for this information or this concern? My understand is that the issue with new influenza vaccines is not whether there is a risk of harm to the person, but that the new vaccine might not be effect against the new strain of the virus. Such vaccines have been made and used for years and the risks to people are quite well established.
I agree. Was it this past winter or the one earlier where the flu vaccine missed the mark for most strains?

I mentioned in the thread earlier that I had been vaccinated for swine flu in the '70's. I was in the military and President Ford decided that we all were going to get it, no matter the perceived risk. There was quite a row about it at the time. It really didn't bother me then and it certainly wouldn't bother me now. If one were available, I'd be in line to get a shot right now. Having the flu is no fun, and being somewhat immune compromised, the risk of dying from flu-related pneumonia is way higher than any potential vaccine-related issues.

[Lurky]

I'm not sure what you are asking Swift?

I think you mean if the vax that they are working on now for this current flu will in fact be effective? Well since they are using the actually H1N1 virus to create the vaccine it would be more 'on target' then the random crap shoot of the seasonal flu vax... they just take a 'guess' at what might be 'out there' for the coming season and create a vax with those particular viruses.

[geonuc]

I'm not sure what you are asking Swift?

I think you mean if the vax that they are working on now for this current flu will in fact be effective? Well since they are using the actually H1N1 virus to create the vaccine it would be more 'on target' then the random crap shoot of the seasonal flu vax... they just take a 'guess' at what might be 'out there' for the coming season and create a vax with those particular viruses.
Are you concerned about the safety risks associated with the vaccine or with the possibility that it will be ineffective?

[Lurky]

Are you concerned about the safety risks associated with the vaccine or with the possibility that it will be ineffective?

Absolutely.

[pzkpfw]

Absolutely.

There may be a misunderstanding of the word "or" in the question you were replying to.

Do you mean you are concerned about both of the possibilities mentioned in that question?

[Lurky]

Do you mean you are concerned about both of the possibilities mentioned in that question?

Yes.

But much more concerned with the safety of it...

Here is an interesting website for vaccine issues that I have been reading... http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/

[Gillianren]

I think you mean if the vax that they are working on now for this current flu will in fact be effective? Well since they are using the actually H1N1 virus to create the vaccine it would be more 'on target' then the random crap shoot of the seasonal flu vax... they just take a 'guess' at what might be 'out there' for the coming season and create a vax with those particular viruses.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the yearly flu vaccine is put together. But I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of vaccines in general.

[Lurky]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Gilliaren.

[Gillianren]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Gilliaren.

Why? Do you have evidence to support your claim?

[geonuc]

Absolutely.
Huh? What pzkpfw said. That was an 'or' question.

So, why are concerned about the safety of a swine flu vaccine?

[sarongsong]

It's a horse race:April 27, 2009

BLASER: ...It started earlier. You know, if there was going to be a flu outbreak, I would much rather have one that starts in May than one that starts in February, for example. Because of the seasonality...flu peaks in the winter and then it goes down in the spring and all but disappears in the summer and then begins to come back in the fall and rises again in the winter. I guess my prediction is to see pretty much the same thing.

DOBBS: Again in the fall?

BLASER: This one will peak at some point and it is going to be submerged and then come back I think pretty big in the fall and winter. That's good news for us. If this is correct. Because it gives us a chance to develop a vaccine to be enough time that we could prevent a lot of --

DOBBS: Development of the vaccine typically takes at least, what, two months? Six weeks.

BLASER: Well, usually in the normal course of things, it is eight to nine months but they're going to really compress it a lot...
CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/27/ldt.01.html)

[Swift]

Here is an interesting website for vaccine issues that I have been reading... http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/
I didn't take the time to look carefully through that website. But there is a lot of pseudoscience, woowoo, anti-vaccine fear mongering around, particularly on the Internet. Look over what the BA himself has said on his blog about it multiple times.

The issues of safety and effectiveness are very different in flu vaccines. The problem with effectiveness is that influenza viruses are very mutable, and so you are constantly trying to hit a quickly changing target. But none of that effects their safety.

And different vaccines are prepared by very different means (look at the wikipedia article for the long list of different types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#Types)), so it seems wrong to attribute safety concerns with one type of vaccine to all types.

Personally, given the current situation, it seems to me that we need to be very careful that the information we distribute is from reliable sources.

[Lurky]

I didn't take the time to look carefully through that website.

With all due respect Swift, you should take the time.

And if you have questions and comments they welcome them there.

[Swift]

With all due respect Swift, you should take the time.

And if you have questions and comments they welcome them there.
Ok, I did.
The page you linked to has nothing particular about influenza vaccines, so I still question the relevance of "Prevnar IS Safe - Have a Look at the Studies!" to the discussion at hand.

Here is their webpage (http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/vaccine-efficacy-how-often-do-vaccines-work/influenza/) about influences vaccines. They seem to reference two studies, both of which had questions about the effectiveness of such vaccines, but again, I saw nothing about the safety. The authors feelings seem to be more around a cost/benefit analysis of wide-spread flu vaccines.

Overall the percentage of participants experiencing clinical influenza decreased by 6%. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work but only by 0.16 days for each influenza episode (95% CI 0.04 to 0.29 days); Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing serologically confirmed cases of influenza. However, they are not as effective in reducing cases of clinical influenza and number of working days lost. Universal immunisation of healthy adults is not supported by the results of this review.


In my mind, the "risk" of wasting tax dollars on a measure that might not be cost effect is very different than the "risk" of one getting a vaccine and have a negative side-effect of it. My interpretation of your comments were that you were concerned about the second risk, but had offered no evidence that there was a serious risk there. If I have misinterpreted you, I'm sorry.

[Lurky]

Swift, there is no 'evidence' because the vax does not exist yet.

I do have concerns about the development and use of vaccines. Some vaccines concern me more than others. We'll see what happens with this vax when it comes out. If it's anything like the swine flu vax from '76 then there might be problems again.

The website I shared has many good comments, articles (by various people) and resources for conducting your own research on vaccines.

I'm not very good at debate...sorry.

[Gillianren]

I do have concerns about the development and use of vaccines. Some vaccines concern me more than others. We'll see what happens with this vax when it comes out. If it's anything like the swine flu vax from '76 then there might be problems again.

The question is, will the problems outweigh the benefits? In most vaccines ("vax," ye Gods), there is a chance of some small problem, or a vanishingly small chance of a large one. (Especially, it seems, if you've an allergy to egg whites.) However, enormous numbers of lives are saved by them. If you are proposing physical problems stemming from vaccines, it seems you have read exaggerated claims about the dangers.

[Gandalf223]

anyone cares to comment / give more info?

Sorry, I don't even care to go look at the link. The internet in general is a really lousy place to get medical advice.

A vaccine that isn't fully effective against a particular strain of virus, may still provide you with some limited ability to reduce the severity of the disease. If not, you're no worse off than without the vaccine.

[Lurky]

The question is, will the problems outweigh the benefits?

Agreed. And with this vax, for my family, it will be a 'wait and see' and assess the risk vs benefits at that time. Although there will be no proof of either probably at that time...lol... another debate in itself.

And ... I was going to respond to your other comments... but I've been over this ad nauseum with others...and there is no changing my mind.

You think what you want, I've done my research and will think what I want....we will both think the other is wrong so what's the point of debate? :-)

[Lurky]

A vaccine that isn't fully effective against a particular strain of virus, may still provide you with some limited ability to reduce the severity of the disease.

sources please

[01101001]

USA Centers for Disease Control: Swine Flu, Key Facts (http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/key_facts.htm)

Is there a vaccine for swine flu?
Vaccines are available to be given to pigs to prevent swine influenza. There is no vaccine to protect humans from swine flu. The seasonal influenza vaccine will likely help provide partial protection against swine H3N2, but not swine H1N1 viruses.

Also:

Is the H1N1 swine flu virus the same as human H1N1 viruses?
No. The H1N1 swine flu viruses are antigenically very different from human H1N1 viruses and, therefore, vaccines for human seasonal flu would not provide protection from H1N1 swine flu viruses.

[Swift]

As I commented above, the Bad Astronomer has commented a lot in his blog about the anti-vaccine movement. Though it is not particularly about influenza vacccines (more about autism and the routine childhood vaccines), here (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/29/vaccine-safety/) is his latest, and the piece he references (http://antiantivax.jottit.com/). The second link is particularly interesting.

[Gillianren]

And ... I was going to respond to your other comments... but I've been over this ad nauseum with others...and there is no changing my mind.

I find this a very dangerous attitude. You have yet to establish that your opinion has any scientific basis, for starters, just that it coincides with what you found on one website. Have you done any scientific research? If you haven't, why wouldn't knowledge of actual science change your mind?

[Lurky]

Thanks Swift I did take a look at the second link...and most of that is covered in the website (Inside Vaccines) that I asked you to look at.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/03/13/common-anti-vaccination-myths-and-misconceptions/

This website seems to be a bit more common sense... and not neccessarily "antivax"... but more of a 'do your research' sort of website.

Without looking up on the internet... does anyone here 'provax' know what is on the childhood vax schedule now a days?

[Lurky]

I find this a very dangerous attitude. You have yet to establish that your opinion has any scientific basis...


And Gillianren, neither does yours.

I'm done with this thread now.

I'm not an 'antivaxxer'... but not a 'provaxxer' either. Each vaccine has it's own set of benefits and risks.

And yes, I've been researching for years... there are loads of ridiculous over the top antivax websites/information...as well as provax info.

[Euniculus]

I think you mean if the vax that they are working on now for this current flu will in fact be effective? Well since they are using the actually H1N1 virus to create the vaccine it would be more 'on target' then the random crap shoot of the seasonal flu vax... they just take a 'guess' at what might be 'out there' for the coming season and create a vax with those particular viruses.

It's a bit more scientific than that.

To answer a comment you made earlier, no they won't have much time to "trial" the new vaccine anymore than there's time to trial a new flu vaccine. Our method for preparing them is time consuming, but does yield a fairly effective injection.

The technology to develop a swine flu vaccine already exists and it could easily be incorporated with next years flu shot.

Gilliaren is correct that even if a vaccine is not dead on, there is cross protection from other viruses in the same family. Ideally, the vaccine would prevent the disease. However, a secondary benefit is it can keep one from coming down with a full blown infection. Could be the difference between life and death for vulnerable populations.

If you really want sources to back up Gilly's words, I can give them to you ad nauseam.

[mike alexander]

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2009/09_0-6yrs_schedule_pr.pdf

Try here. CDC guide.

[Gillianren]

"Gilly"? Um, thank you, no.

[sarongsong]

:lol: My eyes tripped over that one, too---and besides, SNL (http://www.premiumhollywood.com/2009/04/13/gilly-the-unfunniest-returning-snl-characterever/) has already misappropiated it. :)

[Gandalf223]

sources please

...experimental HIV vaccines in development will offer only limited immunity against the virus but might delay the onset of AIDS (http://www.thebody.com/content/news/art41052.html)...

In the past, the WHO and governments have dismissed the idea of pre-pandemic vaccination. They reasoned that no vaccine would exactly match whatever pandemic virus emerges, so any that was produced would offer only limited immunity. (http://www.martinmanley.typepad.com/jam_side_down/2006/06/now-that-we-hav.html)

It has been repeatedly shown that vaccination ... can induce a definite, although limited, level of antituberculous immunity in experimental animals. (http://jem.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/97/2/207.pdf)

...vaccines ... against the form of the [malaria] parasite that resides in humans ... have been unsuccessful or produced limited immunity. (http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Malaria-vaccine-prompts-victims-immune-system-to-eliminate-parasite-from-mosquitoes-3874-1/)

Antibodies made in response to vaccination with one strain of influenza viruses can provide protection against different, but related strains. A less than ideal match may result in reduced vaccine effectiveness against the variant viruses, but it can still provide enough protection to prevent or lessen illness severity and prevent flu-related complications. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/season.htm)

[scibuff]

thank you guys for the discussion ... it is mostly about risks vs benefits ... however I was wondering also about something else. As the author points out in her article, one of the main reasons she is against flu vaccination is that it could provide new gene sequences (human in particular) for mutation, potentially creating very virulent virus easily transmittable between humans (a strain of H5N1, avian flu, transmittable from human to human hosts, for example)
I understand that there is always a possibility of selective mutation creating such strain, what I'm wondering is that whether massive/random flu vaccinations could increase this likelihood and how would it weight against the partial/cross protection?! Is there any research done on this. Thank you

[geonuc]

Well, we already do massive flu vaccinations on an annual basis.

[HenrikOlsen]

As the author points out in her article, one of the main reasons she is against flu vaccination is that it could provide new gene sequences (human in particular) for mutation, potentially creating very virulent virus easily transmittable between humans (a strain of H5N1, avian flu, transmittable from human to human hosts, for example)
Strange, given that the vaccine is dead and don't get reproduced as a result of the vaccination.

[beskeptical]

Sorry, I don't even care to go look at the link. The internet in general is a really lousy place to get medical advice.
....Only if you can't tell the difference between information and advice from science based medicine sources (aka tested, studied) and totally made up stuff where the origin of the information could be anything from a prank to a lunatic to a well meaning but very poorly informed individual.

Inside Vaccines is an anti-vaxer website full of lies and distortions of the actual facts. It does untold damage because it presents itself as an evidence based source. In reality they misinterpret a lot of data and see every real expert as either duped or in on some WHO/CDC/Big Pharma conspiracy. That includes the vast majority of medical researchers, medical providers and organizations around the globe that fund vaccine research. In other words, a bunch of uneducated, poorly informed lay persons believe they can interpret the vast amount of vaccine research better than the best educated minds in the field. This is because the Inside Vaccine people think the rest of us are incompetent to judge research bias or we care about "herd immunity" and not individuals, which is absurd because either you know who will react poorly to a vaccine and you don't give it to that individual, or you don't know and the benefits for the individual outweighing the risk of the vaccine is your deciding criteria. There is no such thing as herd immunity being a deciding factor over individual benefit. It isn't even logical.

[beskeptical]

Here are some clues to judging the value of a webpage:

About Inside Vaccines (http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/about-insidevaccinescom/)Inside Vaccines is a group of citizens (scientists, authors, engineers, librarians, researchers, parents and grandparents) who believe that making an effective risk v. benefit assessment regarding routine immunizations is crucial. Our articles discuss vaccinations, studies and research compilations. We cite sources such as the CDC and JAMA. Our hope is that we are able to provide you with clear, concise data which will spur your own research and analysis.

Along with our scientific and statistical analysis we include helpful pieces for families negotiating the vaccine maze, commentary on news stories and occasional opinion pieces. Some of us have agreed to share stories from our lives about vaccines, childhood illnesses and encounters with the medical bloc.

Do you see a single name there? Is there anything which you can check to validate the claim this web page is indeed run by scientists or researchers? Can you check the credentials or experience of anyone responsible for the quality of the information on the site?

That's clue #1.

[JohnD]

Lurky,
You refer several times to assessing the risk/benefit of a vaccine, before making your decision on its value.
How do YOU do that?

John

Oh, he's gone - I didn't read page 2.
J

[beskeptical]

Clue #2: They claim polio vaccine (http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/10/03/scary-stats-iv-polio/) is not responsible for ending polio. Rather it is just a coincidence the disease disappeared when the vaccine was introduced, and really it was improved sanitation that ended the disease.

This is one of the most ignorant beliefs of the anti-vaxers.

The Truth About The "Evils" Of Vaccination (http://factsnotfantasy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=4)Polio

* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that polio rates increased after the introduction of the polio vaccine, that OPV spread the disease, and that polio was on a decline before introduction of the vaccine. This is wrong.
* Before the approval of the vaccine, paralytic polio struck 13,000-20,000 individuals every year in the U.S. The number of cases peaked at 21,000 in 1952, only three years before approval of the vaccine. By 1960, there were only 2,525 cases, and only 61 cases in 1965.
* The oral polio vaccine (OPV) was nearly 100% effective in preventing polio, though it did have a very small risk of causing paralytic polio in the recipient. OPV-caused paralytic polio resulted in about 6-8 cases per year. However, when vaccination rates were low, OPV had the added benefit of contact immunity. In other words, the virus from the vaccine was present in the stool, resulting in about 25% of people who came in contact with the immunized person would also become immune.
* With the eradication of wild type polio in the U.S., the OPV vaccine is no longer used, and the less effective inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) is used. This version does not cause paralytic polio. OPV has not been used in the U.S. since 2000.

I'll get into this further as soon as I can. First I want to see if anyone has complied the science based evidence debunking the myriad of false claims on the Inside Vaccine website before reinventing the wheel.

[beskeptical]

thank you guys for the discussion ... it is mostly about risks vs benefits ... however I was wondering also about something else. As the author points out in her article, one of the main reasons she is against flu vaccination is that it could provide new gene sequences (human in particular) for mutation, potentially creating very virulent virus easily transmittable between humans (a strain of H5N1, avian flu, transmittable from human to human hosts, for example)
I understand that there is always a possibility of selective mutation creating such strain, what I'm wondering is that whether massive/random flu vaccinations could increase this likelihood and how would it weight against the partial/cross protection?! Is there any research done on this. Thank youFlu vaccines do not add to the risk of new genes. Even if the vaccines were not killed, which they are, the vaccines are made from existing "seed" viruses maintained by the WHO. We do not as of yet create designer virus genes from which to make flu vaccine from.

The fear expressed by the woman in question is based on ignorance of virology and immunology. The reassortments and genetic drift of the natural influenza virus is a more than sufficient hazard on its own. While there is an occasional slip up that might add to the risk of natural disease, (such as recently when researchers accidentally mixed the dangerous H5N1 virus with a human strain giving it an opportunity to infect an animal simultaneously which is how reassortments occur), the benefits of vaccinations outweighs any hazards by so far as to be unquestionable we should be producing these vaccines.

A single accident such as the one I noted is not acceptable, but the next deadly flu pandemic is when not if, and vaccinations are our best defense. Without the research we might as well start stockpiling coffins. With it we can stockpile anti-virals and vaccines and expect to immensely modify the damage.

[robross]

I get a yearly flu vaccine, so I'm certainly not against them. But I haven't seen any discussion on this thread yet about what happened the last time they developed a vaccine against the swine flu, in 1976. There were 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome as a side-effect of the vaccine, and more people died of the vaccine than the virus. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask questions about this.

I presume we know a lot more about viruses today than we did in 1976. But I still don't know what caused the Guillain-Barré syndrome, if it was of any statistical significance compared to other flu vaccines, if there was something lacking in the way they created the vaccine in 1976 that wouldn't apply with modern technology, etc.

You also have to look at the risk vs. benefit. So far this virus doesn't seem that lethal, unless you have some underlying health issues. Maybe it makes sense for people in that category to get a vaccine. I'm still not sure if I will get a swine flu vaccine, should one become available. It certainly isn't for any fear of vaccines in general, just the fact that it's a new one that won't have as much testing time as previous flu vaccines.

Rob

[mike alexander]

For a virus with a rapid mutation rate, you're always going to be a bit behind.

Yup, it's a risk. After looking at the data, I have always taken the vaccine.

[beskeptical]

I get a yearly flu vaccine, so I'm certainly not against them. But I haven't seen any discussion on this thread yet about what happened the last time they developed a vaccine against the swine flu, in 1976. There were 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome as a side-effect of the vaccine, and more people died of the vaccine than the virus. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask questions about this.

I presume we know a lot more about viruses today than we did in 1976. But I still don't know what caused the Guillain-Barré syndrome, if it was of any statistical significance compared to other flu vaccines, if there was something lacking in the way they created the vaccine in 1976 that wouldn't apply with modern technology, etc.

You also have to look at the risk vs. benefit. So far this virus doesn't seem that lethal, unless you have some underlying health issues. Maybe it makes sense for people in that category to get a vaccine. I'm still not sure if I will get a swine flu vaccine, should one become available. It certainly isn't for any fear of vaccines in general, just the fact that it's a new one that won't have as much testing time as previous flu vaccines.

Rob33 years ago they judged the epidemic prematurely. 33 years later, we are way past that part of the science.

There was some component (antigen) in the 76 vaccine that resulted in a tiny fraction of the vaccine recipients getting GBS. What antigen triggered the GBS has not been determined. We do know it hasn't occurred with any flu vaccine since. In addition, had the swine flu strain that infected the soldiers at Fort Dix actually spread into the general population, the risk of GBS would have paled in comparison to the deaths from the flu virus.

The worst outcome of the 76 vaccine has been the inappropriate fear of flu vaccine that continues to this day. It is responsible for tens of thousands of vaccine preventable deaths.

There is nothing to suggest the fact the current swine flu strain has genes commonly circulating in pigs means any vaccine produced will have the antigen component that caused the increased GBS cases. But I imagine given the current pattern of disease, the vaccine will be recommended for specific at risk people rather than everyone. If the virus becomes more virulent between now and next winter, that will change.


Keep in mind those underlying health conditions have not been fully characterized yet. They include smoking, obesity and diabetes. Those are not the equivalent of preexisting incapacitating severe chronic disease that most people think has been the underlying reason for the fatalities so far.

I caution everyone from being tempted to think we actually know what we have here in terms of risk. The age demographic of the deaths in Mexico was very troubling. There was a distinct worrisome 'W' shaped age curve when seasonal flu has a 'U' shaped age curve (meaning deaths primarily in the very young and very old). Everyone thinks we have enough cases to say that pattern is not being repeated outside of Mexico. That is not the case. A mild flu strain might kill 1/4,000 people. We have barely hit 4,000 cases outside Mexico. Do you think one can tell from 5 deaths what pattern you are seeing? Of course not! But if you want to guess, one death was a toddler, one in his 50's and 3 in their 30s. That spells a 'W' and that is a bad sign.

[beskeptical]

I found some more on Patricia Doyle. From the looks of this exchange she's could be a paranoid schizophrenic.

Dr. Patricia Doyle's Heroic Fight Against Death From SARS (http://www.rense.com/general38/fight.htm)I went to the doctor yesterday and found out what the excruciating pain was in my feet and legs during the second week of my illness. Clots. I am diagnosed with Thrombosis, i.e. Deep Vein Thrombosis. I notice that each time I go to the doctor, SARS or SARS like is not used in the diagnosis on my payment receipt. I am being treated with Betablockers and diuretic for bp and the bp hasn't lowered much. Yesterday it was 140/102. At the height of the illness is spiked to 170/120. In some patients SARS must cause clots. I was darned lucky that the long clots coughed up from my lungs with the bright red blood did not cut off my lungs or heart. I will never forget the past 10 weeks, EVER....

...I think that the CDC was told by Bush administration to rework the numbers due to the economy. Believe me, the worst in Iraq is coming our way and that will wreck havoc on the already grim economy. West Nile and other mosquito and tick illnesses are going to hit hard this year, which will further damage the economy. Bush, therefore, after seeing what happened in Asia and China, did not want the US to have SARS, therefore, SARS criteria etc and numbers have been manuevered to show little cases and no deaths.Clearly this is not the writing of anyone knowledgeable in medicine. Nor does it even sound like someone truthful or if truthful, then not clear what they are being diagnosed with. But irrationally paranoid, definitely.

Deep vein thrombosis from which blood clots form (http://www.pcca.net/PulmonaryEmbolism.html) and can be dislodged to block arteries in the lung do not generally result in "coughing up clots". You could certainly cough up some small amounts of blood from local necrotic tissue, but in general coughing up blood clots is not what you see with pulmonary embolisms.

Ms Doyle (I am not convinced she has a PhD) seems to have found the following case report on a SARS patient (http://pmj.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/81/956/e3). CASE REPORT
Pulmonary artery thrombosis in a patient with severe acute respiratory syndrome
...
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an emerging infectious disease with both pulmonary and extra-pulmonary manifestations. Although coagulation abnormalities are common in these patients, clinically overt thromboembolic events are rarely reported. This report describes the first case of pulmonary artery thrombosis in a patient with laboratory confirmed SARS.



It would appear this thread belongs in Conspiracy Theories, ToSeek, rather than here.

[beskeptical]

More on Ms Doyle. On the Rense webpage, she claims to be Patricia A. Doyle DVM, PhD
Bus Admin, Tropical Agricultural Economics
Univ of West Indies But at the web page for University of West Indies (http://www.uwi.edu/searchresults.aspx?q=patricia+doyle&cx=003777353491698791387%3azecshmz5n5a&cof=FORID%3a9) there is no Patricia Doyle to be found with their search engine.

[R.A.F.]

It would appear this thread belongs in Conspiracy Theories, ToSeek, rather than here.

The topic of this thread is in no way related to space or astronomy so I would have to respectfully disagree.

[beskeptical]

It appears Ms Doyle has posts all over the web. Not anything that even remotely validates she is a DVM with a PhD in business administration. That hasn't stopped people from just buying her nonsense as really coming from someone with those credentials.

[beskeptical]

The topic of this thread is in no way related to space or astronomy so I would have to respectfully disagree.OK, I wasn't aware it was limited to astronomy CTs.

[HenrikOlsen]

Yesterday it was 140/102. At the height of the illness is spiked to 170/120
Congratulations lady, you have a tendency to high blood pressure which is under control. Be happy.

Mine was 180/130 when diagnosed, 130/90 at last check.

BTW since when has a PhD in business administration made anyone competent to assess medical data?

[geonuc]

BTW since when has a PhD in business administration made anyone competent to assess medical data?
It doesn't, but has she asserted so?

[HenrikOlsen]

I agree that there is not explicit claim, but using the title while handing out medical advise does indicate that she intends for it to add credibility. That is an implied claim.

And one I'll add that is probably made in conscious expectation that many people reading it won't consider the possibility that it might be an irrelevant degree.

[geonuc]

I agree that there is not explicit claim, but using the title while handing out medical advise does indicate that she intends for it to add credibility. That is an implied claim.

And one I'll add that is probably made in conscious expectation that many people reading it won't consider the possibility that it might be an irrelevant degree.
All true. She does have a DVM, apparently, which would be relevant.

[beskeptical]

It doesn't, but has she asserted so?Yes. Besides, I think she's a total fake. Maybe isn't even female, who knows?

She signed her Rense.com letters as a professor at a University where she cannot be found on their web page.

She signed her Rense letter claiming to be a DVM, which stands for Dr of Veterinary Medicine which I believe was also mentioned somewhere else. But her posts are not those of even an educated person, let alone a Dr of anything.

I see evidence of a fraud and no evidence of credibility.

[beskeptical]

All true. She does have a DVM, apparently, which would be relevant.No, she claims to have a DVM. You cannot say from the evidence we have that she does have one, or even that she probably has one.

[beskeptical]

'Dr' Doyle's other Rense posts. (http://www.rense.com/Datapages/pdoyledata.htm)

From the first title on the list: Patty Doyle's Family & The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (http://www.rense.com/general74/doyle.htm)Patricia A. Doyle DVM, PhD
Bus Admin, Tropical Agricultural Economics
Univ of West Indies

Please visit my "Emerging Diseases" message board at:
http://www.emergingdisease.org/phpbb/index.php
Also my new website:
http://drpdoyle.tripod.com/
Zhan le Devlesa tai sastimasa
Go with God and in Good HealthOne of the links says under construction and the other says no longer an active site.


More evidence of ignorance from Ms Doyle:

Type Of Bird Flu Killing Greyhounds In Rhode Island? (http://www.rense.com/general65/typeofbirdflukillinggrey.htm)

Sorry, Patty, it was considered an equine flu strain, not a bird flu strain. She copied the story from a post on Dr Niman's Recombinomics Web Page but didn't know enough about influenza to understand what the difference is between equine strains and avian strains.

I read a few more of her posts. They amount to mostly ignorant sometimes paranoid interpretations of Internet news stories. No expertise exhibited whatsoever. You can read the same kind of nonsense on GodLikeProductions any day.

[geonuc]

No, she claims to have a DVM. You cannot say from the evidence we have that she does have one, or even that she probably has one.
I did say "apparently". That word has meaning.

[geonuc]

Yes.
Where did she assert that having a PhD in Business Administration qualified her as competent to assess medical data?

[captain swoop]

with her inclusion of it in her posting about medical subjects?

[geonuc]

with her inclusion of it in her posting about medical subjects?
That would not constitute an assertion.

Don't get me wrong - I think she's a quack. But saying she asserted something she might not have is not something we should be doing. Many PhD's list that at the end of their name, no matter the subject they're addressing. It implies relevant training, but it's a pretty common implication, I think, and she should not be vilified for that.

And beskeptical challenging me on my post where I only said she 'apparently' has a DVM (which would definitely be relevant to this subject) is also something I'm going to respond to (and did).

[Appleblythe]

Not much, but it helps. Thanks for sharing this one.

[Gillianren]

Don't get me wrong - I think she's a quack. But saying she asserted something she might not have is not something we should be doing. Many PhD's list that at the end of their name, no matter the subject they're addressing. It implies relevant training, but it's a pretty common implication, I think, and she should not be vilified for that.

You know, should I (Gods willing) somehow manage the PhD, I wouldn't refer to it when writing about things outside my expertise. I'd put it on a page describing my educational experience--including when and where I received it in addition to what it was in--but, from what I can tell, this woman does want you to take her more seriously because she has the thing. She may not precisely be using it to put forward medical claims, but I think she is clearly using it to give herself more gravitas. "Trust me--I'm a doctor! Sure, it's in something else, but I went through all the work to become one, so I must know what I'm talking about." Not as deliberately misleading as Dr. Laura, by any stretch, but I do think it's intended to mislead.

[Maha Vailo]

Deep vein thrombosis from which blood clots form (http://www.pcca.net/PulmonaryEmbolism.html) and can be dislodged to block arteries in the lung do not generally result in "coughing up clots". You could certainly cough up some small amounts of blood from local necrotic tissue, but in general coughing up blood clots is not what you see with pulmonary embolisms.

If DVT's not causing her to "cough up clots", then what do you think might be ailing her instead/as well?

I hope it's nothing contagious.

- Maha Vailo

[beskeptical]

That would not constitute an assertion.

Don't get me wrong - I think she's a quack. But saying she asserted something she might not have is not something we should be doing. Many PhD's list that at the end of their name, no matter the subject they're addressing. It implies relevant training, but it's a pretty common implication, I think, and she should not be vilified for that.

And beskeptical challenging me on my post where I only said she 'apparently' has a DVM (which would definitely be relevant to this subject) is also something I'm going to respond to (and did).So posting on a regular basis, her wacky ideas and paranoid delusions on Rense, and using what look to be fake credentials, does not, in your opinion, mean she was asserting any expertise in any of the medical fields she posted about?

Granted many of her posts were just parroted news articles, but not all of them were simply copied data. Your own thread title has Ms Doyle giving people medical advice. What's your rationale for defending this person?

[beskeptical]

If DVT's not causing her to "cough up clots", then what do you think might be ailing her instead/as well?

I hope it's nothing contagious.

- Maha VailoYou are starting with the assumption she is accurately describing her symptoms. I don't make that assumption.

TB can cause a person to hemorrhage in the lung, as can a spontaneous pneumothorax. Lots of things can. I have no clue what Ms Doyle had, if anything. I merely noted there was only one report of a patient with SARS who had pulmonary hemorrhaging and Ms Doyle's rantings that the US government was covering her diagnosis up for some diabolical reason was more consistent with paranoid delusions than anything else.

[beskeptical]

I did say "apparently". That word has meaning.I appreciate the clarification. But forgive me in that you posted the following as well, which does not read as someone clearly stating they were unconvinced of a person's posted credentials:Business Administration, apparently. Although she also holds a veterinarian degree.

http://www.rense.com/general85/vacc.htmThat sounds like you are saying the PhD is apparently in business administration, not that she apparently has a PhD. Personally, I think the adjective, "apparently" is a bit too strong in this case. I don't think it is apparent at all Ms Doyle has the credentials she claims to have.

But I was not trying to attack you personally, just pointing out the Net is rife with fraudulent letters after people's names.

[geonuc]

So posting on a regular basis, her wacky ideas and paranoid delusions on Rense, and using what look to be fake credentials, does not, in your opinion, mean she was asserting any expertise in any of the medical fields she posted about?

Granted many of her posts were just parroted news articles, but not all of them were simply copied data. Your own thread title has Ms Doyle giving people medical advice. What's your rationale for defending this person?
This isn't my thread - I didn't title it. And I'm not defending her - I clearly just stated I think she's a quack.

This little off-topic detour is getting ridiculous. I am not in any way arguing that Doyle isn't asserting expertise in the subject matter of the debate. I very narrowly argued that she hasn't asserted that having a PhD in Business Administration qualifies her as an expert. She has only appended her name with the PhD and it took some digging to find out what it was in. She hasn't (that I know about), for instance, said anything like, "I have a PhD and this is what I think about vaccinations for swine flu." That would be asserting expertise based on a PhD in BA.

That's all. I make no other argument than that.

[Gillianren]

I don't think the average person who will be taken in by her makes that distinction, Geonuc. I do think that the very idea of appending her title (I'm assuming it's even a valid one for the purposes of discussion) to the end of her name will convince some people she's right. I think people who would be taken in by her will generally go, "Look, she's a doctor! She must know what she's talking about!" And I think it's quite likely, though of course I cannot prove it, that she knows that and is taking advantage of it.

[geonuc]

All very probably correct. I'm considering getting a PhD myself so people will take my ridiculous blathering more seriously. I suppose I could use the JD, but that would just attract derisive lawyer jokes.

[mike alexander]

Geonuc - WWJD?

[HenrikOlsen]

What Would Jonathan Do?

Should really be WWCD now.