Posts Tagged h1n1

H1N1 Flu Shot: 3 Major Fears Debunked

It’s no surprise that the latest vogue in antivaccine demagoguery centers on the new H1N1 flu vaccine. Attacks on the vaccine boil down to three major arguments, each playing on different fears. These arguments may seem persuasive on the surface, but they’re not supported by the science.

The first major fear is that flu shots might actually give people the flu. In the case of H1N1, the concern is primarily with the nasal spray variation, which is made with live virus. (The injected vaccine uses dead virus.)

Even health care workers are falling for the pseudoscience behind this myth. A group of doctors and nurses in New York recently filed a federal restraining order to block administration of the vaccine — citing a fear that it could cause an H1N1 outbreak.

Though “live virus” sounds alarming, the fact is that the viruses are weakened to such an extent that they cannot grow or propagate at normal body temperature. Once these “cold-adapted” viruses leave the nose and are subjected to the higher temperatures inside the body, they’re goners. The track record speaks for itself: Live-virus nasal sprays have been widely used for flu vaccination in the US since 2003 — without incident.

Finally, the CDC estimates that the risk of someone who receives the live spray passing the virus to someone else is negligible — between 0.6 and 2.4 percent. And in any case, if the weakened virus is transmitted, it will not grow and propagate in the new host. They may inhale the virus, but they won’t become sick.

The second common concern about flu vaccine dates from a 1976 effort to vaccinate the American public against swine flu — though there was no pandemic at the time. More than 40 million people were vaccinated; of those, roughly 500 developed a potentially serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome. The fear is that another swine flu effort will bring another rash of GBS.

In fact, a 2003 Institute of Medicine study concluded that there may indeed have been a causal relationship between the vaccine and contraction of the disorder. However, vaccine production technology has changed significantly in the past 30 years; the IOM found no evidence that modern vaccines cause GBS. Also, the current H1N1 strain is not the same as the 1976 strain, and the vaccine is therefore different. (The CDC says it’s unlikely that anyone vaccinated in the late ’70s will be protected against the modern H1N1 strain.)

It’s also important to keep those numbers in perspective. Even if all 500 cases of GBS in 1976 were caused by flu vaccination, the incidence of the side effect was minuscule. Among those who received the vaccine, roughly 1 in 80,000 developed GBS. You’re at higher risk of being struck and killed by lightning (1 in 79,000).

The third and most frequently cited concern regarding the modern H1N1 vaccine is that it hasn’t been adequately tested and therefore can’t be considered safe. First, it should be noted that drug companies have been developing and administering flu vaccines for decades with very few side effects other then the occasional stuffy nose or mild allergic reaction. The H1N1 vaccine is made by the same manufacturers, employing the same methods they use to make flu shots and nasal sprays every year.

Second, the National Institute of Health has been conducting clinical trials of the vaccine since July, and early data indicate that the vaccine is well tolerated. Additionally, at least 44,000 people have already been vaccinated in China with reports of only 14 adverse cases — and it’s not certain that those adverse outcomes are even linked to the vaccine.

What is certain is that deaths from H1N1 infection are on the rise. According to the CDC, almost all diagnosed influenza cases in the US so far this year are from H1N1. So far, more than 40,000 confirmed and probable cases have been identified, 5,011 people have been hospitalized, and 302 people have died. The flu has become so widespread that the CDC has stopped counting individual cases.

Though it’s true that no vaccine is 100 percent effective, vaccination significantly reduces the odds of contracting influenza. A study of children aged 15 months to seven years found that the standard nasal flu spray reduced their chance of getting sick by 92 percent. In studies among people younger then 65, the standard flu shot was found to prevent the disease in 70 to 90 percent of cases.

Of course, the flu vaccination isn’t mandatory. Everyone has to decide for themself whether or not to get an H1N1 vaccine. But vaccination is our best, and safest, line of defense.

via H1N1 Flu Shot: 3 Major Fears Debunked | Magazine.

Tags: , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post

Hand-Washing Is No Defense Against Swine Flu | Newsweek Health | Newsweek.com

In a speech to schoolchildren last week that had some conservative opponents up in arms, President Obama delivered at least one line that seemed incontestable: “I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.” The Disney corporation is now marketing Musical Hand Wash Timers featuring characters like the Little Mermaid, and encouraging parents to “take precaution against swine flu” by teaching children to wash their hands correctly. “Studies prove that regular hand-washing dramatically reduces the spread of infection,” says the Disney Web page, which links to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web site.

Thanks in part to this and other campaigns run by the CDC, it has become conventional wisdom that hand-washing is the best way to protect yourself from the H1N1 strain of influenza. But while hand-washing has been shown to be a great defense against the common cold and other respiratory diseases, it might not actually be that helpful against the influenza virus, including the H1N1 strain.

That’s because there is virtually no evidence that people can catch the influenza virus from germs that they pick up on their hands, according to Arthur Reingold, head of epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley, and codirector of the CDC-funded California Emerging Infections Program. Instead, humans are most likely to catch influenza by breathing in microscopic particles exhaled by infected people.

Reingold and other epidemiologists don’t discount hand-washing as an important tool in public health: there is plenty of evidence that it prevents other nasty bugs, including the common cold, many respiratory infections, and viruses that cause diarrhea. But Reingold is bothered by the lack of science supporting the CDC’s message, and he worries that the emphasis on a simple measure like hand-washing creates a false sense of security from H1N1 and tamps down the discussion of more difficult preventive measures. He said as much in an e-mail to the CDC this May. “I wouldn’t care so much that we might be getting folks to improve handwashing . . . with what is likely to be incorrect information about its ability to prevent influenza” if the media and the court of public opinion weren’t so quick to embrace it as the only solution at the expense of things like surgical masks, wrote Reingold in his letter to the CDC. While Reingold admits he doesn’t know if masks would reduce transmission of the virus, he hypothesizes that they’re more likely to be helpful containing exposure to the airborne virus than hand-washing, and should not be so easily discounted. (Other experts are skeptical of face masks because it’s difficult to ensure proper use, or that people will wear them in the first place.)

Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, says the CDC’s emphasis on hand-washing is guided by the “science that supports hand-washing against respiratory infections in general.” In particular, she cites a study conducted in Pakistan that showed that hand hygiene measures cut the rate of pneumonia in half. One of the unique features of swine flu—the fact that it causes diarrhea—also suggests to some that it could be transmitted on the hands like other diarrhea-causing diseases that do not belong to the influenza family. Schuchat stresses that the best way to protect yourself will be to get the vaccine once it becomes available in October, but adds that the CDC continues to believe that “contact precautions are useful with this flu.”

But the ferrets and guinea pigs tell a different story, says Dr. Michael Osterholm, of the National Institutes of Health-supported Minnesota Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance, and head of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Researchers in the Netherlands used ferrets to study the transmission of H1N1 and found that the disease was efficiently transmitted by small airborne particles. An earlier study examining a different flu strain in guinea pigs found that the animals did not pick up the virus from contaminated cages. That suggests that you’re not really safer from the flu virus if you scrub your hands, paws, or cages because the virus travels through the air. While there’s not enough evidence to conclusively say the flu works the same way for humans, the current research suggests that the H1N1 flu travels mostly by air, not via hand-to-hand contact—and therefore won’t be prevented through hand-washing.

“We don’t want to create a crisis in confidence,” Osterholm says, “but we have to be honest: the evidence doesn’t show that hand-washing prevents the spread of the influenza virus.”

Nevertheless, hand-washing is still your best defense against getting sick generally this fall—colds and other respiratory diseases are no fun, even if they don’t sound as scary as swine flu. For that and other flu viruses, don’t seek solutions at the sink: your best chance of avoiding H1N1 this fall is to get the vaccine once it becomes available.

via Hand-Washing Is No Defense Against Swine Flu | Newsweek Health | Newsweek.com.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dog\'s dinnerNot my sort of thingGood but not for meWould try againLoved it! (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Email This Post Email This Post