Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | September 28th 2009 11:15 PM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Adaptive Complexity articles

All

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist


... Full Bio

CDC officials are anticipating a wave a vaccine horror stories, and reminding folks that by sheer coincidence bad things will happen after some people get their flu shots:

As soon as swine flu vaccinations start next month, some people getting them will drop dead of heart attacks or strokes, some children will have seizures and some pregnant women will miscarry.

But those events will not necessarily have anything to do with the vaccine. That poses a public relations challenge for federal officials, who remember how sensational reports of deaths and illnesses derailed the large-scale flu vaccine drive of 1976...

There are about 2,400 miscarriages a day in the U.S.,” said Dr. Jay C. Butler, chief of the swine flu vaccine task force at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “You’ll see things that would have happened anyway. But the vaccine doesn’t cause miscarriages. It also doesn’t cause auto accidents, but they happen.”

Given the size of the United States population, you could easily compile a huge list of people who had health problems after getting a flu shot. A list of anecdotes, however, is meaningless unless you compare it against the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is your friend.

But what about the new swine flu H1N1 vaccine? Some of the flu vaccine paranoia this season is being generated by worries about this new vaccine - how has there been enough time to test it for side effects?

It's critical to recognize that the H1N1 vaccine isn't fundamentally different from your regular seasonal flu shot, and has the same risk of side effects. H1N1 is influenza A, not some fundamentally different virus like smallpox. The H1N1 vaccine is made in the same way as the seasonal flu shot. For you aficionados, the basic procedure is this:

Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, for intramuscular injection, is a sterile, clear, colorless to slightly opalescent suspension with some sediment that resuspends upon shaking to form a homogeneous suspension. Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is prepared from influenza virus propagated in the allantoic fluid of embryonated chicken eggs. Following harvest, the virus is purified in a sucrose density gradient using a continuous flow zonal centrifuge. The purified virus is inactivated with beta-propiolactone, and the virus particles are disrupted using sodium taurodeoxycholate to produce a “split virion”. The disrupted virus is further purified and suspended in a phosphate buffered isotonic solution.

Basically, the flu virus is propagated in chicken eggs, then purified and broken up with detergent. The protein pieces of now-dead virus go into the vaccine, where, once injected into you, they stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies against the viral proteins. The only difference between H1N1 and the regular flu vaccine is that you start the manufacturing process with the H1N1 flu strain.

The FDA has approved several H1N1 vaccines, and some of the first reports are coming out.

So go out and get your flu shots next month. (Just keep in mind that this isn't medical advice - just sensible advice. I'm not your doctor.)


Read the feed:


Comments

Gerhard Adam's picture
That's not so bad.  Unlike the woman I ran into that told my friend that she wouldn't take any vaccines since she knew they were made from ground-up human fetuses.

jgerke's picture
I got a flu shot last week, and then my baseball team lost that night.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
That's evidence enough - no flu shot for me!

adaptivecomplexity's picture
That should only be a consideration if you have a baseball team that actually has a chance.

This is great, and you're absolutely right. I'm becoming more and more concerned about the fear that is growing about vaccines, whether for flu, MMR or anything else. A friend of mine sent out a link that claimed that a hep B vaccine in the late 70s was responsible for AIDS (HIV doesn't exist, donchaknow). He sees vaccine danger around every turn. When we told him that the h1n1 vaccine was going to be made with a lower quantity of virus he claimed that that is part of the problem because it's the vaccine stabilizer that is the real danger with vaccines (lead, aluminum, etc, etc.) There is no arguing with him, and now his girlfriend. And now their kid won't be vaccinated any more for anything.

This is an uphill battle, and getting people to understand is not going to be easy when so many people in the media are so very confused. This same friend (he's insanely paranoid about vaccines at this point) suggested that because a news reader expressed some doubts about the vaccine that that should be taken as some kind of valid reason to be wary of a vaccination. Sooooo, let's see, the medical community versus some talking head, who should I believe?

Anyway, it would have been somewhat more informative if you'd have explained what the statistical concept of the null hypothesis, or control group, is to those who aren't aware of these things.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Most of us were born too late to observe first-hand the widespread suffering and death caused by childhood illnesses before there were vaccines for the most serious ones. We now have the luxury of worrying about possible side effects that are so rare that they are difficult to see in the statistical noise. 
What I've found puzzling with the H1N1 business is that there are people who have no problem getting a regular seasonal flu shot, but are concerned about the H1N1 shot, which is fundamentally not different from a seasonal vaccine.


Gerhard Adam's picture
I think part of the problem is the general paranoia that seems to have evolved in our society.  For decades we've been dealing with the issues of greater and greater controversies and scandals at the highest levels of government and corporations.  We've seen it in the behavior of the rich and celebrities.

At some point, all these seemingly unrelated events create an atmosphere of distrust where the average individual no  longer cares to believe anything they hear and they latch on to the most negative aspect of what's reported.

In some ways I can't blame them, because there are also enough cases where people have been seriously abused and mistreated by government and business with little recourse for reparations.  This is especially emphasized with stories like Love Canal and the Erin Brockovich story which all play on the fact that leaders are not to be trusted when money is at stake against the average citizen. 

When we see tobacco executives blatantly lie about the dangers and then ridicule citizens that want to sue them.  It is heard far too often about how stupid people had to be to not realize smoking was dangerous.  We hear the same thing about dietary drugs that created from complications than they helped.  Each one of these reinforces the idea that the ordinary citizen shouldn't trust anyone that appears to have an agenda or something to gain. 

Hank's picture
I think part of the problem is the general paranoia that seems to have evolved in our society. 

In one of the few instances where I will side with our anti-capitalism brethren, companies did this to themselves.   They took the public goodwill of lifesaving vaccines and exploited it to make money.  Both HPV and Shingles vaccines, which are now getting millions in marketing, have little demonstrated benefit beyond anyone except a truly minute segment - but if they can get the government to mandate, it they get rich.

If you happen to disagree with shovelling new vaccines into kids every year depending on what kind of return Merck shareholders had, you are a crank.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I agree, and one of the more damaging elements of this, is that businesses failed to recognize that their customers were in a symbiotic relationship with them and elected to pursue the path of exploiting their customers instead.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
It's not just companies that have been less than trustworthy - recent history gives us plenty of reason to be skeptical of government and prominent academic researchers, who may be getting hefty checks on the side from pharmaceutical companies.
Still, this paranoia is a luxury. Back when widespread, serious childhood illness was rampant, it was easier to see how successful vaccines could be at preventing tragedy on a mass scale.


Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.