Quote:
Originally Posted by VFX
Therefore it stands to reason that the H1N1 vaccination is also different from regular flu vaccinations as it uses H1N1 in it's make up, albeit in a deactivated form (not a dead form as some people have suggested).
|
Okay the vaccine NEEDS to have some form of H1N1 in it, that's how vaccines work, it's like training wheels for your immune system. You can't teach it to fight a virus without providing it something that very closely resembles the virus.
The fact that this vaccine uses attenuated (damaged but alive) virus rather than dead virus is again not especially new. This technique hasn't traditionally been used for flu vaccines but has been used before. It is preferred as it works better in healthy adults and has been used in mumps, measles, rubella and yellow fever for many years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VFX
Also, regular flu vaccines do not contain the same adjuvants as most H1N1 vaccines. For example, in Canada, we are mostly using GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine. This contains their AS03 adjuvant. Because of this, it is not widely used in the US & GSK are having to await regulatory approval on their non-AS03 version of the vaccine.
|
The adjuvant was developed for use in the H5N1 vaccine GSK recently fielded, it made sense for them to use that as a starting point for the H1N1 vaccine. It was submitted first and got approved first. So what's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VFX
Just look at the polls so far
- 37.72% - No
- 16.67% - think there's something sinister going on.
Over 54% of Canreefers can't all be stupid right?
.
|
I wouldn't say stupid, could 54% of Canreefers be wrong? Absolutely. More that once we've seen some very common misconceptions about reef keeping get shot to flames here, why should this be different?