mazeltov wrote:
Which risk is tripled? The 1 in 1 million of contracting Guillain-Berre?
Or flu itself. Or incidental infection due to impurities or other potential faults in the vaccine.
In a perfect world that never happens. In this world, it does.
mazeltov wrote:
The last part does make sense. If a virus' mutation has nothing to do with how the immune system attacks/recognizes it then there is no reason a vaccine would not help against variant strains.
The immune system's capacity to recognize the flu virus is the only variable in play. Flu is common and everyone gets it at some point in their lives.
mazeltov wrote:
Serious question how much research have you actually done into this? Have you experimented or read extensive amounts of scientific literature on vaccines? Where are these ideas coming from? You already didn't know the number of strains that this vaccine DEFINATELY protects against. Why should your other conclusions be considered?
Ofc I do. One. Or however many strains they cocktail into it. In which case the only thing being consolidated is the delivery system.
I've taken several courses on microbiology and pathology. My father is an infectious disease specialist who teaches at a prominent medical school and is the director for a state managed care system. My opinions have been shaped largely by what he and several MD professors have expressed, that the selection for the annual flu strain is "basically a guess". Which, it seems, as of late they've decided to mitigate by throwing THREE darts at the wall.
Go on, you're going to pick that to bits and tell me that short of being the Surgeon General no opinion is worthwhile.
What about you, Mazel? Do you sit around reading the MMWR?