Does the H1N1 vaccine require two or one shots

Does the H1N1 vaccine require two or one shots

http://www.chacha.com/question/does-the-h1n1-vaccine-require-two-or-one-shots

H1N1 vaccines require two shots per dose. ChaCha!

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

Swine flu vaccine tested by it’s makers, not even against a placebo?

Q: So I’ve been doing quite a bit of research around the efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine. Basically I have found that research has NOT been done comparing the flu shot, or H1N1 vs a placebo. Surprising – to say the least. It is considered ‘unethical’ to test in this way. Yet, the Hepatitis C vaccine was developed using inmates, and this vaccine is widely used today especially by those traveling to various vacation destinations.My question is this:Why is the H1N1 deemed safe by the CDC, WHO, FDA, and research carried out and funded by the same pharmaceutical companies that develop them? These tests have not used placebos to compare it’s efficacy. Basically what I am trying to say is that these vaccines should be considered ‘unsafe’ until independently proven ‘safe’. Secondly, are any of you aware of the slew of lawsuits against the same companies that are to produce these vaccines for you, your pregnant wife, children, and family? (Pfizter, Baxter)In a recent settlement, Pfizer admitted to a felony crime and agreed to pay $2.3 billion in fines and other fees. The investigation of Pfizer reportedly turned up evidence that Pfizer engaged in kickback payments to doctors for nine drugs, including Viagra and Lipitor. (Naturalnews.com)The FDA is to approve these medications, and so they are liable in these cases. However the FDA, pharma producers, and governments have already had legislation passed so they are not liable for damages from the vaccine. (This raises the issue of who is to blame of something goes wrong… Answer: No one you’re SOL if you develop guillan barre syndrome, or gulf war syndrome from the last swine flu vaccine. (These are just two of the major complications, requiring significant medical intervention that arose from the last mass immunization campaign in the 1970’s resulting of millions of dollars in compensatory pay outs for damages). The liability aspect raises a huge moral dilemma as no one is responsible) The FDA has also been scrutinized over the BPA (estrogen in plastics) findings showing increased insulin resistance (diabetes), hyperlipidemia (obesity), and neurological disorders (add, adhd), found in lab mice when exposed to repeated exposure to BPA. The FDA had approved this and are now being scrutinized by top international research scientists.When will people realize, from past history, to not trust our governing bodies, and take care of our own bodies based on tried and true methods – not western medicine for long term use (ie: lipitor, viagra, vaccines).Are other people waking up to the corruption in our governing health corporations, and realizing the possibility for money mongering by big pharma? The recent/long standing lawsuits, and admittance to committing felony by major pharma companies (both Pfizter for liptor and viagra, and Baxter admitting to over a 72 kilo botched H1N1 vaccine batch – that was never recalled to my knowledge by the way:s) prove that we can not truly trust them or their newly fast-tracked pharma researched vaccines.Please let me know that we’re not all turning into headless sheep… If you do agree with what I’ve learned, please let me know and we can all encourage each other to make informed research based decisions. Love to hear other info people have learned…

A: Whoa, whoa, whoa, chill for a second.Not being tested against a placebo means that the effects of the drug may be mirrored by the thought that one is taking the drug. More on that later. If the drug is harmful, though, it would show up in tests; whether the companies report that information or not, I don’t know (haven’t looked).The placebo effect goes like this: pretend I have a twin who is in every way identical to myself, including scoring the same as me on a test. We both apply to a study in which we are both told that we are being given a drug that will improve our scores on this test; my twin is actually given the drug in question, and I receive instead an inert saline injection or a sugar pill. I have thus taken the placebo, without my knowledge. If on the new test (to test the effects of the drug) my twin and I score similarly, then the efficacy of the drug is in question because my own belief that my scores will improve (or that my immune function has improved, or that I’m a better lover or whatever purpose the drug is for) was equal to that of a similar patient who actually received the drug.This is NOT the same as testing for negative effects; if a person gets ill after a vaccine, or has any ill effects afterwards, it can easily be assumed the the vaccine (or some other factor, like bad food) caused the illness.If they want an H1N1 drug on the market, fast (hey, who wouldn’t?), then testing for inefficacy might be overlooked in the interest of time. Again, this is not strictly for negative effects; those can be found by testing with a placebo, yes, but also comparing those to whom the drug has been administered with those who have not taken the drug (ie., the rest of the population). If the vaccinated population gets sick less often than the non-vaccinated population, it can reasonably be assumed that the vaccine was effective in preventing the disease in question (or the population given the drug is cleaner and travels less).Pfizer’s thing is for marketing drugs or ‘off-label’ purposes; this doesn’t mean that their drugs killed anyone when taken properly, for the proper purpose.Gulf War syndrome might be related to PTSD or to toxic chemical exposure; I’d hold out on making a strong claim like that without more evidence.Given the lack of time that there is to develop a vaccine for a flu strain (due to its extreme communicability), it’s reasonable to be flexible in efficacy testing so that a portion of the population can be vaccinated and not die. Testing for long-term effects, anyway, is hard to do in a flu vaccine due, again, to the speed at which it is needed. In a few years (the normal duration for a drug to be approved), the strain of flu against which the vaccine is distributed may no longer be extant, or in a minority of cases.