Hogwash Rebuttal

Editors note: I received a Facebook comment on my wall that was a lengthy rebuttal of my post, and I'd like to put my response to it here: I think even without the rebuttal included, my response will clarify a few things about what I wrote and point out an error or two.

Ok. let me take your points one by one, some of which are very good, and try to address them...

First off, I think I was clear in stating several times that what I had written was merely my opinion, and that people didn't have to agree if they didn't want to, a point which you've illustrated in your response to this. My main desire in writing what I wrote was to a) vent a little, and b) to advise people not to panic and to educate themselves before taking anyone's word for anything -- including what I think.

What I wrote was based on my own impressions and, granted, some of it may not have been complete or entirely accurate (even three hours of research and reading appears not to be thorough enough for something as low-impact as a blog post). I'm not a health professional or an educated man by comparison to others. People can and should make their own decisions about what to do in any situation, not just this. But it was a blog post after all, not placed in the venue of a medical website or other pedestal of authority. I think that most of the few people who read my blog and my FB page realize this is where I'm coming from.

As far as having diabetes is concerned, that is very unfortunate, and believe me when I tell you that I *am* hearing you on this. As you know my father died from it, and it was awful to watch, having received two amputations, and having died shortly after the second. However, I can't find a consistent answer either for or against the idea that H1N1 in its current state will infect or affect a diabetic any differently that someone without diabetes. In fact, people seem to be arguing over whether it's even an issue. Britain's NHS seems to think diabetics are no more likely to contract it than non-diabetics, and if they do, it may alter their blood sugar levels and require a diet modification, but not land them in a hospital per se. However, Canada's Public Health seems to think that diabetics are MORE at risk of contraction than others and that they should protect themselves accordingly.

So once again, it's difficult to tell people, as you have told me, and I have indeed suggested to people in my post, to 'research more' before they decide, when the information available is so contradictory and convoluded across the board. I have had my own troubles muddling through it as you can see... which is kind of my original point, and is why it was important for me to say what I said. In a situation like that, many people are likely to panic, and that is what they absolutely should NOT do. I hardly think that advising people not to panic and instead think clearly is a bad thing.

Moving on... you may well be correct about 1918, [he had stated that the Spanish flu back then was a killer and that a simple mutation of H1N1 could conceivably rival that strain in this situation. Ed.] I did not have time to delve too deeply into that realm, spending more time in 1976, but be that as it may, you are what-iffing. At the moment (as far as we know) things are not at that point yet. Medicine has progressed marvelously in the last century and we know more about viruses in general, we have a system of prevention in place with the CDC et al and the knowledge to act in a crisis (at least moreso than then). Spanish flu caught them off guard in 1918, it seems, and so it stands to reason that things got out of hand quickly. This is not 1918. To predict what *might* happen *if* H1N1 mutates into something more deadly is useless. There's always that possibility with any virus. If it does, there's nothing us normal people can do about it, that's a job for scientists and doctors. *We* can only protect ourselves as best we can, and what-iffing is only going to serve to give way to fear and panic.

As for me not getting the shot? I said it was my main reason, not my only reason. As you have pointed out I was off the mark on Tamiflu (I was tired at the end of writing that - I had those two items confused). [I had confused the Tamiflu drug as the 'flu shot/vaccine' when in it seems that it is in fact an antiviral that you take when you are already sick, an entirely different thing - I am still verifying this. Ed.] You were also partially correct that about the flu shot not containing the virus itself. I have since read that the vaccine in question does in fact contain dead virus bodies that are not supposed to harm you. Similarly, the nasal form of this contains live virus bodies that have been altered so as not to cause the illness [...] So I am willing to retract that portion of my post for the benefit of all readers and state that this is probably correct.

However, regarding my personal receipt of the actual flu shot, there is still the concern I currently have about some of the supporting ingredients in the mix (squaline, mercury); the validity and importance of which I am still looking into. There is also the idea that I personally may have some modicum of immunity since I found out from my mother that I was immunized in 1976 for that particular strain, although that seems unlikely from what I have read. There are other issues as well that I have, but suffice it to say I have enough doubts and questions to think twice or perhaps thrice until someone proves to me that my concerns are unfounded. I've never had a flu shot in my adult life, and have not been seriousy ill. Granted this is by no means a guarantee, but my personal stance on this still remains, if I ain't broke, don't fix me.

I repeat once again that this is my own choice, and while I stated in my post that I have been 'advising people' not to get the shot, it was hardly so clear cut as the advice I gave myself; perhaps I chose the wrong words in stating this in the writing... it was more along the lines of what I have already been saying: make the right choice for you, don't just get it because someone is foretelling doom and gloom about pandemics or that you are positively going to get it and die. Consider all viewpoints, even the ones that seem wrong to you. The fact of the matter is that there is an element of risk for each individual in getting the shot, albiet small possibilities, but still something to consider.

So what I'm saying is this: I think the general tenor of my advice makes it clear that it's simply that: "advice* that is coming from a layperson which can either be ignored or considered. I have seen and heard far more vehement standpoints about not getting the shot in Facebook and IRL than mine and some based on far more biased ideas. Furthermore, I think/hope I was clear in giving such advice, both in person and in on all other modes of communication, that I was only stating personal opinion. I tend to express myself this way when it comes to all sorts of topics -- I don't force my ideas on others and try to be tolerant and let people think for themselves.

I think I'm capable of conceding to any argument that refutes to my satisfaction something that I've said about this. You make a good point about flu-shot-abstainers inadvertently helping to spread the virus, but there is really nothing that can be done about this under our current system of government in North America. A recent US poll shows that roughly half of Americans will not volunteer to get the shot. Internet and social media is making this situation worse with people playing the telephone game and the message is getting garbled at the other end. Unless (or until) the governments of the world decree that everyone *must* receive a flu shot (which will likely cause an uproar), the only thing each of us has to help us decide is our own minds and the information we receive on the subject, and all I'm saying is make as an informed decision as you can. I can't tell people where to go to find the truth or the choice that suits them, I can only suggest they keep looking until they find it.

I will say this however about your comments -- they made me rethink and reconsider, to a degree, the points of my post to see if I was on the right track or not. It was enough to reconsider my thought that I should unilaterally decline the shot for my daughter and instead start up a dialog with her about it this evening, trying to give her both sides of the issue and see what she thought about it. It's still open for discussion. So I thank you for that because it allowed me to realize that I was not applying the same standards I was preaching about to someone in my own family (even if she is only six), simply because I have a position of caregiver over her.

I hope this clears the air a little and further clarifies my position on this.