If a person already had the swine flu would they be immune?

The reason I am asking this is as it relates to vaccines. Say if someone already had the new flu or suspected that they had could they be immune? If so, why would they need a vaccine?

Thats a good question, i guess you would have an increased immunity to it but then they will say your not immune to the all new more stronger mutated strain. So i dont know really.

reply to post by son of total newbie


Are you asking from a legal aspect or a physical aspect? Are you wondering if having a previous exposure means that you would be exempt from mandatory a mandatory vaccination? Or are you simply wondering about your health?

I read on the internet you can get it again so the answer is no, you won't be immune to it a second time either, but will it be more mild who knows?

www.nhs.uk...

Is it possible to catch swine flu twice?
Yes, because the virus can mutate (change). If you become infected with the swine flu virus, your body produces antibodies against it, which will recognise and fight off the virus if the body ever encounters it again. However, if the virus mutates, your immune system may not recognise this different strain and you may become ill again, although you may have some 'cross protection' due to encountering a similar virus previously.

reply to post by The time lord


Then what is the point of the vaccine? It is only trying to simulate a previous infection. So, if you have already had it once... in theory, you shouldn't need a vaccine because it won't be any more effective than your previous infection was.

I asked my Doctor this morning if i would develop some immunity since i had flu last week and he said yes.The flu i had was extremely mild just a sore throat and some sneezing for a few days.He said it was probably swine flu as its been in the area for weeks.Its seems less dangerous at the moment than normal flu.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
reply to post by son of total newbie

 

Are you asking from a legal aspect or a physical aspect? Are you wondering if having a previous exposure means that you would be exempt from mandatory a mandatory vaccination? Or are you simply wondering about your health?

I was thinking about the physical aspect. A person could still catch one of the other flus, I guess. I'm not interested in the vaccine. If they try to force adults in the US to take it, it will be a big problem, I feel. I donate my shot to some rip off credit card company exec.

My belief is that we all will be getting the swine flu at some point if we already have not.

My family experience a bad case of some type of flu that wasn't the seasonal flu this year when the swine flu hype was at its highest.

We recovered with only my husband and me going to the doctor for bad case of sinus infections.

I am not doctor but whenever you get sick with a virus the body creates a natural way to fight the same virus the next time around making it a littler better to deal with if you are to get sick again.

And no, I will not get any type of vaccine that has not properly been tested and we have not clue what reactions we may get from it.

I was a teen in the 70s and I remember when many people got paralyzed or died in the US due to the last time they try to pass a vaccine that wasn't properly tested due to panic

We have more chances to survive if you are a healthy person with the virus itself than getting a shot of something that can kill you or paralyzed you.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by pazcat


This is exactly why all this about the so called vaccine is very, very dodgy.
If you have the 'mild' version of the virus and recover you will have immunity against THE MILD VERSION of the virus.

If the virus does NOT mutate, and the vaccine is genuine - the vaccine will (if it doesn't kill you) give you immunity against THE MILD VERSION of the virus.

If the virus DOES mutate, neither having THE MILD VERSION of the virus previously or taking THE VACCINE (designed for the current UN-MUTATED VERSION) will give you any protection at all from a MUTATED virus.

Do you see?

As has been asked, what good is the so called vaccine, if it's designed to counter the NON-MUTATED strain of virus?

So far, 99.5% of people infected with this MILD VIRUS recover fully within a week or so, so why are we talking mandatory vaccinations and countrywide military style vaccination centres for a mild virus that almost all people will recover from within a week or two?

The companies that HAVE developed the vaccine, MUST have based the vaccine on the CURRENT MILD VERSION of the virus...

so ANYONE, please tell me how this is going to be effective against a MUTATED virus, that changes it's surface protiens and internal structure?

It WON'T BE.

It will be like having mild skin cancer, such as a mole or something and going to the doctor and having it cut off right in his or her office.

Then getting terminal lung cancer...and wondering why simply slicing off your lungs won't save you from the cancer!

The skin and lung diseases are both cancer, is just that the treatment for the mild version of cancer, will kill the patient with the severe form of cancer.
The same treatment will not work for both, as even though they are both cancer, they are very different to each other.

As different to each other as a mild virus is to a mutated virus...

reply to post by spikey


All you have to do is compare the swine flu with the seasonal flu, remember that what you get every year if you do the flu vaccine is getting antibodies for last year new strength.

So you still may get the new strength for this year that is nothing that another mutation of the old.

So the same goes with the swine flu, but now big pharma wants to profit just like they do with the seasonal flu.

As usual the ones to die are the same groups that die of the regular seasonal flu every year.

I see no necessity for mass obligatory vaccination at all. Is nothing but a hype.

This is why I get frustrated.

As said in previous threads, if the flu mutates, you may get it. But the vaccine they administer now won't have the "mutated" vaccine.

There is no way to know what mutation will take place. They don't know.

And yet they have a vaccine that will be effective against a mutation that they can't recognize?

It takes anywhere from 6 to 18 months to create and test a vaccine.

Unless they went forward in time, took a sample, came back from the future, and created a vaccine a YEAR AGO, for this future mutation, there is no way anyone can say with any certainty, WHAT the vaccine will do.

It's like saying it will be a sure bet that dice will roll double fives, ten minutes before you pick up the dice.

It makes no sense to me.

EDIT -Spikey, didn't see your post, sorry to repeat, we must have written it at the same time, great minds think alike!

[edit on 20-7-2009 by mikerussellus]

Originally posted by INQUISITION11
I asked my Doctor this morning if i would develop some immunity since i had flu last week and he said yes.The flu i had was extremely mild just a sore throat and some sneezing for a few days.He said it was probably swine flu as its been in the area for weeks.Its seems less dangerous at the moment than normal flu.

I contracted a rather nasty strain of something a couple of months ago that totally floored me and hit my chest hard enough to have me feel like I was drowning when ever I lay down. I simply quarantined myself and rode it out over 5-6 days to build an immunity rather than take any medications (apart from large doses of vitamins)

If my body can beat a strong version of the virus would that make the milder swine flu, as you describe, much less harmful?

reply to post by Taikonaut


I've only heard of people in my area with mild symptoms, swine flu has been confirmed in most of the local schools.There has been about 30 deaths in the UK ,all but one or two,in high risk groups(pregnant, old ,young).There's no reports of anyone on ventilators at local hospitals.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by INQUISITION11]

reply to post by Taikonaut


That is what my family had during May, a nasty chest cold thing that make us feel like we had water in our lungs.

But like I said we didn't go to the doctor but just for the sinus infection we got after it was done with.

Still the chest thing lasted more than a month along with the nasty cough.

And it was a lot of people feeling the same way.

You can read here that cientists think they would be immune.
The antybobies will be still working and fight the virus.
People born before 1918 who were exposed to the spanish flu virus are immune to the 2009 virus.
More here

reply to post by pterra


So, those that are arguing FOR the vaccine (government) saying that a mutation of the virus will still leave you exposed, are full of it.

If this thing can "mutate" over 90+ years and people can still be protected from the original antibodies then, the push for a vaccine, since so many people have been affected by this bug, is bunk! BS!

(I'd say more but I don't want the mod's cheesed)

I'm taking my chances and will have 'flu' for a week or so. I figure when it comes to the vaccine, they will primarily focus on getting those who haven't had flu, done first. Not to tempt fate but if they are no longer going to diagnose people and instead treat them in the mind that they have swine flu, then its time to abuse the system and at least pretend to have it and buy myself some time if this vaccine does become mandatory.

Apparently, those who contracted the 1918 are supposed to have developed an immunity to the present strain of swine flu. Interesting that we need a new vaccine every year because the regular flu mutates so quickly, whereas for some strange reason a 90 year old immunity to 1918 Spanish Flu will protect you from a 2009 disease. Draw your own conclusions.

EDIT:
I just read mikerussellus's earlier post, and he seems to have reached the same conclusion as me. Something just doesn't smell right. When the experimental vaccines are ready, around October, there's a good possibility that they will be mandatory, especially for school children. The government has already contracted to buy enough for two doses for the entire US population. That seems like an awful waste of money for an "optional" vaccine - most importantly an "optional" vaccine with an 18 month shelf life.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by andrewh7]

i few thoughts lately have been running through my mind de-population and the vaccines scenario playing out in front of our eyes,
although i align myself along the lines of this vaccine being a weapon for depop purposes, i cant help but think that maybe if the vaccines are given to a large enough amount of the population then perhaps they will be protected from the coming new viruses yet too emerge.

its just a thought but an important one i believe.
any opinions on this from anyone

perhaps im just missing something but with 1 of 2 options take or not one side can only be right.

or am i just missing the point????

any thoughts peple....

reply to post by mikerussellus


Your'e right there Mike!

The really rediculous thing about our posts though, are they are both spot on right!

If we can work this out, and many others who have posted have said more or less the same thing, why the hell are the 'authorities' not saying the same thing?

Has anyone emailed their health departments or 'flu centres' to specifically ask the questions and put forward the points we have here?

If you have and you got a reply, i'd be interested in seeing what the said.