Merits of the Flu Vaccine

Laurie Larwood states, “As predicted, most persons held biased beliefs that their own health was superior to that of others.” Adolescent teenagers think they are immortal and can do anything. Similarly, our population thinks they have a super immune system that can dispel disease and viruses immediately, but unfortunately we do not. While flu season approaches, scientists bring forth a new vaccine which will combat the illness and the symptoms that the flu brings. Testing the vaccine with numerous trials, scientists find the right dosage needed to evoke an immune response. The vaccine, while safe, also effectively contains and halts this serious and time consuming illness from spreading, which helps prevent family and friends from acquiring the virus. The public must take this severe illness seriously; because despite popular belief, the flu vaccination does keep you and those around you safe.

Although a small percentage of the population beat the flu without vaccination, the majority hurt themselves by not receiving the flu inoculation. Laurie Larwood personally tested the self serving biases of the flu, and concluded that people who thought they had superior health did not receive the vaccination, and those who questioned their health or saw it more as luck received the vaccination. Those more inclined to getting the flu shot either extremely disliked being ill or thought the vaccination would impact their health for the better. Knowing more about the disease seems to correlate with an increase in vaccination, which holds true with Shosh Sharhrabani’s research paper, “Factors Affecting Nurses’ Decision to Get the Flu Vaccine.” Shosh’s study used the Health Belief Model (HBM), which explained preventative health measures, and also tests knowledge of influenza and vaccine protection and health motivation. Previously, only 34.1% of the nurses received the influenza vaccination. Interestingly, the vaccinated nurses had a higher HBM level than the non-vaccinated nurses who did not get the shot. The vaccinated nurses seemed to have a higher knowledge and understanding of influenza and the vaccine than the non vaccinated. It seems essential that the public becomes more educated on influenza and the vaccine, so that they will go make the right choices and receive the flu inoculation.

  The public does not seem to know much about the flu or the vaccine. Many people around the world see the flu shot as a hoax, rather than a solution. The study done by Michael E. Greenberg and his co workers proved that the vaccine, a hemagglutinin antigen, did produce a satisfactory immune response. For those who don’t know, hemagglutinin binds to the virus to the infected cell and an antigen influences the production of antibodies, so a hemagglutinin antigen produces antibodies for an infected cell. His study proves that the vaccine does work to boost the immune response, so that your body can fight the influenza virus. His study not only proved that the vaccine worked, but also that only a miniscule amount helped boost the immune system. A shot of 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen produced almost the same immune response as a 30 μg dosage of the vaccine. If you didn’t know about the amount of hemagglutinin in a μg (aka micrograms), lets say you have a gram of sugar (about an ⅛ of a teaspoon) and now divide that amount by 1 million, this miniscule amount depicts a μg. But to clarify, even the smallest amounts of a foreign virus can be put enough strain to allow our bodies to sucumb to sickness. Currently, studies being done test how little amounts of hemagglutinin antigen a patient can be given without affecting the increase in immune response, so that the patient isn’t threatened by the dosage. So, fear not because thanks to current resources and technology a lower dosage of hemagglutinin antigen can be given and produce the same results.
Regardless of having a strong or weak immune system, everyone should always get the vaccination for the flu shot, so that they may be able to protect themselves from the flu and its myriad of harmful symptoms. Even if not for yourself, do it for your family and friends, or just the people around you, so that they may not get harmed or infected. Many individuals believe the flu to be a mild illness, but it has some serious repercussions. Kim Blake, a writer for health care and communication news, also gives the people an inside look on what the flu has caused and what could happen to yourself if you don’t get the flu vaccination. From this virus alone, roughly 100 children die every flu season and flu related deaths range from 3,000 to 49,000 deaths a year. Revolutionizing the 20th century and present, the flu vaccine allowed the average life span to increase by 30 years. Being a working individual, getting the flu can be a serious setback on life, due to being immobilized from a serious infection. On average, a flu sufferer loses $92 a year on wages, expected to pay around $250 to $1000 on recovery bills, and even the loss of business from the flu causes a loss of about $16.3 billion annually. Judging by these numbers, it seems that you can lose a significant amount of money that can easily be avoided by an inexpensive flu vaccination. I guess the saying, “time is money” has truth to it after all, and we as college students need as much money as we can get.

It seems as though getting the flu vaccination serves more to more beneficial than originally believed. This hoax about how the vaccination does nothing to help seems to be a lie, because there seems to be endless possibilities where the vaccination can keep one healthy and live life to the fullest. We could all learn from the various studies and the statistics produced, I mean why do we have information if we don’t use it. The public as a whole should become educated about the flu vaccination and how it actually helps the immune system. Spread the word that the more people who get the vaccine then the less likely you, friends and family will become sick. So, go save someone the trouble of the flu and get the flu shot.

Dieting and Health

Obesity flourishes in Calabar, Nigeria, where the rich often rent “fattening rooms” to put on a few pounds. Many health deficits are associated with obesity, as shown by modern research, though. Diets combat obesity and promote good health and long life. In particular, a calorie restricted diet hopes to extend life by 30% and prevents illnesses. However, research proves that calorie restricted diets do not actually lengthen life or even remotely prevents early death any more than a healthy, well-balanced diet.

Rhesus monkeys of same age. Monkey on left was on
calorie restricted diet. Image by Jeff Miller

Some studies claim that calorie restricted diets promote long life. The WNPRC (Wisconsin National Primate Research Center) tested caloric restriction on the lifespan of Rhesus monkeys in 1989. The control monkeys received an unlimited amount of food and were allowed to eat whatever they wanted. In some ways, this simulates modern eating habits. We often go to the pantry, pull out the secret candy stash, or drive to McDonalds and eat until we feel sick. At college, we often stuff ourselves in the dining hall because we have limited meals, or stack up on pop tarts and ramen to get us through sleepless nights spent studying. The experimental monkeys were given a calorie restricted diet that consisted of unhealthy foods. In comparison, they ate a lot less unhealthy food than the control group, so they had favorable results. This part of the experiment was unrealistic, however. When people diet, they do not just cut back on percentage of what they eat. They strategically cut back on foods that they know are unhealthy and not necessary. Rather than a calorie restricted diet consisting of healthy foods, this study gave the monkeys a restricted diet consisting of unhealthy foods. A better designed study would have had the experimental monkeys eat a healthy calorie restricted diet (Bourzac, Live Long and Prosper).

The NIA(National Institute on Aging) also conducted a study on monkeys to test the effects of a calorie restricted diet. In this study, they had an experimental group that ate a calorie restricted, well balanced diet. The control group ate a well balanced, higher calorie diet. The results between these two groups were not significant. This study provided evidence that a well balanced diet is healthy, even if it isn’t restricted in calories. As long as you burn off the calories from the foods you eat, you can stay fit and healthy. Eating healthy foods makes it easier for your body to process while digesting and can improve internal health. The type of calorie restricted diet referred to in this study shouldn’t be confused with an overall calorie restricted diet. The study restricted calories by 30% from the suggested calorie intake. People often diet and restrict their calorie intake, but not below the suggested amount by the FDA. The dieting referred to in these studies is restricted below the suggested calorie consumption. 

Caloric restriction not only doesn’t provide any additional longevity over healthy dieting, but it also has some negative side effects. Rafael de Cobo from the NIA claimed that caloric restriction can have negative effects on the immune system. He remarked that some studies show slower wound healing and an increased risk for infectious disease. Your body uses a lot of the calories consumed to do things like move your muscles so you can perform daily tasks and function throughout the day. It can then be left kind of exhausted and perform internal actions much less effectively. The body may not have enough energy to properly heal up wounds or fight off diseases and illnesses. With decreased effectiveness in these essential bodily functions, additional longevity can’t be expected. 

These studies show that calorie restricted diets (significantly restricting calorie intake 30% below the suggested amount) only works when it is used to lower the intake of unhealthy food. A person with a healthy, well balanced, not absurdly high calorie diet would not benefit from cutting back their calorie intake to 30% below the suggested intake. However, a person who consumes lots of unhealthy foods would benefit from cutting back the consumption of these unhealthy calories. 

While these studies cleared up some important questions on dieting, they may have left you wondering about what physique type is healthiest. I know that a healthy diet doesn’t automatically imply a perfect, slim physique however, which can be important to people. But a slim, “socially perfect” physique may not be the healthiest afterall. A study published in January of 2013 investigated what physique (BMI) seemed to have the highest correlation with long life. The study found that obese people (a BMI of higher than 30) had a higher chance of all-cause mortality. However, the study found that slightly overweight people (with a BMI of 25-30) had significantly lower all-cause mortality. So healthy dieting is important, but super skinny doesn’t necessarily imply health (This skinny physique I refer to is considered the “healthy range” and is 20-25 for BMI). A little fat here and there can be a very good thing. It can even help you live longer!

Image Link

There are a few important things to note when discussing BMI as it relates to physique. BMI aims to provide an accurate measurement of the amount of fat somebody has on their body. It attempts to take the height and weight of an individual and provide a numerical representation of their body shape. However, it does not always accurately reflect the physique of the individual. A dense, muscular individual may have a high BMI when they in fact have very little fat on their body. 

Why does any of this matter for you health enthusiasts? Health should matter to everybody. You only have one body, and it’s your responsibility to take care of it. It can be difficult to know how to take care of it though. It can also be difficult to know how current actions can affect the future. Well balanced diets provide energy. When it comes to calorie consumption, there is no benefit over restricting intake to lower than the suggested amount. A well balanced, normal level calorie diet is just as healthy for your body currently and the future of your body. I know I almost immediately regret that extra cheeseburger, chinese food, or plate of fries with honey mustard. I also regret leaving the dining hall having only eaten a plate of salad. So the evidence from these studies offers good news! Eating healthy is obviously important, but to be healthy you don’t have to starve yourself. You also don’t have to run yourself to death in the gym to achieve a healthy physique and long life.

Plan B One Step For Minors?

99% of American women in the United States who are sexually active have used at least one birth control method, states the CDC. Birth control is a significant issue in America for good reason – birth control affects everyone, but that doesn’t mean that it should be easily available. Currently, the President and the United States Food and Drug Administration are debating whether or not young women should be allowed to buy one type of birth control, Plan B One Step, without a prescription. Plan B One Step is a backup pregnancy prevention method after unprotected sex or birth control failure. Those supporting non-prescriptive Plan B One Step do not have the proper facts they need to support their claims, whereas those supporting prescriptive Plan B do. Plan B One Step may be safe and effective for women older than seventeen; yet not prescribed, it can potentially harm those who are younger than seventeen because they do not understand how to properly use the medication and may use the pill for other potentially dangerous purposes. Additionally, this pill has not been tested thoroughly enough and has too many risks for those who lack knowledge about the pill.

A main reason the FDA was cautious in approving Plan B One Step was because they weren’t sure if girls younger than seventeen were responsible enough. They were very worried that people would incorrectly use the medicine after the recommended seventy-two hours. Plan B One Step isn’t to be taken after the specified time because it loses its effectiveness drastically after the three day period. The FDA was also worried that young girls may find out that they are pregnant and then take Plan B One Step to try and end the pregnancy. As someone who has been a sixteen year old girl, I can tell you that both of these situations happen more than you might think. I watched, on more than one occasion, a girl freaking out in the locker room because she found out she was pregnant and then deliberating if she should do something drastic to end the pregnancy. The girls I saw were always so flustered that they weren't truly thinking about the consequences of their desperate actions- like taking Plan B One Step after seventy-two hours. As of now, the effects of taking this medicine while pregnant are inconclusive.

It is unknown whether or not Plan B One Step causes damage to the baby, which is why it is so dangerous to take; there could be any number of harmful side effects after the child is born. Children can not be allowed to make a decision this large, that will affect not only them but their unborn babies as well, without first speaking to a health care professional.

Many parents and scholars speaking out about this issue believe that the ability for their children, and children in general, to buy this drug will result in an increase in sexual activity. They are worried that children will not use this medicine only when they need it, but in place of a regular birth control regimen. These kids may not understand that this medicine is not one hundred percent effective and that they still have the ability to get pregnant. The second problem with a possible increase in sexual activity is an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Young people may have the misconception that Plan B helps prevent the transmission of STDs, when in fact it does not. With this misunderstanding, they may experiment more with unprotected sex, and may contract an array of sexually transmitted diseases. Like most colleges, our student body at UNC Chapel Hill is a little sex-crazed. I have witnessed numerous not so hidden hook-ups and countless walks-of-shame’s on Sunday mornings, as most of us living on a college campus have, which is fine as long as those couples were being safe. It is extremely important to know which birth control methods protect against STDs and which don't so that you and your partner are informed and practicing safe sex. Contracting an STD at any age, but especially when this young, can ruin a future and a life. While a few STDs, such as Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, are caused by bacteria and can be cured, but not all can be. For example, any STD caused by a virus is incurable. Cases of these include Herpes and HIV, which can prove to be fatal later in life. This argument once again comes back to children's perceived inability to take the medicine as advised; only now this argument carries even more weight because parents know their children and their actions better than anyone else. If parents have concerns about their children’s ability to take Plan B One Step, so should we. 

Added worry about approving Plan B One Step to be sold without prescription to boys and girls under the age of seventeen are the harmful side effects of the medicine. This medicine has a long list of hazardous side effects that includes lower abdominal pain, dizziness, and fatigue. Another scary result of taking this drug is possible vomiting. This nausea, if it occurs, is supposed to occur two hours after consumption of Plan B One Step. The distributors only advice if any of these side effects are to transpire is to immediately see a doctor. It would make more sense to have the child visit the doctor first to make sure that they are well and healthy enough to take the medicine in the first place - before they get sick.

Lastly, Plan B One Step hasn’t been tested enough, nor is there enough information about this pill to allow children under the age of seventeen to use it without a perscription. By making a child acquire a prescription from a doctor, they are forced to discuss this issue with a healthcare professional while this visit also makes sure they are healthy enough to take the risk of using this medicine. The risk is so great because little is known about this medicine, even though it is for sale. The Plan B One Step website even admits to not knowing exactly how this medicine effectively stops a person from getting pregnant. “It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg...or by preventing attachment to the uterus.” It is possible? This statement should not be on the website of a supposedly effective medicine. A drug, especially one that is to be used by children as young as twelve years old, should know precisely what it is doing to the users body. This should not be a guessing game.

Now I know you've probably been wondering how this post relates to you, right? You're over seventeen, you're in college, you think you're mature and responsible, and therefore you don't need a prescription to buy Plan B One Step. Well even though all of that may be true, we're all still kids. I’m only eighteen years old, a year and a half ago I would’ve had to get a prescription for this medicine, and I'm not suddenly any more mature just because I'm now legally an adult. Basically, I’m trying to say that just because we don't need a prescription to buy this medicine doesn’t mean that we should make rash decisions or practice unsafe sex, we should stay informed and still be cautious of the side effects of this drug.

As the facts pile up, it becomes clear that Plan B One Step is not suitable for adolescents under the age of seventeen to use unless they have met with a doctor and have a prescription. The side effects of this medicine are too numerous and harmful, the FDA and the company itself still do not know exactly how it works, and children this young are not responsible or mature enough to take the medicine as specified on the box.

Into the Unknown

Simply put, overreaction tends to ruin things. For example, overreacting about a bad grace can force one to overthink and ruin a day. Overreacting causes unnecessary anxiety, fights, and danger and imposes great uneasiness and tension. The mysterious new strand of the flu, the H1N1 strain, dives into the unknown, also causing uneasiness and anxiety amongst health agencies. Nobody knows how seriously to handle H1N1. Health agencies could underestimate the strand and wind up with a catastrophe, or could overestimate the strand and invoke fear and implement unnecessary emergency procedures. Ultimately, overreaction to the H1N1 strain of the flu causes more danger than complacency because it causes unnecessary disruption and angst.

One of the scariest things in the world is being left in the dark - not literally, but figuratively. Being stuck in a position where you don’t know what is going to happen next is terrifying, yet sometimes there is nothing that can fix it. This is how health agencies felt for months leading up to and during this outbreak of the H1N1 strain of the flu, more commonly known as the swine flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) spent hours upon hours studying the virus, previous flu trends, and anything they could get their hands on to help them predict anything about this mystery swine flu. Alas, the virus broke out rapidly and these health agencies still had no answers for the general public about the future of the strain.

The biggest problem that these health agencies had in response to this outbreak was to keep calm and not overreact to the potential dangers of H1N1 because of the overwhelming consequences of overreacting. Think about it: if there is one thing that comes naturally, it’s overreacting when left ignorant about something. Coming up with a “worst case scenario” is very common and usually consists of major overreactions. More often than not, the solution is never as bad as the worst case scenario would have you believe. WHO and CDC had to keep calm in order to not let society go into “worst case scenario” mode. After all, it was one hundred percent possible that the threat could be over as quickly as it had arisen. The author of the article that my argument is based off of even states that though a media backlash on the virus had begun, “most cases have been mild (...) if the agencies alert people and the pandemic fizzles out, they will be accused of hyping the threat and causing unnecessary angst [in society].” Hyping the threat will cause unnecessary stress and will cause larger problems than just a flu outbreak.

Downplaying the potential threat may seem like it would cause problems too, but the problems that underplaying the virus would cause are nowhere near as large as the problems that overhyping it would cause. In August 2010, only a little over a year after the H1N1 strain was labeled a pandemic (which is a rapidly spread illness affecting a large area such as an entire continent), it had already regressed several levels down to seasonal-like virus. It did not take long at all to move from a level 5 pandemic to a level that isn’t even on the scale anymore. H1N1 was no longer considered any more threatening than the regular flu or the common cold for which we have no cure. By the time the health agencies had time to communicate the dangers of the situation to everyone, the dangers wouldn’t even last long enough for them to be relevant. They would be accused of overhyping the risks and prolonging unnecessary fear into everyone. Imagine if health agencies issued major health threats at the beginning of every flu season. Sure, when the virus is new and unknown, these threats should be relayed, but considering the short amount of time it took for H1N1 to die down to “non-threatening,” its a good thing health agencies like WHO and the CDC did not overreact while communicating the risks. Overreacting would have ensued superfluous anxiety everywhere, which could have resulted in even more illness and bigger problems.

Complacency is what we need these health agencies to advertise. They should communicate the risks but not overreact about them. At an early stage, the consequences of a pandemic are so uncertain that communicating the risks is a delicate matter and one that can easily blow up unintentionally. Members of the Emergency Committee in the US Department of Health and Human Services have declared that while the virus will continue to circulate, the intensity has decreased dramatically due to normal prevention measures - nothing over the top - and has already begun to take on characteristics of the normal seasonal flu. Nothing out of the ordinary requiring large prevention measures had to be done to contain this new strain of the virus. Once a vaccine was created and distributed - admittedly a little less-than-ideally available - the virus was contained and nothing abnormal needed to be done. CBS News made it very clear that no one needed to overreact in any way about the swine flu; three months into the declared pandemic, only one US citizen had lost their life to the disease versus the fact that the regular flu takes about one hundred lives a day during flu season. CNN’s John Roberts sarcastically posed the question, “Is this really the killer virus that we’ve all been fearing for decades?” At one point, the swine flu took up almost 50% of airtime on network news. The more airtime the swine flu got on the news, the more likely citizens (especially those who did not stay educated about the virus) would be to freak out exorbitantly.

The author of the Nature article “Between a Virus and a Hard Place” states that “the risk is not hyping the pandemic threat, but underplaying it.” In fact, quite the opposite is true - the risk is definitely overhyping the threat of H1N1. Overreacting and becoming distressed unnecessarily is unnerving and causes nothing but conflict in society and is much more dangerous than remaining unruffled about the risks of this new virus. The longer that health agencies remain calm and collected, the more time they will have to learn about the virus and potential vaccine options. They must hope for the best in terms of how serious the outbreak gets, rather than cause a ruckus and seem alarmed. As any college student knows, stress only leads to sickness and overreacting would be the direct cause of stress. The stress would be even worse and even less worthwhile if it faded away quickly because the overreaction was unnecessary. For this reason, overreaction, not complacency, is the greatest danger posed by the new H1N1 strain of the flu.

Fatty Foods and Your Brain

Nada A. Abumrad claims that fat is our 6th taste bud and that “understanding our perception of fat in food might influence what foods we eat and the quantities of fat that we consume.” Researchers Ivan de Araujo and Edmund Rolls have conducted studies focused on the texture of foods, in which they have connected the textures to the prevailing issue in the United States: obesity. However, even with an in-depth understanding of our perception of fats in food, there is no guarantee that we will be able to control our never-ending cravings. Today, we see food products that are “0 calorie” or “90% less fat,” but the majority taste lacking or odd compared to the original, rendering Araujo and Rolls’ research weak. Researchers from WUSTL think that genetics, not textures, influence what foods we eat. Further research into the CD36 gene would be more beneficial than researching food’s textures. The CD36 gene encodes a membrane receptor for long-chain fatty acids and lipoproteins and influences our preference for certain foods. Mastering our knowledge of the CD36 gene would help us look into effective ways in treating and preventing obesity.

Ivan de Araujo and Edmund Rolls conducted a study in which they placed 12 hungry participants into an fMRI machine and fed them variously textured mixtures of food through a tube. They carefully studied the scans of the participants’ brains and found that an area of the brain called the “reward center” lit up when the participants consumed fatty mixtures. The results also found that participants could categorize which foods were fatty and non-fatty through the texture itself. Rolls suggests that this could be the reason why humans can’t seem to control their cravings- because the brain tells them not to stop.

On the other hand, a study conducted by Washington University of St. Louis found that a variant of the CD36 gene allows humans to recognize the presence of fat in their food. This differs from the previous notion that humans could identify high-fat foods through texture. Instead, this study suggests that the presence of fat can alter the way our tongues perceive the food, similar to the way it perceives other tastes such as sweet, sour, salty, or bitter. Both of these studies aim to fight obesity by researching how humans detect fat in their diet, but WUSTL has the more effective way of finding a cure.

Zald claims that, “People's preferences for certain textures vary, which may explain why some are more addicted to fatty foods than others.” However, according to the WUSTL study, the more a person’s diet is high in fat the less CD36 protein their body produces, which consequently prevents them from detecting fat in their foods. Less CD36 protein production in the body basically means a person would be less sensitive to the presence of fat in their diet. This is also why a person would be more addicted to fatty foods than others. This can be dangerous because people become unaware and less caring of what kind of foods they consume. The presence of fat in a food alerts the person’s brain and triggers the person to be more mindful of their consumption of fats.

The dangers of not being able to detect fat in your food can be correlated to obesity since people prefer foods that have high fat content. Without the knowledge of fat in your food, you would subconsciously just keep eating fatty foods. Obesity has been an increasing risk in America, with its rates rising dramatically over the past 3 decades as diets incorporate more and more French fries, cheeseburgers, and other foods high in fat. Rolls suggests that people can differentiate which foods are high in fat by the texture. He believes that humans evolved in a way that allowed them to identify which foods are high in fat through texture for survival. However, he fails to explain how the brain could tell how much fat is in a food only by the texture. In addition, his study lacked controls because he did not take other factors like smell into consideration. You can argue that the participants could have pictured fatty foods due to the smell, and not just the texture, of the foods they were being fed.

In WUSTL’s study, they found that there was a slight correlation between a person’s BMI and their production of CD36- the higher BMI a person had, the less CD36 their body produced. As mentioned previously, less production means that you will be less sensitive to the presence of fat in your diet, which means you will continue to eat fatty foods and contribute to the causes of obesity. Unlike Rolls’ study, this one took various factors into account including sight and smell. To control these variables, the researchers dimmed the testing area with a red lamp and also required the participants to wear nose clips. WUSTL’s study is clearly more reliable and effective in finding a way to fight obesity. Research in genetics is more effective in discovering a new procedure to fight obesity than research in texture. The researchers at WUSTL clearly have the right idea as they are currently studying the CD36 gene in depth. Researching the textures could be helpful in the future, when we understand more about our brain and how it works, but for now, genetic research seems to be more reliable and helpful. Rolls and Araujo’s experiments aren’t useless or incompetent, but in present time, genetic research seems to be more efficient and beneficial to finding a cure to obesity.