May 21, 2009 (CIDRAP News) – In a search for factors that may give some patients a protective edge against novel H1N1 influenza, researchers said today that adults, especially those older than 60, appear to have some cross-antibody response but that seasonal influenza vaccines appear unlikely to offer any protection.The findings, from scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appear in tomorrow’s edition of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Results are based on microneutralization and hemagglutination inhibition assays on child and adult serum specimens that were used in previous vaccine studies by the CDC as well as its academic and industry partners.Epidemiologic patterns in the novel flu outbreak have consistently shown the disease taking its hardest toll on younger people—in the United States, 64% of the novel flu cases have occurred in the 5- to 24-year-old age-group. Officials have wondered if older people haven’t yet been exposed to the strain in the community or if another factor, such as preexisting immunity, is providing some protection against the virus. Only 1% of cases have occurred in people over age 65.Researchers assessed cross-reactive antibody levels to the novel influenza H1N1 virus in cohorts of children and adults before and after they had been vaccinated with a seasonal flu vaccine during any of the past four seasons.Before vaccination, children showed no cross-reactive antibody reaction to the new flu strain. However, the antibody was detected in 6% to 9% of adults ages 18 to 64 and in 33% of those older than age 60.Vaccination with any form of the seasonal flu vaccine did not provoke a response to the novel strain in children. Adults ages 18 to 64 who had been vaccinated showed a slight response to the new strain: a twofold increase compared with 12-fold to 19-fold increases seen against the seasonal H1N1 strain. No increase in cross-reactive antibody response was seen in people over age 60 who had been vaccinated.”These data suggest that receipt of recent (2005-2009) seasonal influenza vaccines is unlikely to elicit a protective antibody response to the novel influenza A (H1N1) virus,” the CDC reported.Though the number of sera samples from children was small, the findings suggest that US children are serologically naive to the new virus, the researchers concluded. However, the analysis suggests adults—especially those older than 60—have some degree of preexisting immunity to the novel strain.Anne Schuchat, MD, interim deputy director for the CDC’s science and public health program, today at a media briefing urged caution in interpreting the results. Cross-reactive antibody assessment is an indirect measure of immune response, and though the findings are interesting, they’re not definitive, she said. “The laboratory findings we’re reporting seem to correlate with the epidemiologic data that we have so far.”Another reason to not over-interpret the results, she said, is that the microneutralization assay was used as a surrogate and isn’t the standard test the CDC uses against influenza viruses. (Microneutralization assays appear more sensitive, but researchers have not agreed on clinical correlates for the method.) She also said the study findings are based on relatively small numbers of patient serum samples.The response in older people could be explained by exposure to a related virus, exposure to a seasonal flu vaccine that provided protection, or that immune response to the new virus might be similar to that of other viruses, Schuchat said. However, she added that CDC virologists have compared the novel strain with past viruses and found that the new one is very different. “It’s not a close genetic match,” she said.She also said experts aren’t very impressed by the prevaccination-to-postvaccination ratio of 2:1 that suggests a weak response to the new virus. “That’s pretty wimpy,” Schuchat said, adding that the ratio for seasonal flu vaccines ranges around 12:1. “Wouldn’t it be great if there was boosting? But we don’t think we have sufficient evidence of that at this point,” she said.CDC. Serum cross-reactive antibody response to a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus after vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine. MMWR 2009 May 22;58(19):521-4 [Full text]See also:May 6 CIDRAP News story “Fewer senior swine flu cases may hint at protection”
“MORE Power’s administrative cases seta deadly precedent in that companies can just file complaints against judgeswho do not rule in their favor,” said Cacho, noting that MORE always wants totake the easy way out by taking shortcuts in the processes. “We would like to emphasize that theissuance of the writ cannot be considered ministerial because not only has thegrant thereof been duly questioned by PECO, there is still a pendingprejudicial question which is the pendency of the issue of constitutionality ofthe expropriation,” Elamparo stressed. He also denied the Motion to inhibithimself. MORE wants to tell the judiciary theywon’t take “no” for an answer, “or else they will pressure you and file casesagainst you,” he added. The Amular Order halted the issuanceof the actual writ of possession. He noted that the Supreme Court hadalready ruled in another case that “the issue of constitutionality would belike a prejudicial question to the expropriation as it would be a waste of timeand effort to appoint evaluation of commissioners and debate the market valueof the property sought to be condemned if it turned out that the condemnationwas illegal.” It may be recalled that RTC Iloilo,through Presiding Judge Yvette Go, earlier granted a writ of possession infavor of MORE Power despite the pendency of MORE’s own appeal before theSupreme Court. Go, along with MORE, was then required by the High Court toshow cause why they should not be cited for contempt for proceeding with thecase. Meanwhile, Atty. Estrella Elamparo,senior partner at Divina Law, revealed they were saddened by the surprisingdevelopment considering that the Supreme Court had already previously deniedMORE’s prayer for a TRO. “MORE Power claims it can do what we do when clearly cannot, and this is considering that they unsuccessfully tried to pirate our technical experts,” says Panay Electric Co.’s head of Public Engagement and Government Affairs Marcelo Cacho. IAN PAUL CORDERO/PN ILOILO City – MORE Electric and PowerCorp. (MORE Power), owned by gaming magnate Enrique Razon, is bullying one ofIloilo’s strictest and fairest judges with misleading allegations for its ownbenefit. This was the response of Marcelo Cacho, Panay Electric Co. (PECO) headof Public Engagement and Government Affairs, following the filing of administrativecharges in the Supreme Court by MORE Power against the presiding judge of theRegional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35, Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular. “MORE’s complaints against JudgeAmular don’t really have a bearing on the expropriation case but merely serveto intimidate not only Amular but also other judges who may be tasked to handleMORE’s cases in the future,” said Cacho. “Look at this imperial Manila companythat hasn’t even started operations here in our hometown of Iloilo. They’retrying to intimidate one of our strictest and fairest judges,” said Cacho. She also revealed that they alreadyfiled a motion to lift the new TRO. She also noted that the standingjurisprudence (JM Tuason vs LTA)dictates that when the constitutionality of the expropriation has beenquestioned, the expropriation court should wait until the issue is settledbefore proceeding. When Go inhibited herself from thecase, Amular took over and, later on, issued an Order suspending theexpropriation case filed by MORE to take over PECO’s power distributionfacilities. While MORE Power has secured a copy ofthe said Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), it took time for PECO to receiveits copy, according to Cacho. Amular said he was suspendingproceedings “in the interest of judicial fairness, respect to the HonorableSupreme Court, and for practical considerations.” The SC stopped the Mandaluyong RTCfrom enforcing its ruling that declared the franchise granted by Congress toMORE Power and the expropriation of the assets of PECO as unconstitutional.This latest SC ruling effectively overturned their own previous ruling thatupheld the same Mandaluyong RTC decision. “This is the jurisprudence that JudgeAmular has heeded,” Elamparo added. Elamparo also stressed that MORE Powershould not insinuate that the Dec. 3 TRO in any way affects the RTC Iloiloproceedings. TROs can only restrain an act that has not yet been accomplished,she stressed. It cannot mandate the performance ofan act, such as the issuance of a writ of possession or continuation of expropriationproceedings, according to Elamparo. “But we continue to have faith in ourjudicial processes and will abide by whatever final ruling our courts will haveon the issues. In the meantime, MORE should not be jumping to erroneousconclusions that mislead the public, particularly the people of Iloilo,” Cachoadded./PN “I’m just wondering why they evenbothered filing with the Supreme Court in the first place when they previouslyclaimed that the Mandaluyong resolution has no bearing on the case and thatthey just wanted the expropriation to continue,” Cacho, in turn, noted. “They are trying to railroad thejudicial process, much like what they did in Congress,” Cacho claimed.
Mikel’s agents give Valencia Friday Deadline on wagesDuro IkhazuagbeSuper Eagles Technical Adviser, Gernot Rohr, has cautioned John Mikel Obi to think twice before accepting offers from outside Europe as he is set to jump off Stamford Bridge in the winter transfer window.Specifically, the Franco-German coach is not too comfortable with news that Mikel has given Valencia Friday deadline to meet up with his wages demand or else he was going to open talks with other offers on the table including the lucrative deal from China. “I prefer Mikel stays in Europe and play in an European team. When I was in London two weeks ago, we spoke about that. But Mikel is an experienced and intelligent player and he knows what to do,” revealed Rohr at a parley with sports journalists in Lagos yesterday.He however stressed that Nigerians will need to respect Mikel’s choice if China is his first option.“If he decides to choose the money of China then we must respect that. If he goes to China and is playing well, I have no problem with that,” the Eagles supremo observed.Mikel’s representatives were reported to have handed Spanish La Liga side Valencia Friday deadline to meet the wage demands of the Chelsea midfielder or they will begin to look at other option like the lucrative offers on the table from China,“Mikel representatives have given Valencia till Friday to match the player’s wage demands,” a source close to the player informed AfricanFootball.com“I don’t know what the demands are, but Valencia’s initial offer does not match it.”The same source had last week hinted a decision on the player’s next destination was imminent this week.Various media reports suggested thatValencia’s Sporting Director, Jesus Garcia Pitarch, on Christmas day met with Mikel in London during the holidays over a move to Spain.However, the source close to the Chelsea ace has also maintained the handlers of the player have also not foreclosed a more financially rewarding transfer to China.“If Valencia failed to meet Mikel’s expectations, the offers from China on the table will be more seriously considered,” he said.“As expected, they have tabled more cash and that’s what the player is now considering.”Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram