Kathleen Sebelius Talks Native Destiny: Leading the Way to Healthier Nations

LO-RES-sebelius-HI-AP10102718826-e1299253130136Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

In an effort to promote healthy living across Indian country, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius released the following statement in honor of National Native American Heritage Month this November.

Each November, we recognize National Native American Heritage Month—celebrating the diverse histories and cultures of American Indian and Alaska Native people. This year’s theme, “Guiding Our Destiny with Heritage and Traditions: Leading the Way to Healthier Nations,” speaks to the vital role that cultural heritage plays in strengthening families and communities.

In July, I had the opportunity to visit the Navajo Nation in Arizona and meet with key leaders to discuss the health concerns of the Navajo.  I attended a Special Session of the Navajo Nation Council and heard from the delegates about health issues such as diabetes, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. I also visited the Indian Health Service (IHS) Gallup Indian Medical Center, which was recently designated as a Level III Trauma Center, the first in the Indian health system. IHS work at this center, and throughout Indian Country, saves countless lives every year.

Our Administration is committed to ensuring the health and well-being of all Americans, which is why we are working with our tribal partners to reduce the health disparities that have historically burdened American Indians and Alaska Natives.

In order to address these issues, we need to make sure that American Indians and Alaska Natives have access to affordable coverage so they can get the care they need.

The Affordable Care Act is critical to that effort, partly by permanently reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, ensuring that IHS is here to stay.

Additionally, the new Health Insurance Marketplace made possible by the Affordable Care Act will make more affordable, quality options for health coverage available to uninsured Americans, including First Americans. IHS has trained staff to help its American Indian and Alaska Native patients enroll in Medicaid or purchase affordable insurance that they can use to continue to receive care at IHS facilities. If more IHS patients have health coverage, additional resources from reimbursements at the local facilities will help expand services for all patients served by IHS.

Health care is just one area in which we are working to increase support for Indian Country.

The Administration for Native Americans recently invested in new and continuing tribal programs to preserve Native American languages. We believe that language revitalization and continuation are important steps in preserving and strengthening a community’s culture.

We are also investing in Head Start and child care programs, innovative substance abuse and mental health initiatives, suicide prevention efforts, job training, economic development campaigns, and programs for seniors.

Please join me in celebrating National Native American Heritage Month and bolstering our commitment to ensuring that all American Indian and Alaska Native people have the opportunity for a stronger and healthier future through improved health care opportunities and partnerships that respect their culture and traditions.

 

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/07/kathleen-sebelius-talks-native-destiny-leading-way-healthier-nations-152072

Activists Push For Laws Similar To Smoke-Free Arizona On Native American Land

By  Nick Blumberg, KJZZ

When Arizona voters banned smoking indoors several years ago, the law didn’t cover Native American land. Now, an anti-smoking activist is trying to pass smoking ban that will cover the Navajo Nation.

Dr. Leland Fairbanks is president of Arizonans Concerned About Smoking, which helped push through the Smoke-Free Arizona Act in 2006.

“55 percent of the reservation people, who are part of Arizona, voted for the Smoke-Free Arizona Initiative, but they said it doesn’t apply to them because they’re independent nations,” Fairbanks said. “So unfortunately they’ve already voted; they would like to have what we have in the rest of the state.”

Now, he’s trying to collect about 10,000 signatures to get an initiative on the 2014 Navajo ballot banning indoor smoking.

“Only Navajos who are registered voters can sign. It does include, though, Navajos who are off reservation,” Fairbanks said. “If you’re a Navajo registered voter and you’re working down here in Maricopa County or some other county, you can sign that initiative and you can vote.”

Fairbanks says the signature drive is set to begin in January.

American “democracy” in action: 60 corporations contribute $22m to stop WA GMO labeling bill

by

November 2, 2013-MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money’s influence on politics, has updated the campaign finance data on the ballot intiatives in Washington state to make labeling of foods containing GMOs mandatory.

A MapLight analysis of campaign finance data from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as of October 30, 2013 shows the Top 10 contributors on the supporting and opposing side and the geographic origin of the contributions.

From MapLight’s Voter’s Edge in Washington State

I-522: GMO Labeling
(Requires labeling of food products made from genetically modified organisms).

Contributions from Supporting Interests

Total Raised: $7.7 million from 10,500 donors

1 DR. BRONNER’S MAGIC SOAPS $1,840,635
2 CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY ACTION FUND $455,000
3 MERCOLA.COM HEALTH RESOURCES LLC $300,260
4 ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION $298,076
5 PRESENCE MARKETING, INC $260,000
6 PCC NATURAL MARKETS $230,274
7 NATURE’S PATH FOODS USA INC $178,700
8 FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW $175,000
9 WASHPIRG $168,121
10 WEILAND WILLIAM T. $150,000

Contributions from Opposing Interests

Total Raised: $22.0 million from 60 donors

1 MONSANTO $5,374,484
2 DUPONT PIONEER $3,880,159
3 PEPSICO $2,352,966
4 NESTLE USA $1,528,206
5 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY $1,520,351
6 GENERAL MILLS INC $869,271
7 CONAGRA FOODS $828,251
8 DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $591,654
9 BAYER CROPSCIENCE $591,654
10 BASF PLANTSCIENCE $500,000

Background: The initiative, I-522, is a sibling to California’s 2012 Proposition 37 (GMO Labeling): many of the major contributors in this race also contributed to committees for or against Proposition 37, and the recent spike in opposition dollars echoes last year when the opposition to Proposition 37, according to the LA Times, “bankrolled” a “media blitz” in the final stretch.

Monsanto’s absurdity reaches new heights

mon828By Jim Hightower, 3 November 2013, Climate Connection 

It was my privilege to go to Des Moines recently for a World Food Prize extravaganza recognizing Monsanto’s work against global hunger. But wait, Monsanto is not a hunger-fighter. It’s a predatory proliferator of proprietary and genetically engineered seeds.

That’s why I wasn’t actually attending the ceremony to bestow a false halo on the corporate giant. Rather, I was one of more than 500 scruffy “outsiders” in the city’s First United Methodist Church to protest the Monsanto absurdity.

There, real-life Iowa farmers spoke plainly about the countless abuses they have endured at the hands of the genetic manipulator.

One pointed out that if the corporation genuinely gave even one damn about hunger, it could’ve used its immense lobbying clout in Washington this year to stop Congress from stripping the entire food stamp program from the Farm Bill. Instead, Monsanto didn’t lift a finger to help fend off hunger in our own country.“It doesn’t care at all about feeding the world,” the Iowa farmer said with disgust. “It cares about profits, period.”

Indeed, Monsanto is a pitch-perfect example of what Pope Francis was referencing in May, when he declared: “Widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless. Concealed behind this attitude is a rejection of ethics.”

How ironic, then, that Monsanto bought this year’s World Food Prize for itself, just to masquerade as a world hunger fighter, hoping to persuade the Vatican to bless its demonic effort to force the world’s poor farmers to buy and become dependent on its patented seeds.

The World Food Prize Foundation says it recognizes contributions for “agriculture.” But Monsanto has zero to do with agri-culture. It’s the agri-business face of the unethical, selfish, corruption that the Pope warned about.

Local orthodontist buys back Halloween candy

MARYSVILLE — Area orthodontist Dr. Jason Bourne is bringing back his Halloween candy buy-back program for the 10th year, starting on Tuesday, Nov. 5.

Bourne will pay $4 for each pound of Halloween treats surrendered in his office, in Suite 3 at 815 State Ave. in Marysville, with $2 going to the trick-or-treating child, and the other $2 donated to the local Boys & Girls Clubs and YMCA.

Last year, Bourne Orthodontics collected more than 1,300 pounds of Halloween candy, allowing them to donate more than $2,600.

The donated candy itself is sent to American military members serving overseas, local homeless shelters and humanitarian groups for trips to Africa.

Since its inception, the Bourne Orthodontics Halloween candy buy-back has donated almost $15,000 and 7,900 pounds of candy.

“We love this program, because the kids still get to have fun trick-or-treating, plus they get money and save their teeth,” Bourne said. “Then we can give back to our community and the troops. It’s a lot of fun.”

Halloween candy can contribute to tooth decay, and some candy can even damage orthodontic patients’ braces, so Bourne began buying back Halloween candy to help kids avoid injury to their braces and teeth.

Bourne explained that some candies are permissible for orthodontic patients, including plain chocolate and soft, chocolate-covered peanut butter cups. However, he cautions patients to brush and floss thoroughly after indulging in any treats with a high sugar content.

According to Bourne, the days immediately following Halloween are usually an orthodontist’s busiest time of year for emergency calls, so he hopes that his candy buy-back program will cut down on orthodontic emergencies and tooth decay, and help children, especially those wearing braces, enjoy the holiday.

Bourne Orthodontics in Marysville will accept children’s Halloween candy during normal business hours on Nov. 5, 7, 11 and 13. There is a limit of 25 pounds per person with this offer. For more information, call 360-659-0211 or log onto www.bourneorthodontics.com.

How the Affordable Care Act Improves the Lives of American Women

By Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Today, we join our White House colleagues in celebrating National Breast Cancer Awareness month; and almost four weeks into the launch of the Health Insurance Marketplace, I’m reminded of the tremendous impact the Affordable Care Act has on the lives of American women.

As the President said, the law is much more than just a website – it’s affordable, quality health insurance made available to everyone.  Through the Marketplace, 18.6 million uninsured women have new opportunities for affordable, accessible coverage.  And if you’re one of the 85 percent of Americans who already have insurance, today you have stronger coverage and more choices than ever before.

Important preventive services are now available to women at no additional cost.  These include an annual well woman visit, screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer; certain contraceptive methods; smoking-cessation treatment and services; breastfeeding support and equipment; screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence; immunizations; and many more.  Thanks to the health care law, more than 47 million women have guaranteed access to preventive services without cost-sharing.

These preventive services are critical to keeping women healthy.  For example, breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women and the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the US, after lung cancer. But when breast cancer is caught early and treated, survival rates can be near 100 percent.

The Affordable Care Act also protects women’s access to quality health care. No one can be denied health insurance coverage because of a preexisting health condition, such as breast cancer, pregnancy, depression or being a victim of domestic violence.  And there are no more annual and lifetime dollar limits on coverage.

Today, health plans in the Marketplace offer a comprehensive package of ten essential health benefits, including maternity care.  An estimated 8.7 million American women currently purchasing individual insurance will gain coverage for maternity services, and most women will no longer need a referral from a primary care provider to obtain obstetrical or gynecological services.

Cost has also been a significant barrier to care for many women.  According to one study, in 2010, one third of women spent 10 percent or more of their income on premiums and out of pocket costs.  For low income women, that situation is much worse – over half of women who make $11,490 per year or less spend at least $1,149 a year on care.  But through the Marketplace 6 out of 10 uninsured individuals can get coverage for $100 or less.

This year, as in every year, women will make important decisions for themselves and their families about health care.  They can apply for coverage through the Marketplace:  Online at Health care.gov; Over the phone by calling the 24/7 customer service center (1-800-318-2596, TTY 1-855-889-4325); Working with a trained person in their local community (Find Local Help); or by submitting a paper application my mail.

The six-month enrollment period has just begun.  And unlike a sale on Black Friday, coverage will not run out; it will not get more expensive.  Sign up by December 15, 2013 for coverage starting as early as January 1, 2014. Open enrollment continues until March 31, 2014.

To read more about the how the Affordable Care Act addresses the unique needs of women, visit: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2013/08/womens-health-needs.html

 

Shellfish made poisonous by toxic algae may bloom into bigger problem

Click image to watch video or listen to interview.
Click image to watch video or listen to interview.

Oct. 23, 2013

 

PBS NEWSHOUR

 

The Pacific Northwest is known for its seafood, but when algae blooms in coastal waters, it can release toxins that poison shellfish and the people who eat them. Katie Campbell of KCTS in Seattle reports on the growing prevalence and toxicity of that algae, and how scientists are studying a possible link to climate change.

Transcript

HARI SREENIVASAN: Next to the West Coast, where algae has been poisoning shellfish and subsequently people.In recent years, toxic algal blooms have been more potent and lasted longer.That has scientists trying to understand whether climate change could be contributing to the problem.

Our report comes from special correspondent Katie Campbell of KCTS Seattle.She works for the environmental public media project EarthFix.

KATIE CAMPBELL, KCTS:Every family has its legends.

For Jacki and John Williford and their children, it’s the story of a miserable camping trip on the Olympic Peninsula in the summer of 2011.It all started when the Willifords did what Northwest families do on coastal camping trips.They harvested some shellfish and cooked them up with garlic and oregano.

JOHN WILLIFORD, father:Oh, they were amazing.I was like, wow, these are pretty much the best mussels I have ever eaten.And I think I said in a text to Jacki.

JAYCEE WILLIFORD, daughter:They were the best mussels in the whole wide world.

JOHN WILLIFORD: Is that what you said?Yes.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Two-year-old Jessica and 5-year-old Jaycee were the first to get sick.Next, John got sick.

JACKI WILLIFORD, mother:They just were so violently ill, and I just knew it had to be the mussels.And that next week, I called the health department and said, I think we got shellfish poisoning or something from the shellfish.And that’s when all the calls started to come in.

(LAUGHTER)

KATIE CAMPBELL: It turned out that Willifords were the first confirmed case in the United States of people getting diarrhetic shellfish poisoning.DSP comes from eating shellfish contaminated by a toxin produced by a type of algae called Dinophysis.

It’s been present in Northwest waters for decades, but not at levels considered toxic.

NEIL HARRINGTON, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe:It’s unfortunate to discover you have a new toxin present by people getting ill.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Neil Harrington is an environmental biologist for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in Sequim, Washington.Every week, he collects water and shellfish samples from the same bay where the Willifords harvested mussels two summers ago.He tests for Dinophysis and other naturally occurring toxins in shellfish.

NEIL HARRINGTON: Shellfish are filter feeders, so they are filtering liters and liters and liters of water every day.If they are filtering phytoplankton that is a little bit toxic, when we eat the shellfish, we’re eating essentially that — that toxin that’s been concentrated over time.

KATIE CAMPBELL: A number of factors can increase the size and severity of harmful algal blooms.As more land is developed, more fertilizers and nutrients get washed into waterways.It’s a problem that has also hit Florida and the Gulf of Mexico as well.

NEIL HARRINGTON: The more nutrients you add to a water body, the more algae there is, and the more algae you get, the more chance that some of those algae may be harmful.

KATIE CAMPBELL: But on top the local problem of nutrient runoff is the larger issue of global warming.Scientists believe the increase in prevalence and toxicity of Dinophysis is linked to changing ocean chemistry and warming waters.

STEPHANIE MOORE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:There’s a whole lot of changes that are occurring in Puget Sound, and not — and they’re not occurring in isolation.And that’s the challenge for scientists.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Stephanie Moore is a biological oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.She studies Puget Sound’s harmful algae.Most algal blooms here occur during warmer weather.

Because climate change is expected to raise temperatures in the coming decades, Moore says that could directly affect when and where harmful algal blooms occur.

STEPHANIE MOORE: We’re going to have to look for these blooms in places and during times of the year when, traditionally, we haven’t had to worry about them.Their impacts could then span a much larger time of the year, and that could cost a lot more money in terms of the effort that needs to go into monitoring and protecting the public from the toxins that they produce.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Washington has one of the most advanced algae and shellfish testing systems in the country.It’s in part because of the state’s 800 miles of shore and its multimillion-dollar shellfish industry.

Today, Moore is testing a new piece of equipment that has the potential to raise the bar even higher.The environmental sample processor, or ESP, automatically collects water from a nearby shellfish bed, analyzes the samples, and sends Moore a photograph of the results.

STEPHANIE MOORE: This is a huge advancement in our ability just to keep tabs on what’s going on, and in near real time.It’s amazing.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Moore says she hopes that, next year, the ESP will be equipped to monitor for Dinophysis, the toxin that caused the Williford family to get sick.

In the meantime, Jacki Williford says she will continue to be extremely wary of eating shellfish.

JACKI WILLIFORD: I think it’s scary because you just — you just don’t know what you’re getting anymore in food.

KATIE CAMPBELL: As for the rest of the family, well, not everyone has sworn off mussels.

JOHN WILLIFORD: It doesn’t change a thing for me.

(LAUGHTER)

JACKI WILLIFORD: For him.

(LAUGHTER)

HARI SREENIVASAN: Jaycee might keep eating mussels, but the high levels of toxins have forced the Washington State Department of Health to shutdown shellfish beds in six counties around the Puget Sound.

No scientific consensus on GMO safety – scientists release statement saying public is being misled

Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150

There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.[1]

The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states, “The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne, associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”

 

Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

A third signatory to the statement, Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at Sussex University and member of the UK government’s GM Science Review Panel, said: “The main reason some multinationals prefer GM technologies over the many alternatives is that GM offers more lucrative ways to control intellectual property and global supply chains. To sideline open discussion of these issues, related interests are now trying to deny the many uncertainties and suppress scientific diversity. This undermines democratic debate – and science itself.”

The scientists’ statement was released by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility in the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of the GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta and UK environment secretary Owen Paterson branded opponents of GM foods as “wicked”.

Signatories of the statement include prominent and respected scientists, including Dr Hans Herren, a former winner of the World Food Prize and an Alternative Nobel Prize laureate, and Dr Pushpa Bhargava, known as the father of modern biotechnology in India.

Claire Robinson, research director at Earth Open Source commented, “The joint statement and comments of the senior scientists and academics make clear those who claim there is a scientific consensus over GMO safety are really engaged in a partisan bid to shut down debate.

“We have to ask why these people are so desperate to prevent further exploration of an issue that is of immense significance for the future of our food and agriculture. We actually need not less but more public debate on the impacts of this technology, particularly given the proven effective alternatives that are being sidelined in the rush to promote GM.”

Notes
1. http://www.ensser.org/media/

Summary of the statement, “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”:

1. There is no scientific consensus that GM crops and foods are safe for human and animal health.

2. A peer-reviewed review of safety studies on GM crops and foods found about an equal number of research groups raising concerns about GMO safety as groups concluding safety. However, most researchers concluding safety were affiliated with biotechnology companies that stood to profit from commercializing the GM crop concerned.

3. A review that is often cited to show GM crops and foods are safe in fact includes studies that raised concerns. Scientists disagree about the interpretation of these findings.

4. No epidemiological studies have been carried out to find out if GM crops are affecting human health, so claims that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects have no scientific basis.

5. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM crops for the environment. Studies have associated GM herbicide-tolerant crops with increased herbicide use and GM insecticidal crops with unexpected toxic impacts on non-target organisms.

6. A survey among scientists showed that those who received funding from biotech companies were more likely to believe GM crops were safe for the environment, whereas independent scientists were more likely to emphasize uncertainties.

7. Although some scientific bodies have made broadly supportive statements about GM over the years, these often contain significant caveats, call for better regulation, and draw attention to the risks as well as the potential benefits of GMOs. A statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) claiming GMO safety was challenged by 21 scientists, including long-standing members of the AAAS.

8. International agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety exist because experts worldwide believe that a strongly precautionary attitude is justified in the case of GMOs. Concerns about risks are well-founded, as can be seen by the often complex, contradictory, and inconclusive findings of safety studies on GMOs.

Navigators help get Native Americans insurance

Associated Press

Insurance enrollment helpers are encouraging Native Americans to sign up for coverage under the nation’s new healthcare law, saying it will help them better access X-rays, mammograms, prescription drugs and trips to specialists not covered under Indian Health Service.

American Indians are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that people carry insurance, but the law opens up resources that for years have been limited through IHS, said Jerilyn Church, executive director of the South Dakota-based Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board.

“There’s a huge gap in access to services, so being enrolled in the marketplace is going to make a big difference in terms of accessibility to healthcare,” Church said.

The Indian Health Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, provides free healthcare to enrolled members of tribes, their descendants and some others as part of the government’s treaty obligations to Indian tribes dating back nearly a century.

Critics long have complained of insufficient financial support that has led to constant turnover among doctors and nurses, understaffed hospitals, sparse specialty care and long waits to see a doctor.

The Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board received $264,000 in South Dakota and $186,000 in North Dakota to assist with Native American signups on the states’ reservations and urban areas.

The new law healthcare law will especially benefit people who seek treatment at urban Indian health clinics, which collectively are funded by just 1 percent of the IHS budget, said Ashley Tuomi, executive director of the American Indian Health and Family Services clinic in Detroit.

“Our resources are extremely limited, even more so than the tribes,” Tuomi said. “What we have within our walls is what we can offer for free.”

The clinic has seen a lot of patient interest in the healthcare marketplace, but “navigators” helping with signups have had to cancel many appointments because of continued issues with the federal healthcare.gov website, Tuomi said.

The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska has received about $38,000 in federal grant funds to encourage signups for tribal members scattered in 12 counties in Nebraska, two in Iowa and one in South Dakota.

The tribe’s IHS-contracted clinic in Omaha, Neb., has a medical doctor and two nurse practitioners, but the X-rays, specialists and prescriptions that are outsourced are not covered, said Jan Henderson, the tribe’s navigator project director. “And if they don’t have insurance, they have to pay for it themselves,” she said.

Tribes across the country get some federal money for referrals, but the small pools run out quickly, Henderson said.

She views the new healthcare law as a great step for Native Americans, but the greatest challenge is educating tribal members who are weary from decades of promises of improved healthcare.

“Education is very important in this right now to get people to be open to actually hearing about it,” Henderson said. “We hear a lot of people who say they don’t need this, they don’t want this.”

Get a flu shot today

Flu shots today at the Tulalip Administration building from noon -3:00
Flu shots today at the Tulalip Administration building from noon -3:00

By Monica Brown, Tulalip News Writer

TULALIP, Wash. – Flu season is here and if you want to prevent from getting the flu or contributing to spreading it, the flu vaccine is the way to go. Today, Oct. 22nd,  from 12:00 to 3:00pm at the Tulalip Admin building, the Tulalip Pharmacy is issuing flu vaccines on the second floor in the lunch area. For non-tribal members please bring your medical insurance information.

The Center for Disease Control recommends that all those who are able to be vaccinated do so. Listed below is some information from the CDC about how the vaccine works and who should consider getting vaccinated.

How do flu vaccines work?

Flu vaccines cause antibodies to develop in the body about two weeks after vaccination. These antibodies provide protection against infection with the viruses that are in the vaccine.

The seasonal flu vaccine protects against the influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. Traditional flu vaccines (called trivalent vaccines) are made to protect against three flu viruses; an influenza A (H1N1) virus, an influenza A (H3N2) virus, and an influenza B virus. In addition, this season, there are flu vaccines made to protect against four flu viruses (called “quadrivalent” vaccines). These vaccines protect against the same viruses as the trivalent vaccine as well as an additional B virus.

While everyone should get a flu vaccine this season, it’s especially important for some people to get vaccinated.

Those people include the following:

  • People who are at high risk of developing serious complications (like pneumonia) if they get sick with the flu.
  • People who live with or care for others who are at high risk of developing serious complications (see list above).
    • Household contacts and caregivers of people with certain medical conditions including asthma, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.
    • Household contacts and caregivers of infants less than 6 months old.
    • Health care personnel.