plans for mass vaccination at schools in autumn

[pofacedandproud]

here

How do people feel about this?

Saggar I don't know but if you ask your GP practice they should tell you. It will be in the ingredients on the package inserts.

One of the rare adverse events I read about involved pulmonary problems but please read more up about it than this and don't take my word for it.

I think each vaccine has to be valued on a risk v benefit ratio. For many vaccines the small risk [to overall population, for individuals risk may be higher] is outweighed by the benefits [to individuals and overall pop]
For this one it is difficult. the risk is unknown. The benefits are unknown at present because the deadly second wave is still at present hypothetical. Very hard to make a rational decision then.

Don't worry stuffit - we are all entitled to opinions, and there would be no debate if there were only one side to every story or if there was only on e "right" opinion (I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that by definition everybodies opinion is "right" to them - but open to be challenged - which is not the same as saying it is "wrong" IYSWIM).

The big problem - as far as I can see - with the squalene and GWS link is that at the time of the publication (which I am still working with blind; so I am making assumptions based on someone elses summary of it), it was assumed that it was the anthrax vaccine which was being "blamed" for the GWS. It has since come to light that the Anthrax vaccine didn't actually contain Squalene...which is one of hte major arguments fueling the "Squalene caused GWS" theory. An if the Anthrax vaccine contained no Squalene then there can be no link. End of story.

Regarding the body of evidence, volume of publications thing and comparison to MMR vaccine. You will find that there is a huge plethora of publications on teh subject (not all supporting of course), but at least there is a body of evidence for both sides. The debate truely rumbles on WITHIN the scientific community and publications still appear onteh subject. The GWS Squalene link has been dropped. I truely believe it is because the scientific community have acknowledged that there are flaws in the research, but personally I will make my final judgement when I have got hold of the original publications. The fact that FLUAD (which also contains Squalene) has been given to over 20 million patients since 1997 without there being huge squeals about GWS like side effects tells a bigger story IMHO.

I know what you are saying about a positive link and the effects on pharma....but honestly if there was any scientific interest in this there would be more than 3-5 papers on the subject. And I obviously know that you can never prove a negative.

I will continue to research the Squalene - GWS link as far as I can (and honestly it won't take long), but I don't think there is anything there. If someone wants to give me another angle to look at and chase I will, but it is not easy to find on teh medical databases when just search for Squalene without an angle because there is so many publications on hte function of naturally occuring squalene and it's metabolites etc.

On the subject of autoimmunity...yes well there is another interesting one. (BTW people that are autoimmune do not have a depressed immune state - they have an overactive immune state). I definately believe that there is something in teh modern way of living which has contributed to the increase in auto-immune disorders. But what. It may be vaccines, it may be hygiene, it may be increased detection, it may be improved medicine allowing those predisposed to ato-immunity to reach child bearing age. It could be one of a hundred things (I doubt that it is linked to Squalene directly though - vaccines are another question).

Finally - to answer Saggar about Squalene in UK vaccines. I can't find conclusive evidence for this. As far as I can tell the key vaccine is FLUAD, and I can't find any evidence of this being used in the UK (but I haven't found any evidence of it not being used either).

I think that is the most important point pofaced. It is about risk v benefit. Risk v benefit will be assessed at a population level by the regulatory authorities.

As parents and individuals we can also do our own risk v benefit analysis for the individuals that we know and love and that will be a personal decision based on personal well being, ethics and medical history.

However, I urge you to be cautious. It is easy to pick up on 2 papers which suggest a negative link and take that as fact. It is easy to pick up on a blog which says that something is going to cause you arm to drop off. There will always be side effects. The questions that need to be asked are - how frequent are the side effects? how severe are the side effects? how strong is the evidence for side effects? how severe will the disease be if I don't take the drug/vaccine?

I would be inclined not to take a drug which had a 1:100 chance of death (unless I was dying anyway). But a drug which has a 1:100 chance of giving me a short term headache I would. 1:10,000 chance of an auto-immune disorder - probably would take it....it all depends on teh scenario and it is not a 1 glove fits all model.

Perfect.. quite right on the over active immune system. And you are giving this subject such attention. I follow what you've said about the anthrax/squalene issue.

I am as you would expect troubled by the risk benefit issue, as it's generally accepted that 90 per cent of adverse events remain unreported. So an assessment of risk is therefore virtually impossible.

In addition, as the Hannah Poling case exposed, there are unknown risks out there. Use of a product in the wider population does expose these risks sometimes: but the culture of denial is so strong, and adverse events so often dismissed as coincidence, that risk benefits assessments for the laywoman (that's me) become almost meaningless.

although whenever I read "only 10pc of adverse events reported" I do think

how do they know?

I am sorry....90% of minor adverse events may go unreported, but these will be the type of thing that has little (long term) consequence such as headaches pain at site, a short term numb arm etc. But all AEs that are classified as serious will be reported, and disclosed.

If an adverse event occurs frequently enough then it cannot and will not (IMHO) be dismissed as coincidence. If it is being dismissed as a coincidence then the frequency must be very low. And if the frequency is low - then I as a parent and a scientist would probably not base my decision on it. I know that it is devastating for those rare cases - but if they are genuinely rare then I would not use that to disuade me from taking treatment IYSWIM. (and I don't think I have said that very well)

I'm sorry too Prefect but look at Sally Clark's baby. He died on the day of a combined vaccination. It was reported that his death could have nothing to do with the vaccination because he had shown no adverse response to it.

Apart from the fact that he died.

Of course, nobody knew what Harry Clark died of, and a very tragic mistake was made about the cause of death, but the possibility of it being the vaccination was dismissed.

Of course, I have no idea if it was or if it wasn't. But it's not a very minor possible adverse event to be dismissed as coincidence.

This is just an example.

I know what you are saying. What I am trying to say is that for something to fall into the "coincidence" category it has to be very very low frequency.

If there are more cases then the fact that it is conincidence WILL be questioned and then followed up.

What i am saying is that I personally am confident that something that is "dismissed" as a coincidence is (if it is linked) an adverse event that is happening at too low a frequency to be linked and therefore it is happening at too low a frequency to have an impact on my personal decision to take treatment in the future.

It is devastating for those families involved. And I don't want to take anything away from them. But for me making a decision, a rare event is unlikley to change my reponse. So as far as influencing my decision these "coincidences" are not a critical part of the package of information I will look at.

Once again - I acknowledge the devastation for those involved in these rare events. It is just not important for my risk benefit analysis.

But usually these dismissals are verbal and occur in the GPs surgery, even over the phone. There is no central recording of them. How could anybody notice, question and follow up when the frequency is high?

I know you operate in good faith prefect, but I fear you have a too wholesome and altruistic view of the way the industry operates.

There is a system to centrally record them.

If the frequency is "high enough" someone will put two and two together and questions asked.

Unfortunately I can't answer how much is "high enough".

I know there is a database, Yellow Card and so on.

But usually these dismissals are verbal and occur in the GPs surgery, even over the phone. Do you mean that every single verbal issue raised with a GP, to which the GP then responds "that's probably normal" is written down, recorded and assessed?

Noo - not necessarily. It will be during clinical testing....they record absolutely everything then. So any events which occur at a moderate-high frequency (and probably many "rare" and some "very rare") events should be spotted.

It is those which occur during the early years of marketing which we are talking about here. Unless the GP makes a decision to report it as an adverse event then it won't go into the database. What I was thinking that if it occurs frequently enough, a case hits the headlines eventually then alarm bells will trigger and things can be investigated.

Except they're not.

stuffitlllama - actually you can file your own adverse reactions online at the yellow card website. Plus if you make a formal complaint about one to the GP or the pharmacist/dispenser they are obliged to record it even if they think you are tonto.

I think you are probably right that they do get dismissed sometimes though - but my GP is pretty good at reporting back.

at tonto

I feel I'm stretching this out into a more general vaccine debate so will save it for a different thread. But very interested in further developments on the squalene front and will watch for that.

Perfect I must say I think the time you have given to digging up information and formulating precis for us is impressive.

Great research and links, been reading stuff for hours. But after reading about all the vaccination disasters, mishaps and adverse reactions I'm a bit worried now. Not just about squalene, but the heavy metals that are in jabs.
DS1 (14) had all his jabs, DTP Hib and MMR and has ADHD which I never thought was linked to anything other than genes (until now).
DS2 (8) had baby jabs DTP Hib, but not MMR, because of all the controversy at the time. He has just been diagnosed with ASD, so I'm really glad he didn't have the MMR.

I don't think mine will be having the SF jab and I'm not sure I'll be having it either.

Thought this was a good general read: WHO primer on how novel flu vaccines are made

WHO latest press briefing on the vaccine

From that last link badkitten

'Most of the safety concerns induced by the vaccine which are apart
from that, very, very safe medicines, as (unintelligible) some fever sometimes,
potentially nausea, so very minor side effects, but in a very rare occurrence from many
vaccines, there can be the occurrence of a more severe adverse event. So there is no doubt
that if and when there will be very large scale vaccination campaign, there will be people
who will have an adverse event. The large majority of these events will not be associated
at all with the vaccine which is given. It will be temporally associated which means this
is something that would have happened anyway, but which just by chance is happening
after a person has had a vaccination.'

I usually trust WHO, but am seriously shocked by that statement. So they are deciding, in advance, that most adverse reactions will have nothing to do with the vaccine? That is hugely unscientific and bad practice. It renders the following statement meaningless:

'So the regulatory authorities in all countries will monitor very closely all sickness as
adverse events, and will try immediately to decipher whether indeed these side effects are
linked to the vaccine, or whether they are just coincidental.'

They have already stated that the adverse effects are mostly coincidental, before the vaccine has been trialled. Shocking.

I don't know how to do links but the following is about how toxic vaccines have been/are (not sure what exactly is in this SF vaccine, anyone know?)

www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2700&end=2720&view=yes&id=3496#newspost

This Swine Flu Update is a MUST read, how to prevent/reduce the risk of catching it (not just "wash your hands") written by Dr Sarah Myhill

www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2760&end=2780&view=yes&id=3612#newspost

I am sorry - but I could not get to the end of the load of codswallop that was the first link that Kitty offered.

I got to the statement "Nearly all children become fully autistic after the MMR shot"...which is obviously grossly untrue. There have been links to autism (which are obviously debated - and aren't the subject here)...but it certainly does not affect "nearly all children".

All of the observations in that "report" can be backed up by the scientific literature. The vast majority have also been rejected/put into better context by the scientific community. What the author has done has taken every bit of bad press published, rolled it into one article - implying that all vaccines have all of the nasties in, and presented the nastiest evidence they can - even if it has since been rejected/acknowledge to be unfounded/low frequency.

Yes we need to take into account potential side effects - nobody is denying that. We also need to take into account the counter arguments and put things into perspective.

from kitty's link about how to avoid SF:

'Avoid female sex hormones, which are immunosuppressive and increase susceptibility to viral infections'

ah well we're all buggered then.

I rest my case....