plans for mass vaccination at schools in autumn

[pofacedandproud]

here

How do people feel about this?

sorry kitty wasn't having a go, she was probably talking about the contraceptive pill, but it did sound funny!

To be fair I wasn't trying to have a go at kitty either.

My point was that with so much freely available press - people don't know what to believe. They take articles such as this at face value and it is honestly only a fraction of the story. It is in my mind irresponsible reporting. It kind of supports what we were saying a couple of days ago about knowing what information to use in a risk - benefit analysis.

If I may I will draw an analogy. Reading that first article about all the "nasties" in vaccines is like reading the following about a holiday in the UK:

You shouldn't go to the UK because you will end up in a car accident on the M1
You shouldn't go to teh UK because you will be bombed by the IRA
You shouldn't go to teh UK because it will rain for the whole week
You shouldn't go to the UK because you won't understand the Scottish accent
You shouldn't go to teh UK because they all eat jellied eels

None of the above statements are completely true. They can all be observed to be true at some frequency - but there is no indication of the likelyhood of an accident on the M1/IRA bombing. There is no indication that it might actually be nice and sunny. There is nothing to say that you might actually understand the Scots/like jellied Eels....but then you might not ever come across them.

Can you see how it gives a biassed perspective, and that it is - for those that know and love the UK - nothing to be overly concerned about.

no i know you weren't Prefect. and I agree with you. The WHO quote worried me though.

Ooh yes the WHO quote.

Personally it doesn't overly concern me. What i think they were trying to say (badly - possibly because of translation the transcript didn't look liek a native english tongue) was that:

There will be adverse events (there is with virtually (all?) medical treatments) - but that they will need to be vigilant and assess whether they are truely related to teh vaccine or just a coincidence quickly because of the ongoing rapid rol out vaccination program.

I think that they were trying to prime teh public to expect that (quite rightly) that some will be genuine coincidences, some will be reall AEs. I don't think they were prejudging.

pofacedandproud - thanks for clearing that up, i was wondering how i was supposed to "avoid female sex hormones".
First i thought maybe I should avoid having sex with myself, then i wondered if i should stop having sex with my partner, or even avoid her altogether? Then I thought - but for how long? Surely I'd starve before i went down with SF.
What a relief!

OK here's your collective 'starter for ten':

What were the perceived adverse events that stopped the 1976 swine influenza vaccination campaign in the US?

Guillian Barre syndrome?

Nope...

Didn't the fact that there wasn't actually an outbreak of swine flu in the end have a big impact?

Also read that because drs started looking for GB they started attributing all sorts of symptoms that may or may not have been GB and the fact that they were looking for GB skewed the results towards finding it.

Big insurance issues back then too with insurance companies not wanting to cover it and the US federal government taking on the liability.

also the single shots didn't actually work on children.

For what its worth I am attempting to boost my family's natural immunity so that if we get Swineflu we are in a better position hopefully to fight it off. I feel that the media is making us really panic and not mentionning things we can do to help ourselves prepare for the winter season.

This is what we do:-

1.We have ditched the sugar as far as we can as it inhibits the bodies own defence systems.

1. DH and I are gargling each morning with warm salt water,which is supposed to stop the virus invading your tongue and then passing into the bloodstream
2. DS and DD and the rest of us take Sambucol

an elderberry extract invented by a virologist with some flu busting properties (Mother and I have earmarked a load of elderberry trees so that we can make our own cheaper version once the berries rippen) Also on echineacea.

1. Each time we get a sniffle trying collodial silver and its seems to be working likewise taking vit c powder by the gramme
2. getting more exercise than usual
3. Avoiding taking the children to crowded places - such as supermarkets and in door play areas
4. DH and I are using hand santiser each time we go anywhere - DH runs a factory in Manchester and meets lots of people each day
5. I have decided to carry on breastfeeding until the spring as DS was admitted to hospital last winter with a bad chest. Doc told me that if I hadnt been breastfeeding he would have probably been in for a week or so rather than one night. When he is ill its all he will have
6. All taken a good multi vit plus zinc and fish oils

10. Got a juicer and making fresh organic juices each day from blackberries and blackcurrants etc. 11. getting plenty of rest when tired. 12. I am resigning from the playgroup I run as so many mothers seem to be bringing their little ones along especially in the winter when they are clearly not well.

I will still be considering the flu vac though if it is offered.

Best wishes

whooooa be careful. Especially with the sambucol. I'd get proper advice on that one as some say that it can boost cytokine production. helpful for some perhaps, but maybe not for those with good strong immune systems.

Also colloidal silver not considered safe in States

I hope you are seeing someone one qualified with those supplements.

Thanks

Absolutely seen a homeopathic GP and clinical nutritionalist as well as spending 20 years reading about nutrition and health.

Apart from two pregnancies haven't seen a doctor for years for myself so I guess the alternatives must be doing me some good.

Re: Sambucol I am using a brand from Israel whose benefits have been well documented. It tastes yummy too so the children will have take it.

Just read 'Boost your Immunity' by Patrick Holford whom I think is marvellous.

Well, as long as you have thought about the small possibility of sambucol making you overproduce cytokines and the risks of colloidal silver esp when breastfeeding then who am I to argue though I think sometimes the cure is worse than the illness. We each make our own choices on what is best for us and our families. I am glad it is working for you.

yes I had wondered about Sambucol and cykotine over production to badkitten. And same with echineacea.

Musukebba, can you elaborate on your thoughts on the previous Swine Flu vaccine hoo ha? You're keeping me on tenterhooks...

Have only dipped into this ( in far to good a mood after anniversary celebrations to get drawn in ) but just want to mention that I requested several times that my GP record my sons post MMR regression via yellow card system. He refused repeatedly and never did.

that is absolutely shocking pag
[Happy anniversary though]

Apologies for delay in replying about 1976 vax and perceived severe adverse events...

Top of the list - reported by the press - was heart failure in a small number of patients. On investigation, this proved to be unrelated but led to wider surveys that eventually found a statistical association with GBS.

As OYBBK says; confidence in the campaign was already dented by vaccine manufacturers' demanding indemnity, and the health authorities' investigation of a number of cases of (then unknown) Legionnaire's disease panicked the public into thinking it was all being hyped up to frighten everyone into getting vaccinated. Even though it was only two days before influenza was ruled out as a cause of the respiratory illness, the damage had been done and without more cases of influenza - plus the GBS data - the campaign was pretty much doomed.

To come back to the Squalene/GWS story - I have now looked at the original citations and make the following observations:

reference 1

Patients were recruited via an advert on the internet/word of mouth. It was voluntary.
Combination of blind and unblind samples
Dot blot assay - which at best is a semi-quantitative assay - yet they are making very quantitative conclusions
The image they provide showing key data to my eye may have been generated by cutting and pasting a number of separate images together - which gives scope for image manipulation. (note I am not say it has been manipulated - just that it is in a format which could have been)?which as a scientist I would be suspicious about.
Aspects of their methods are dubious - positive/negative controls - are they truly positive and negative? The patient samples are highly diluted so may not detect low concentrations of anti-bodies in those which are supposedly negative.
Some other points raised in the letter to the editor (which I hadn?t spotted include the observation that Squalene is dissolved in water in one of their assays (yet is an oil based substance which does not dissolve in oil). And then they treat the blots with detergent (which would remove an oil).

reference 2. Which have haven?t had time to read end to end.

This is a follow-up using the same dubious assay. In this paper they are specifically looking at those immunised against anthrax (which I believe has since been claimed not to contain Squalene).
They show (with their dubious assay) that 30% of those vaccinated are positive for anti-squalene antibodies. Those not vaccinated (and not symptomatic) are positive at a rate of 15% (despite claiming the rate was 0% in previous study ). They also state that the difference is not statistically significant. I.e. the 2 groups are scientifically regarded as being the same frequency.
They do, however, suggest a correlation between the vaccine batch they received and the positivity of squalene test?however they only test 25 samples and have about 6-8 batches of vaccine - so not sure how you formulate a rigorous correlation from such a small sample number.

At the end of the day - as I have previously said - I am concerned about the lack of follow-up for this type of study. I am concerned that there are more rigorous papers out there coming to different conclusions.

hello and back after some thought

Pret -- I appreciate all that you are doing with this info! and didn't want to argue about the vaguer vaccine testing issue.

But I just wanted to make the point that though your confidence may remain undented that adverse events are inevitably spotted in clinical testing and investigated -- and following that, in general population use, I think it is misplaced.

With your experience, I'm sure you know that many adverse events in drug tests are dismissed as "background". For example, say 1,000 six month old babies are testing a vaccine. Say that during the period of the test, 10 babies would be expected to be admitted to hospital ANYWAY with encephalitis (I am completely making these figures up for the sake of the example.)

So if up to ten babies in the test can be admitted to hospital suffering encephalitis during the period of the trial without it being investigated because they are "background" events.

If you think this does not happen you are wrong. It happens even with deaths.

By which I mean to say, of course, that any one of those cases of encephalitis may have been caused by the vaccine, but this will not be investigated.

Simply because a certain number of medical events would be expected to occur during a certain period in the population being tested, does not mean that a particular medical event was not triggered by the drug or vaccine being trialled.

But this will not be looked at when dismissed as "background".

and

'The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.'

Cochrane 2005

So you can't really say that a risk benefit analysis is appropriate, particularly with a new vaccine or drug.