TimesOnline has just published an article on the NEW swine flu vaccine - and recommends that pregnant women ask for this in addition to last year's if they had it.

[JosephineClaire]

Has anyone else heard this?

I had a swine flu vaccine at about 10 weeks - I'm now wondering if I need another at 34 weeks...

It's a quite unjustified opinion, Miffster. You should know, there are parents of vaccine damaged children who have more reason to be angry than you but have much more self control.

"have you read any of the stuff I and others posted about risks of flu vs risks of vaccine?"

Well -- yes, of course what a strange question. And I've addressed this issue repeatedly. And now you're stalking me too!

Oh my god, I have to say it, you are completely nuts. Not worth wasting my time on.

Don't forget your tinfoil hat!

Why don't I do some stalking of my own? Where are you two from, Daemon and Jeely?

Jeez -- the name-calling is becoming an obsession with you. Are you like this in real life when people say things you don't want to hear?

Er, not remotely interested in where you're from appletrees, but I had an inkling that anti-vaccine (and anti-antibiotic, and anti-monitoring in labour too apparently) propaganda was something you had done before and a little bit of research showed it is indeed a hot topic of yours. Why is that?

Why do you always pop up on threads telling people that they shouldn't vaccinate their child or that antibiotics or vaccines definitely caused whatever condition their child is suffering from?

Appletrees WTF are you accusing me of stalking you for?

In what possible way am I stalking^ you?

????????????????????????????????? WTF?

this is getting really weird
responding to you is getting too odd
I am going to bed.

It's the stalking around threads -- very odd.

"Why do you always pop up on threads telling people that they shouldn't vaccinate their child or that antibiotics or vaccines definitely caused whatever condition their child is suffering from?"

I don't. Why are you here telling people they should get vaccinated?

Tangle, that study is interesting, but I see a couple of flaws.

Firstly, that there seem to be no children or mothers studied who were not part of the vaccination programme and did not receive any exposure to thiomersal.

Secondly, that the study does nothing to address the issue that a particular sub-group of children may be particularly vulnerable to thiomersal.

If thiomersal does have any impact, it must be a de facto truth that a particular group or sub group of metabolisms must be at risk: otherwise everyone would be affected in the same way. It's known, it's accepted by medical practitioners and pharmaceutical manufacturers alike, that medicines (and, of course, illnesses and infections) act in different ways in different people who may have no detectable contraindication and who otherwise seem just the same as each other. There is no reason why thiomersal shold be any different.

But the study doesn't take account of that. It's a small scale, retrospective, epidemiological study. It is interesting but it doesn't really show that thiomersal has no effect on the child or foetus. Of course, it doesn't show that it does, either: but it claims to show that it doesn't, and that's wrong.

I would like to see the original papers rather than this summary.

Sorry, I should say: re my first point, it would be of enormous interest if figures for completely unvaccinated children and mothers were included, and the ASD rates thereof.

The study seems to indicate that the children were examined for mcg administered/age/body weight and compared them, so that there was no true control of subjects who received no thiomersal at all.

It doesn't say outright that all the children received thiomersal but given that

a. if there were unvaccinated children and mothers, and they had the same ASD rates, it would be pointed out as "conclusive proof" (which it wouldn't be but anyway)

b. to be so closely monitored in the US health system it's highly unlikely that any babies and mothers weren't vaccinated. Pressure there is even more intense than in the UK and it's mandatory for school entry etc.

If there were mothers and children in the study with no exposure to thiomersal it would definitely be more interesting.

Oh the original paper is right there linked in the first par -- I can't read it on the computer as it won't magnify. But I'm going to bed so I'll have to read it later and come back.

Appletrees "I don't. (always pop up on threads telling people that they shouldn't vaccinate their child)"

This is a bare faced lie that anybody here can refute for themselves with a little bit of searching.

It's not stalking, it's verifying what you say is true or false.

False, as it happens.

Appletrees,

WRT to where I am from.
Geographically - none of your business.
Philosophically - I am a rationalist.

You make (here and in other threads) extraordinary claims. Claims which, if true, point to large conspiracies involving large (competing) corporations and governments all over the world.

Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. You provide none. Just speculation, hearsay and misinformation.

Open debate is one of the key drivers of science. But you don't want open debate. You don't engage with anybody who disagrees with you, instead accuse them of throwing a tantrum. It's not a temper tantrum to disagree with you. Several people on this thread have tried to debate with you and you either ignore the posts or attack.

I'm not interested in debate with you. You are just wrong. I am more interested in making sure that women who come here looking for sound advice are aware that you are spouting rubbish.

Aaaand...let's have a round up of Appletree's claims. (All quotes from this thread, appletrees if you think re-reading a thread is 'stalking' then I fear you have failed to understand the how the internet works)

Claim 1: The vaccine is being given out for 'business reasons, not health-driven reasons, because of the 'close relationship, very close' between 'the Government' (what, the last Govt. or the current one?) and GSK (even though the 2010/2011 vaccine is not the same as the SF one last year)

' Why this jab? Well, the government put in place a deal two or three years ago that if there was to be a pandemic GSK would be contracted to supply a vaccine. The government and GSK have a close relationship: very close. Staff cross over and so on. With great serendipity for GSK, along came swine flu, and along came the vaccine. But hmm, the swine flu scare-mongering didn't work quite as well as had been hoped and people became more matter of fact and blase, and they began to fear some of the ingredients in the vaccine: so take up was much lower than expected. Result: lots of leftovers .'

' There's a reason it's happening now, and it's a business reason, not a health-driven reason .'

Claim 2: The MMR- autism story is true and mercury in vaccinations causes brain damage. All the proof suggesting this is not the case is 'empty and useless'. Discredited, struck-off Andrew Wakefield is not a charlatan

'... disprove the thesis that mercury in vaccinations has a role in brain damage. Disprove the thesis that MMR has a role in triggering some cases of autism. If you can disprove these theses, why has it not been done ?'

' Once it's clear that the MMR story is not as straightforward as we are led to believe, the house of cards starts to crumble. These attempts to use epidemiological studies to "disprove" the link, they're just empty and useless .'

' Do I think Andrew Wakefield is a charlatan? What a ridiculous thing to suggest .

' This problem with Andrew Wakefield is huge. Has anyone read "Callous Disregard?". I guarantee you would change your minds about him. I would bet large amounts of money on it. Until you read that, you are making a judgement based on poor, missing and misleading information, and there's no way I can take that seriously. You're underinformed .'

Claim 3:

' Autism can mirror very closely the symptoms of mercury poisoning. Though there are of course many many descriptors of autistic syndrome and infinite degrees of mercury poisoning .

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to mercury and thiomersal. It can't be denied.'

Claim 4: those refusing vaccines are making a 'socially responsible sacrifice', rather than endangering the herd immunity.

' Because when things go wrong with vaccines no one thanks you for your socially responsible sacrifice -- you are vilified, smeared, rejected, ignored, abused, accused. You have a real fight on your hands .

And finally...how not to get flu, by Appletrees

' Vit C isn't really contentious at all, it's just that I'm not sure about safe levels in pregnancy. One can't say -- not sure about Vitamin C but don't worry about this injection which contains thiomersal, may contain squalene, hasn't been tested, long term effects on the foetus are unknown etc etc etc. There's no comparison .

Sure it's better if people with flu stay home but there's still a lot you can do. I don't think total avoidance is possible, but it's better than nothing and better than the jab, which is no way 100 pc and as well as having unknown effects on the foetus, can make you really symptomatic at the time of having .

And lots of rest, optimum nutrition and avoidance strategy will help to stop you contracting it chances of which are low anyway and help you not to suffer badly with it if you do .

If this is really a highly dangerous and fatal pandemic then emergency avoidance strategies should be in place anyway. They're not. It's just scare mongering to increase take up '

Bonus irony moment

I don't say do or don't. I say I wouldn't but the most important thing is to be informed . The official line clouds the issue with fear, guilt, patronage, judgmentalism.
To have real clarity here, more information is always better

But, seriously, let's not forget why pregnant women are being offered protection against H1N1 and seasonal flu (Science Daily story from April 2010): 'Among Deaths from H1N1, pregnant women appear to have high risk'

From the report:

'During the initial period of data collection (April-August 2009), a total of 788 cases of influenza A(H1N1) among pregnant women were reported. Among those, 30 died (5 percent of all reported 2009 influenza A[H1N1] deaths in this period). Among 509 hospitalized women, 115 (22.6 percent) were admitted to an ICU. Pregnant women with treatment more than 4 days after symptom onset were six times more likely to be admitted to an ICU (56.9 percent vs. 9.4 percent) than those treated within 2 days after symptom onset.
"Updating these data with the CDC's continued surveillance of ICU admissions and deaths among pregnant women with symptom onset through December 31, 2009, identified an additional 165 women for a total of 280 women who were admitted to ICUs, 56 of whom died. Among the deaths, 4 occurred in the first trimester (7.1 percent), 15 in the second (26.8 percent), and 36 in the third (64.3 percent)," the authors write.
"Pregnant women represent approximately 1 percent of the U.S. population, yet they accounted for 5 percent of U.S. deaths from 2009 influenza A(H1Nl) reported to the CDC. The data reported herein are consistent with previous studies that demonstrate that pregnant women with influenza are at increased risk of serious illness and death. In addition, delayed treatment of antiviral therapy was associated with more severe illness and death as previously shown for both seasonal influenza and 2009 influenza A(H1N1), whereas early treatment initiation has been associated with reduced illness duration, symptom severity, mortality, and incidence of secondary complications, hospitalizations, and need for antibiotics. Our analysis supports current public health recommendations for pregnant women that include vaccination with 2009 influenza A(H1N1) monovalent vaccine and early treatment of women who present with possible 2009 influenza A(H1N1) with antiviral medications."

And finally...
NHS info about this year's seasonal flu vaccine

I don't tell people not to vaccinate : I say inform yourself. There was one post where I struggled. But otherwise I do tell people they need more information than they are given by their GP. Haven't you read on this thread that people are looking for information and have been given misinformation, or not enough information, and are just told, in effect, "don't be silly, it's fine"?

I'm afraid the language you use is exactly the sort that attempts to close down debate. You may say you want it, but your tone, your attitude, your name-calling, they are all strong indicators that you don't want to hear or read anything different from the "official line".

I do accuse you of throwing a tantrum. What else is this name-calling and abuse? It's certainly not mature debate.

I am aware that you are not interested in debate with me: I doubt you are interested in debate with anyone.

I don't think there are any extraordinary claims here at all. I too am a rationalist. I ask no one to "simply believe", to take a leap of faith. There are significant unknowns: it requires a leap of faith without analysis to ignore them.

Miffster,

How about you substitute "aids" for "swine flu" and "retrovirals" for "vaccination". You get to prety much where the South African Government is. They are recommending rest and "optimum nutrition" too, rather than condoms and retrovirals.

Or how about smallpox. Anyone fancy some "optimum nutrition" there?

Infectious diseases work because they have genetically evolved to outwit our immune system even when functioning optimally. Vaccines work because they give our immune system a head's up as to what the virus looks like in advance in a weakened or imitated form (not many are even weakened these days).

This is immunology 101, not really up for debate.

Larry: any comment on the deconstruction I provided of those epidemiological studies? It would be more interesting than the creation of straw men arguments which you now seem to be engaged with.

I am just waiting be called a 'sheeple'
I'm less interested in 'debating' with Appletrees, ( which is pointless, see this guide as to why) but in alerting thread readers as to her agenda.

Which, it has to be said, is pretty 'fringe'
(being polite) and posits many things which there is no evidence for whatsoever.

Large pinches of salt - wheelbarrows of salt - are therefore recommended. And tinfoil hats.

.

Although, when this idiocy becomes mainstream, it's really not funny.

Appletrees,

Straw men? A strange term, maybe a hint of where you are coming from?

I did not see your "deconstruction". Please post me a link and I will take a look.

Don't you know what a straw man argument is? Surely you do. Your last post was an example.

It's earlier up in the thread. I can't post a link. You'll just have to read back.

Miffster, that's just more of the same, it adds so little.

I continue to believe that it remains important to care about facts, to refute nonsense and to challenge false conspiracy theories, Appletrees.

I fully expect that when I and others do so it will make you angry and upset, since it is clear that you personally have invested emotionally in believing the stuff you do, for whatever reasons. That can't be helped, I'm afraid: herd immunity IS important, NHS advice is given for a reason and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to H1N1 flu so it's relevant and necessary to publicly challenge you when you post the stuff you post, especially here, especially now. I'm glad that people are continuing to do it.

Sorry: re your long post.

"Why this jab? Well, the government put in place a deal two or three years ago that if there was to be a pandemic GSK would be contracted to supply a vaccine. The government and GSK have a close relationship: very close. Staff cross over and so on. With great serendipity for GSK, along came swine flu, and along came the vaccine. But hmm, the swine flu scare-mongering didn't work quite as well as had been hoped and people became more matter of fact and blase, and they began to fear some of the ingredients in the vaccine: so take up was much lower than expected. Result: lots of leftovers."

Which part of this is not true?

"The MMR- autism story is true and mercury in vaccinations causes brain damage".

There is a great deal of evidence to support a connection between MMR and autism, though no proof. I support Wakefield's call for more research. There is also evidence for the second claim. The thing is, I don't claim proof for either, but it's impossible to accept the pooh poohing and ridicule. There is such a thing as vaccine damage Miffster.

"Autism can mirror the symptoms of mercury poisoning" -- this is true.

Claim 4: those refusing vaccines are making a 'socially responsible sacrifice', rather than endangering the herd immunity.

"Because when things go wrong with vaccines no one thanks you for your socially responsible sacrifice -- you are vilified, smeared, rejected, ignored, abused, accused. You have a real fight on your hands"

You misunderstand very badly. People refusing vaccines are not those to whom "things go wrong" of course it is only people who chose to "do the right thing", as you would put it, who can suffer vaccine damage. Isn't that obvious? But too often complaints of adverse events are ignored, rejected or ascribed to coincidence and not investigated fully or at all. Do you understand now? I'm not trying to wipe the off your face but really this is a pretty poor show. I don't really know what you're trying to say?

Re: avoidance strategies. Have you got a problem with people trying not to catch flu in the first place? Because it can be so serious in pregnancy? Why would you have a problem with that?

Appletrees I don't tell people not to vaccinate : I say inform yourself.

No you don't. What you do is say stuff like (regarding the flu jab):

I am struggling very hard with not saying for the love of God don't. But one doesn't tell people what to do so I'm not going to say that. But for the love of God don't do look into it carefully.

Which whilst technically not telling people not to vaccinate, leaves the reader under no certain terms sure about what you mean.

You must then consider the rest of your posts, which under the banner of balance, fairness and information offer nothing but misinformation and distortions.

You cannot post any links to this evidence as it doesn't exist.

You are the one making extraordinary claims, you should be the one providing the proof.

Appletrees,

"Firstly, that there seem to be no children or mothers studied who were not part of the vaccination programme and did not receive any exposure to thiomersal"

Sure, a double blind trial is the perfect experiment but that does not mean others have no validity.

"Secondly, that the study does nothing to address the issue that a particular sub-group of children may be particularly vulnerable to thiomersal"

This is a very weak argument as, if that sub-group were of meaningful size, it would affect the population as a whole. If it is of such a small size that it does not affect the population statistics, it means that it is not a significant risk to the population as a whole.

"But the study doesn't take account of that. It's a small scale, retrospective, epidemiological study"

You say small scale, retrospective and epidemiologal as if this somehow discredits it. It is large enough scale to be statistically significant. Or do you have a statistical test which shows this is not the case? If not, it is good enough for me. Retrospective? Why is that bad? And epidemiological study is a respected way of showing the risk of a procedure/disease.

"The study seems to indicate that the children were examined for mcg administered/age/body weight and compared them, so that there was no true control of subjects who received no thiomersal at all".

Another weak argument as it is well known that heavy metal poisoning is cumultaive and dose related. Unless you are arguing another mechanism of harm? There have been numerous experiments on heavy metal toxicity in general which have demonstrated the above.

"If there were mothers and children in the study with no exposure to thiomersal it would definitely be more interesting."

Well, maybe but that does not invalidate it.

To sum up, your "deconstruction" is that this study was not perfect and definitive. Well, studies very rarely are. It does not mean it is invalid or does not point strongly towards a particular outcome.

The one thing I would say, is that it's now clear that not all health authorities are recommending Pandemrix in all circumstances.