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...

There was a huge post I made Larry, ages ago: didn't you read it?

"It is large enough scale to be statistically significant." Not in terms of a sub group: and it may not be a small sub group, given the scale of ASD diagnoses and their rapid rise.

I think Larry you miss the point. We're being told this study claims to show something which it actually doesn't show. It's not just that it's not perfect and definitive. The claim is there and it's not substantiated. Now if this was an isolated example it wouldn't really matter. But as I showed earlier, epidemiological studies are repeatedly used with overblown claims, when analysis shows that the headline simply isn't matched by the findings.

This year's seasonal flu vaccine is not last year's leftovers, Appletrees. You know this, because this was covered on page 11 of this thread. That's just for starters.

I don't have a problem with people trying not to catch flu (how are they going to do that by the way? Give up work, travel and social contact?). I'm pleased when people eat well.

I do have a problem when misleading information is put about regarding the risk of seasonal flu vaccines, especially when H1N1 flu is provably dangerous to pregnant women and when they are disproportionately represented amongst those needing intensive care treatment, or even dying as a result of catching it.

That is why I (and others who are better at this than me) are trying to draw people's attention to what you are saying in your posts and where you are coming from. there's no point trying to convince you, but there is a point still bothering, because there are people reading this thread who are considering whether or not to have the flu vaccine.

I can't post on here much longer because I have to go out and do stuff. But I couldn't walk away without requoting you so people could see what your background beliefs were and therefore what your agenda is.

Just to go back to MMR for one second.

There are many claims that MMR caused a child's regressive autistic condition, with evidence behind the claims obtaining to individual children. The "official line", for want of a better term, is that MMR did not trigger any of these, not one, that MMR has NO role to play. The cause is NOT known, but it IS known that MMR had no role to play.

This diagnosis is made not on examination of the children, despite the clinical, sub clinial, videographic, temporal evidence and so on: but on a series of faulty epidemiological studies.

Do you see the flaw here? Anyway this is about flu not MMR.. there's plenty of MMR everywhere else.

"This year's seasonal flu vaccine is not last year's leftovers, Appletrees."

Pandemrix is the monovalent vaccine which is being offered by some health authorities in some circs.

Miffster: I note you have no comment other than to requote and say: look at this! But you don't seem to offer any reason to dispute my posts, so that's why I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Appletrees,

I don't miss the point and I think you are being deliberately disingenuous.

"Not in terms of a sub group"

What matters is whether the risks on average outweigh the risks of damage from catching the disease and it then causing damage. Of course there may be a "sub group" of say, 1 in 30,000 people, where the vaccine is very dangerous. If the sub-group were meaningful, as I explained, it would affect the population statistics. Do you actually understand how statistics work?

The study does point strongly towards the conclusion it makes. You use the term "show" (probably deliberately). It is very very rare a study will show something 100%. It demonstrates it at a particular statistical confidence level.

What you cannot offer in return is a study that even points towards the linkages that you postulate. And, it is no good arguing that the studies have not been done, as numerous posters have linked to studies. They are just not good enough for you.

despite the clinical, sub clinial, videographic, temporal evidence and so on

Links please...
Just so that we can all read and make up our own minds

Appletrees said: 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 ?

Er...you said 'this jab'(by which you presumably mean the seasonal flu 2010/2011 jab being offered to pregnant women and other vulnerable groups since that is the subject of this thread). You inferred 'this jab' was was comprised of 'lots of leftovers' from the 'deal 2 or 3 years ago' between 'the Government and GSK' who are 'very close'. You claimed that as a result of the 'serendipity' of 'swine flu' and 'scaremongering' large stocks of the vaccine were prepared by stocks were left over because 'people...began to fear some of the ingredients'.

Ergo, you're inferring the vaccine which is the subject of this 2010 thread is comprised of, contains or is the leftover vaccine from 2009, hatched as part of a plot between GSK and the Government 2-3 years ago.

well, that is just not true, is it? And now you have admitted that 'Pandemrix is the monovalent vaccine which is being offered by some health authorities in some circs.

Which is a tad different to your GSK/Govt swine flu serendipity conspiracy theory earlier.

Apologies: 'By' should read 'but', as in 'large stocks were prepared but stocks were left over'

"What matters is whether the risks on average outweigh the risks of damage from catching the disease and it then causing damage. Of course there may be a "sub group" of say, 1 in 30,000 people, where the vaccine is very dangerous. If the sub-group were meaningful, as I explained, it would affect the population statistics. Do you actually understand how statistics work?"

Where did you get the figure of one in thirty thousand from? How do you know how big the figure is? Do you know how big it is?

Actually using the words "this jab" did indeed imply that it was the trivalent. I was talking about Pandemrix at that point, which is certainly being offered too.

But the deal between the government and GSK is very real, as is the close relationship between them.

Should just say, re GSK and the government: it's not a theory, it's not even a secret. (GSK and Baxter both had these agreements). I don't think it's a conspiracy either, and I'm sure that most of those involved operate in very good faith. It's just the way business works.

Appletrees,

Is your reading as bad as your stats.

"What matters is whether the risks on average outweigh the risks of damage from catching the disease and it then causing damage. Of course there may be a "sub group" of say, 1 in 30,000 people"

In regular English say=e.g, exemplum gratia or more commonly, for example? Did you miss it when you read my post?

I have no idea how big the number might be but, as I have already explained twice, if it was significant it would affect the population statistics.

On the other hand it has been shown to a statistically significant level that catching flu whilst pregnant causes risks to the mother and child.

Do you get my point now?

Appletrees, I don't think I need to bother to dispute your posts which I quoted, they can stand up there in all their glory and people can look at them and see exactly where you are coming from all by themselves.

Claim 1: the seasonal flu vaccine is being given out by the NHS this year for business reasons not health reasons. (Presumably, with every GP and practice nurse in the UK complicit in this and happily silent about it).

Claim 2: Wakefield is 'not a charlatan' and MMR/autism links 'are true'. Mercury in vaccinations 'causes brain damage'. (evidence of poster's anti-vaccine agenda)

Claim 3:'Circumstantial evidence' exists re mercury and thiomersal and autism ( further evidence of poster's anti-vaccine agenda)

Claim 4: Chances of getting flu are 'low' and 'lots of rest, optimum nutrition, Vit C and avoidance' will help you not to suffer too badly if you do get it'. (Sadly, not borne out by evidence of H1N1 affecting pg women who are naturally immuno-suppressed)

I think it is worth reiterating these views so people reading can see where Appletrees is coming from.

In the interests of 'more information is good' and 'making up their own minds', naturally.

I would be more surprised if the government did not have a sound relationship with GSK.

This excellent pdf shows it's not just GSK either.
It's not just about business.

Don't be so rude. You don't know. Nobody knows. This is my point. Given the history of misleading risk information given out, and the facts about failure to report, register and investigate adverse events, it is very fair to question findings like these. To ask for more. Larry, did you read the earlier post? It's been accepted by the US legal system (I cannot remember who recorded this judgement) that epidemiological studies are no indicator of whether any individual has been affected adversely. Do you see what that means?

Miffster, you are not reiterating, you are verging on the inventive.

and the facts about failure to report, register and investigate adverse events

prove this claim please...

No, it requires an enormous amount of cutting and pasting, and that's pointless. A quick example would be, the child that comes out in a rash after a vaccine and the health visitor saying -- oh that's heat rash etc etc. There is instant denial. The yellow card system was brought in because of under reporting. That's the greater value of a prospective epidemiological study: parents are asked to report any reaction, and that is recorded. Retrospectively, when you consider that health professionals say, there'll be a temperature, there'll be screaming, just give calpol, parents don't record them because they are told their normal and don't indicate any adverse event.

The reason I say it's pointless is this. I might say: such and such a reaction was not recorded. And you would say: perhaps it wasn't recorded because it wasn't an adverse event. Do you see? It's pointless.

"they're normal"

It's been accepted by the US legal system (I cannot remember who recorded this judgement) that epidemiological studies are no indicator of whether any individual has been affected adversely

US legal system has also found no link between MMR and Autism:
Federal appeals court upholds decision finding no link between vaccines and autism

Appletrees ' you are verging on the inventive '

LOL, lulz, oh the irony.

I am quoting you....

oh, never mind. (facepalm)

That's misleading for a start. Three children lost their claim for vaccine damages.

Why don't you find the details of the cases so we can all read them.

Miffster: shush.

No Appletrees I don't see.

You want us to accept that there is widespread failure to listen to concerns, and widespread failure to report or even acknowledge adverse effects.

You need to substantiate this.

Appletrees, the cases are all linked from that article.

While you're at it, Appletrees, can you also substantiate this claim you made wrt the proposed vaccination of pregnant women with the 2010 seasonal flu vaccine?

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

Be particularly interested to know why you think GPs, hospitals, practice nurses and health care trusts either do not know or do not care that this is the case.