Yahoo: Insight: Evidence grows for narcolepsy link to GSK swine flu shot

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-evidence-grows-narcolepsy-gsk-swine-flu-shot-070212916--finance.html

The long and short of is that a vaccine for H1N1 that was approved in much of western Europe, but not the US has been tied to narcolepsy.

Out of 30 million people that recieved the vaccine about 800 have gotten narcolepsy.

"Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunized with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in 2009."

Now, there would have been some narcolepsy rate w/o the vaccine so it probably isn't safe to say that all 800 are from the vaccine.

But its pretty clear the vaccine increased risk:

"Independent teams of scientists have published peer-reviewed studies from Sweden, Finland and Ireland showing the risk of developing narcolepsy after the 2009-2010 immunization campaign was between seven and 13 times higher for children who had Pandemrix than for their unvaccinated peers."

Now, I'm sure that some people are going to jump on this an claim that this shows that vaccines aren't safe, and clearly, I think it shows that some vaccines for some people aren't safe.

But I think also it shows how in the case of what is a pretty rare (800 out of 30 million), but serious side affect the medical and public health communities respond.

"In his glass-topped office building overlooking the Maria Magdalena church in Stockholm, Goran Stiernstedt, a doctor turned public health official, has spent many difficult hours going over what happened in his country during the swine flu pandemic, wondering if things should have been different.

"The big question is was it worth it? And retrospectively I have to say it was not," he told Reuters in an interview."

"The World Health Organisation (WHO) says the 2009-2010 pandemic killed 18,500 people, although a study last year said that total might be up to 15 times higher.

While estimates vary, Stiernstedt says Sweden's mass vaccination saved between 30 and 60 people from swine flu death. Yet since the pandemic ended, more than 200 cases of narcolepsy have been reported in Sweden.

With hindsight, this risk-benefit balance is unacceptable. "This is a medical tragedy," he said. "Hundreds of young people have had their lives almost destroyed.""

There's been no cover up. GSK has been prettys slow to admit any fault, but from the public side there hasn't been a whole lot of punches pulled.

The story goes onto describe the problems with protecting publich health in cases of a possible panademic vs. the risk of vaccines and how you balance that.

http://vactruth.com/2013/01/06/paralyzed-after-meningitis-vaccine/

Minimum of 40 Children Paralyzed After New Meningitis Vaccine

On December 20, 2012, a vaccination tragedy hit the small village of Gouro, located in northern Chad, Africa. According to the newspaper La Voix, out of five hundred children who received the new meningitis vaccine MenAfriVac, at least 40 of them between the ages of 7 and 18 have become paralyzed. Those children also suffered hallucinations and convulsions.

Since this report, the true extent of this tragedy is coming to light, as parents of these vaccinated children have reported yet more injuries. The authorities in the area are shaken, as citizens set fire to a sanitary administration vehicle in a demonstration of their frustration and anger at the government’s negligence.[1]

“We wish that our children would get their health back,” shared the parent of a sick child.

Now, I'm sure that some people are going to jump on this an claim that this shows that vaccines aren't safe, and clearly, I think it shows that some vaccines for some people aren't safe.

.

Would never happen

http://vactruth.com/2013/01/06/paralyzed-after-meningitis-vaccine/

That site seems like a legit source of unbiased topical news

That's it. Ban vaccines.

EDIT: Okay, some personal thoughts on a serious note since this is a serious subject and deserves more than my smartassness :

1. I sincerely am very sorry for these victims; this truly is a terrible tragedy.

2. It will be interesting to see study conclusions regarding genetic predisposition and adjuvant interaction in manifestation of narcolepsy in this study population. I read the article, but didn't see it mentioned, does it mention which journal this study will be published in? BMJ?

3. I agree that it is nice to see the medical and public health community, for the most part, appearing to be very open and transparent about this issue and be willing to devote funding to its study. Maybe some people will see this and actually realize we aren't trying to kill the earth's population with our vaccine recommenations. Maybe not

One of the hardest things to deal with in pandemic situations is the cost-benefit analysis and whether the benefits of pushing a new vaccine in the face of a pandemic outweigh the costs (or potential costs). Until our scienific methods evolve further (like making a universal flu vaccine that protects against all strains...many, many, many years from now, hopefully), there will always be epidemic emergency situations that may not have a satisfactory outcome in all cases in all regions. That's the nature of vaccination: it's not perfect, but it has been scientifically proven time and time again to have minimized risk of certain diseases and even eradicated diseases both in the developed world and even worldwide.

That said, I'm not trying to minimize this tragedy in Europe or what these victims are going to have to deal with for the rest of their lives. This is very bad and I hope they are able to figure out what the exact cause(s) was so it can be rectified for future vaccination campaigns.

Also, another interesting sidenote: I wonder what the guidelines are in the US regarding adjuvanted vaccines and what studies they based these guidelines on? And why other countries appeared to have less of a problem with adjuvanted vaccines than us?

I think the gov't conspiracy saved us here....we didn't get the shot in the US because our government thought this would be too obvious and would blow the cover of the conspiracy to kill us all thru vaccinations.

I think the gov't conspiracy saved us here....we didn't get the shot in the US because our government thought this would be too obvious and would blow the cover of the conspiracy to kill us all thru vaccinations.

Well, with FEMA receiving so much publicity these last few years, our government knew it would be too conspicuous to simultaneously run its FEMA death camps and vaccination population-thinning campaign.

That site seems like a legit source of unbiased topical news

Are you suggesting that the statistics, information and personal accounts from the story are inaccurate?

Are you suggesting that the statistics, information and personal accounts from the story are inaccurate?

Would you admit that at the local level that it is possible that it was something other than the vaccine?

Your article even says:

"1. Was this a faulty batch of vaccines?

2. Did the vaccinators inadvertently vaccinate using an unsafe product?

3. Was the product out of refrigeration too long?

4. Were the vaccinators fully trained?"

Maybe the answer is, it wasn't even the vaccine, but some local issue with drinking water or something else.

That at best your story is incomplete in terms of drawing any conclusions about vaccines.

How many people total have been vaccinated with this vaccine using the same process?

How many people have gotten sick?

I'm not saying your story is wrong. Clearly, in failed countries, there can be all sorts of issues that aren't even necessarily directly related to the vaccine or those that are related to the vaccine, but are unlikely to happen in better countries (e.g. some sort of corruption where for monetary reasons the real vaccine wasn't even given by somebody acting intentionally during the process to make money).

However, the story is pretty clearly pushing a particular conclusion, while missing a lot of evidence.

Would never happen

Andy, sometimes I just don`t get you brother.

On one hand... you recently said that you believed all cyclists are dopers.... and that most NFL players are on PEDs. So you are implying that: (1) either the science is simply inadequate and incapable of catching the cheaters or (2) that large organizations are consciously aware of this reality but simply covers up the results to protect the sport... which implies a conspiracy.

And yet, you seem to have negative associations to people who question science regarding vaccinations or pharmaceutical misinformation.

---------- Post added January-24th-2013 at 07:38 AM ----------

Would you admit that at the local level that it is possible that it was something other than the vaccine?

Your article even says:

"1. Was this a faulty batch of vaccines?

2. Did the vaccinators inadvertently vaccinate using an unsafe product?

3. Was the product out of refrigeration too long?

4. Were the vaccinators fully trained?"

Maybe the answer is, it wasn't even the vaccine, but some local issue with drinking water or something else.

That at best your story is incomplete in terms of drawing any conclusions about vaccines.

How many people total have been vaccinated with this vaccine using the same process?

How many people have gotten sick?

I'm not saying your story is wrong. Clearly, in failed countries, there can be all sorts of issues that aren't even necessarily directly related to the vaccine or those that are related to the vaccine, but are unlikely to happen in better countries (e.g. some sort of corruption where for monetary reasons the real vaccine wasn't even given by somebody acting intentionally during the process to make money).

However, the story is pretty clearly pushing a particular conclusion, while missing a lot of evidence.

Hey Pete, good questions. Since you asked them.. the onus is on you to provide the answers to them. I`d love to hear what you find.

Translation is I got nothing

I'd be interested in the findings of research on this topic ... are irrational people drawn to medical careers like chiropractic and osteopathy, or does their training make them irrational. :pfft:

Translation.... I`ve got replies to all of the above but I`ve done the work. If you care enough to ask questions... you should care enough to research them.

(1) Are vaccine benigns.

(2) If they are not benign, what are the listed side effects from vaccinations. Even easier... what are the ones listed by the pharmaceutical companies.

(3) Pete asked good questions. So what is the protocol and standard for the general population and pharmaceutical companies to specifically assign culpa to physical ailments directly related to vaccinations.

- For instance, do people have to get instant blisters within seconds of receiving the vaccinations. Do they need to drop dead instantly. Can symptoms arise days, weeks, months and years later.

- What about carcinogens in personal hygiene products, consumer products, food products... how does science attribute cancerous tumors to animals in research when the symptoms may not show up until much later. Does that devalue science entirely.

(4) By answering 3, please explain to me how over $2 billion has been doled up to American citizens alone over years for restitution directly related to vaccination and adverse effects.

$2 billion might not even seem staggering.... because as you can see from this thread... how difficult it would be for the general population to DIRECTLY associate adverse effects to the vaccine.

- In the US, people have to have symptoms for 6 months before their case will even be heard.

---------- Post added January-24th-2013 at 08:17 AM ----------

I'd be interested in the findings of research on this topic ... are irrational people drawn to medical careers like chiropractic and osteopathy, or does their training make them irrational. :pfft:

I`d wager that if you look through history... that some of the greatest pioneers, inventors, scientists, etc... were ones that were capable of critical thinking :-) They dared challenge status quo.

Alternative medicine wouldn`t exist and be flourishing... if allopathic medicine didn`t fail.

Just for you brother

Galileo under the threats of enemies, and the menace of

torture, still secretly held to the Copernican theory of the

solar system, and finally demonstrated to his skeptical contemporaries

that his theory was true; a theory which is

the accej)ted one of even to-day.

Had Newton listened to the philosophers of his time,

he never would have revolutionized the old theories of the

laws of gravitation. He dared to say the world was round,

and tenaciously clung to this idea in the face of ignorance

and prejudice. His enemies were many and powerful, but

all their boasted wisdom, all their personal influence and

opposition, as great as it was, did not deflect him a single

hair's breadth from the conclusions he had formed concerning

the laws of gravitation. He knew that he was right,

and all others were wrong, and to-day his name shines as

one of the most brilliant stars in the flrmament of the

greatest scientists.

Had there not been a Columbus, the discovery of the

New World might have remained merely a problem, for an

indefinite period. Its solution would have certainly not

been attempted by any of his contemporaries, for they, the

best, and most accurate geographers of that age, scoffed at

the theory he advanced, and prevented him by their wellknown

opposition, from obtaining an opportunity to prove

what he claimed for many years after the thought had been

projected. It is a well authenticated historical fact that

the story of Columbus, his trials and difficulties, have been

but the trials and difficulties of all the men who possessed

an advanced thought, and proclaimed it to the world.

Scientific men pronounced Eobert Fulton's scheme visionary

and impracticable, but he went on with his work.

Years passed before the realization came. It was on the

10th of May, 1807, that a large concourse of people assembled

at the wharf on the banks of the Hudson river, to

see the steamer "Clermont'' leave the shore, propelled by

steam and destined for Albany. The more ignorant of

these were guided thither by curiosity. The great majority

met there as scoffers to give vent to their shouts

of derision, believing that the steamer would prove to be

a signal failure, and that Fulton's ideas, which he had

cherished for years, would be exploded in the failure of

the invention upon which he had staked his fortune and

his name. But behold the results which have followed

from that successful trial trip of the "Clermont!" Look

at the river and the ocean steamers, which have since

plowed all the navigable streams of the habitable globe,

and have carried their freightage of humanity and commerce

into every part of the world, driven by this same

agency, that was thought out, developed and applied by

Ebert Fulton,

Charles Goodyear, to whose inventive genius the world

is indebted for the thousand and one useful articles

which have been fashioned from India rubber was regarded

as a dreamer and a monomaniac. He was twice arrested

for debt, and in the desperate straits to which he was reduced,

pawned even some of his wife's trinkets. He

passed through the fiery furnace, but so absorbed was he

with the thought, and so convinced was he, that India rub-

ber could be widely utilized for the benefit of the human

race, that he never wavered or flinched until he demonstrated

that fact to the world. The overshoes, and rubber

overcoats that we wear, the life-savers that are used on

ships at sea, the hose with which we s|)rinkle our lawns,

the tires that pla}^ such a conspicuous part in the bicycle

business, and the unnumbered uses to which India rubber

is devoted, are all the result of Goodyears inventive

genius, for he suggested the first thought for its use.

Eli Wliitney, a poor, unknown school teacher, of northern

birth, emigrated to Georgia, and conceived the idea

of the cotton gin, an invention which has done more to

increase the acreage of the cotton fields, and to expedite

the preparation of cotton for the mills, than anything

which had theretofore existed.

Elias Howe, while laboring for his daily bread, for the

support of himself and family, dreamed and brooded over

his invention until the thought was practically embodied

in the sewing machine which bears his name, and which

is to-day the greatest blessing of which womankind has

been the recipient.

Cyrus McCormick, whose reaper has proven such a boon

to the agriculturists of all lands was time and again discouraged

by friends, who tried to persuade him that the efforts

were only a waste of time. To-day the McCormick reaper

does its work not only upon all the continents where farming

communities live, but it is seen upon the islands of the

sea.

Had Professor Morse taken the advice of friends, the

progress and development of telegrai^hy might have been

stayed for years, and civilization checked in its onward

progress. The old world and the new would have remained

upon the opposite sides of the ocean, and had no

communion with each other, save through the old medi

urn of ships. The possibilities of the Atlantic cable

would have been a dream, and the world wonld have been

deprived of the innumerable blessings which have been

conferred upon it, by the use of the telegraph. Intellectual

growth would have been retarded. Commerce

would have been slow in development; business and trade

would have lagged, and all the interests of men, as well as

of governments and nations^ would have moved along in

the same old grooves.

Excellent points, because the process of scientific research and peer reviewed publications hasn't changed since those times. And the example Peter provided at the start of this thread shows the openness of real science to errors.

Translation is I got nothing

Perhaps I am employing a well-known learning strategy. I can give you answers... but it won`t mean anything to you and you will question everything I say. But instead, I will guide you to come to your own conclusions... and perhaps that will carry more meaning for you.

Perhaps I am employing a well-known learning strategy. I can give you answers... but it won`t mean anything to you and you will question everything I say. But instead, I will guide you to come to your own conclusions... and perhaps that will carry more meaning for you.

Oh no you didn't.

$2 billion might not even seem staggering.... because as you can see from this thread... how difficult it would be for the general population to DIRECTLY associate adverse effects to the vaccine.

- In the US, people have to have symptoms for 6 months before their case will even be heard.

First, the general public doesn't have to unless you are claiming there is a general failure of the medical and public health community in the US.

With respect to the vaccine in the OP, there has been no problem making the connection even though in many cases the symptoms don't occur for months after the vaccine and in very small percentage of the population.

So at that level we seem to do being pretty well in non-failed countries unlike Chad.

And you don't have to have the injury/symptoms for 6 months if you were hospitalized or had surgery to go through the VICP.

Excellent points, because the process of scientific research and peer reviewed publications hasn't changed since those times. And the example Peter provided at the start of this thread shows the openness of real science to errors.

To be certain, I have plenty of issues with scientific research and peer-reviewed publications. I have read too much about medical journals, research (conflicts of interest, bad science), and insane amount of inherent deficiencies(financial, logistical, etc) admitted by the former and current CDC, FDA and IOH executives and employees to put any credibility in them.

Most people never dig and get beyond the abstracts.

---------- Post added January-24th-2013 at 08:51 AM ----------

Oh no you didn't.

Honestly, no one here will ever read what I`ve read... because they physically won`t have access to it. And probably, no one would ever care to. This is a futile exercise... I know cause I`ve done this for 10+ years with you schucks I`ll be damned if I`m going to waste my life again. But I don`t mind dropping tidbits of information to those people interested enough to explore it. Then they can come to me if they`re further interested.

But I`m not going to waste time trying to convince people who know everything.

It is an interesting topic.

How much liability can/should be assigned, in the case of a pharmaceutical which is known to prevent a major disease which is heading this way, right now, when it is discovered, later, that something like 1 person in 4,000 has a bad side effect?

If you were tasked with making sure that something like this doesn't happen in the future, how would you fix it? How many people would you have to "clinical trial" this drug on, to have caught this? A million?

(And what about drugs whose side effects don't show up for years? Do you solve that problem by mandating that all new drugs must be tested on a million people, and then wait 10 years, before the drug can be approved?)

Would the "cure", of guaranteeing that something like this can't happen again, be "worse than the disease"?

I could at least see the argument that we're better off, if something like this can happen again.

To be certain, I have plenty of issues with scientific research and peer-reviewed publications. I have read too much about medical journals, research (conflicts of interest, bad science), and insane amount of inherent deficiencies(financial, logistical, etc) admitted by the former and current CDC, FDA and IOH executives and employees to put any credibility in them.

This is the issue. No-one is claiming that modern science is perfect and that there are not errors (and even corruption) that lead to terrible consequences.

But here you are claiming that modern medicine has no credibility.

What's your alternative?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is an interesting topic.

How much liability can/should be assigned, in the case of a pharmaceutical which is known to prevent a major disease which is heading this way, right now, when it is discovered, later, that something like 1 person in 4,000 has a bad side effect?

If you were tasked with making sure that something like this doesn't happen in the future, how would you fix it? How many people would you have to "clinical trial" this drug on, to have caught this? A million?

(And what about drugs whose side effects don't show up for years? Do you solve that problem by mandating that all new drugs must be tested on a million people, and then wait 10 years, before the drug can be approved?)

I asked a similar question, after the Oklahoma City bombing (I was living on Oklahoma City at the time), when people were demanding that the government "do whatever it takes to make sure that this can never happen again". My question was "If you were King of the US, what would you have to do, to make sure that this

can't

happen again? And then ask yourself, if you want to live in that country."

My assertion was that I would rather live in a country where the Oklahoma City bombing

can

happen again.

Would the "cure", of guaranteeing that something like this can't happen again, be "worse than the disease"?

I could at least see the argument that we're better off, if something like this can happen again.

First, in this case the rate is about 1 in 40,000 (800 sick and 30 million accinated).

Using a simple statistical test and the higher rate of risk given in the link (13) and therefore a lower rate of narcolepsy in the general population, with a 1,000,000 trails I get a p-value of 0.078 (essentially there is a 7.8% chance the association isn't random). By mosts normal statistical methods, this wouldn't be significant (you'd need a p-value less than 0.05 at least).

However, in this case because we are talking about people's lives, the seriousness of narcolepsy, and the fact that there were other vaccines out there, I think it would have been reasonable to cut off the program with that sort of level of information.

However, that would have meant vaccinating a million people and stopping and waiting months in this case.

The more common the side affect the harder it would be associate it with the vaccine (essentially the vaccine would have to cause more cases or you'd have to have a larger sample size).

Where the line is hard. This essecially true after the fact. I even have somewhat of an issue with the article because it is associating WITH vaccine death rates as if they are valid in a non-vaccinated population.

30 to 60 people didn't die of the flu because of the vaccine program, but that's based on numbers in a world where people WERE vaccinated. Even in this country where on a total population level, we didn't vaccinate a ton of people, we did a really good job of vaccinating the people most likely to get the disease, and therefore to spread it and those most likely to have serious side affects of the disease.

In a world where NOBODY got vaccinated, it is easy to imagine more people would have gotten and there would have been a higher death rate.

In addition, the flu causes long term neurological issues so you'd have to take in that rate.

You'd also have to take into the quality of life of the person, and the value of that vs. just being dead with respect to the person and society and that becomes a moral issue.

In this case, given what we know and the fact that they could have had similar levels of vaccination without using this vaccine, they almost certainly messed up by approving it.

Perhaps I am employing a well-known learning strategy. I can give you answers... but it won`t mean anything to you and you will question everything I say. But instead, I will guide you to come to your own conclusions... and perhaps that will carry more meaning for you.

Maybe you are...but I missed the part whee the generally accepted protocol is that someone posts a link and it is on the other guy to prove him wrong, usually people are expected to defend and back up their own statements.

Oh no you didn't.

Wipe your chin

Where the line is hard. This essecially true after the fact. I even have somewhat of an issue with the article because it is associating WITH vaccine death rates as if they are valid in a non-vaccinated population.

30 to 60 people didn't die of the flu because of the vaccine program, but that's based on numbers in a world where people WERE vaccinated. Even in this country where on a total population level, we didn't vaccinate a ton of people, we did a really good job of vaccinating the people most likely to get the disease, and therefore to spread it and those most likely to have serious side affects of the disease.

In a world where NOBODY got vaccinated, it is easy to imagine more people would have gotten and there would have been a higher death rate.

Yeah, I wondered about that, myself.

I wondered, when they were doing the benefit side of the calculations, did they consider how many people who didn;t get vaccinated, were saved because the guy next to them got vaccinated.

I assumed that, them being rocket scientists and all, that they took that into account.

----------

In this case, given what we know and the fact that they could have had similar levels of vaccination without using this vaccine, they almost certainly messed up by approving it.

I wonder, though, can we even conclude that?

I think we can conclude that "if we knew then, what we knew now, we would have used a different brand of vaccine".

But that's like "If I'd known I was going to miss the field goal, I would have gone for it on 4th and 3."

Can we look at this, and conclude that people didn't do due diligence? I haven't seen that evidence.

Yeah, we can conclude that "there was another option that we could have used, that would have been better". But to me, that isn't the definition of "messed up"

Wipe your chin

His post about asking questions is standard fare for conspiracy theorists who claim to be simply lighting the path of discovery for the rest of us dumb sheep.

Sometimes they get all pretentious and claim to be using the Socratic method.

****ing idiots. Seriously.

]

His post about asking questions is standard fare for conspiracy theorists who claim to be simply lighting the path of discovery for the rest of us dumb sheep.

Sometimes they get all pretentious and claim to be using the Socratic method.

****ing idiots. Seriously.

Ok, I totally misread you my bad.

But still wipe your chin. Lol