Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group C"
(→Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk) |
(→Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk) |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
{{defend invalid|J2 |The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)}} | {{defend invalid|J2 |The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | :{{defend|K1 |Since the summer of 2010 there have been reports from Finnish and Swedish health care workers about narcolepsy being a possible adverse effect of the Pandemrix vaccination. Also the Swedish Medical Products agency is aware of individual case reports from France, Norway and Germany concerning the recently vaccinated children developing narcolepsy.|--[[User:Kati Iso-Markku|Kati Iso-Markku]] 21:35, 6 April 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
:{{attack|C7 |Pandemrix has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. Increased narcolepsy rates have only been reported in Finland and Sweden, and not for example in Great Britain, where Pandemrix formed the bulk of governments mass vaccination programme.|--[[User:Jpmannikko|Jpmannikko]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EEST)}} | :{{attack|C7 |Pandemrix has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. Increased narcolepsy rates have only been reported in Finland and Sweden, and not for example in Great Britain, where Pandemrix formed the bulk of governments mass vaccination programme.|--[[User:Jpmannikko|Jpmannikko]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EEST)}} |
Revision as of 18:35, 6 April 2011
Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk
Jukka-Pekka, Kati
Statements: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high. NOTE! The time of the statement is September 2010.
Resolution: Narcolepsy incidence rate does not seem significant enough to justify stopping Pandemrix vaccinations. This does not, however, answer the question if population-wide vaccinations were actually needed in the case of 2009 H1N1 pandemic. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
⇤J1 : Despite risks, Pandemrix is an effective vaccine and has clearly net positive effects in countries where emergency treatment is poorly available for severe swine flu cases. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)
←J2 The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST)
←C10 There have been claims that THL would have had a conflict of interest, as it had received financing worth EUR 6 million from the vaccine producer GalaxoSmithKline (GSK) --Jpmannikko 16:51, 4 April 2011 (EEST)
→C12 : The interesting question about Pandemrix is perhaps not if it should not be used because of narcolepsy threat, but whether if it was actually needed at all. Russian Federations chief doctor Gennady Onishchenko stated on June 2, 2009 that swine flu was not aggressive enough to cause worldwide pandemic. He noted that the mortality rate of confirmed cases was 1,6% in Mexico and only 0,1% in United States. He also noted that there was 16,000 cases so far when during any flu season some 10,000 people become ill in Moscow alone. --Jpmannikko 19:25, 4 April 2011 (EEST)
|
See also
More links