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 30: | Line 30: | ||
:{{defend|K2 |THL stated in 2/2011 that there is a clear link between Pandemrix vaccination and narcolepsy. With the vaccination, the propability of narcolepsy was nine times higher than without it.|--[[User:Kati Iso-Markku|Kati Iso-Markku]] 21:40, 6 April 2011 (EEST)}} | :{{defend|K2 |THL stated in 2/2011 that there is a clear link between Pandemrix vaccination and narcolepsy. With the vaccination, the propability of narcolepsy was nine times higher than without it.|--[[User:Kati Iso-Markku|Kati Iso-Markku]] 21:40, 6 April 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | :{{attack|K3 |GSK believes that it is premature to make any conclusions about the possible link of Pandemrix and narcolepsy until the large and ongoing European Medicines Agency investigation about the issue has been concluded. |--[[User:Kati Iso-Markku|Kati Iso-Markku]] 21:50, 6 April 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
::{{attack|C9 |Kari Välimäki, Chief of staff at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, argues, that the suspension of Pandemrix is only a precautionary action, and that there is no doubt that in a similar situation, the same decisions would have been made.|--[[User:Jpmannikko|Jpmannikko]] 16:55, 4 April 2011 (EEST)}} | ::{{attack|C9 |Kari Välimäki, Chief of staff at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, argues, that the suspension of Pandemrix is only a precautionary action, and that there is no doubt that in a similar situation, the same decisions would have been made.|--[[User:Jpmannikko|Jpmannikko]] 16:55, 4 April 2011 (EEST)}} |
Revision as of 18:50, 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