Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group D"

1. Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high. NOTE! The time of the statement is September 2010.
2. Pandemrix should not be used any more except where no other option was available and upon consideration in individual cases, for instance for people travelling to areas where an epidemic was in progress.

Resolution:

1. Not accepted because Pandemrix has lower mercury concentrations than other vaccines.
2. Limited use upon consideration in individual cases is accepted.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

⇤D5 : Pandemrix has a lower Hg content than other vaccines (2.5 vs 25 µg), which could cause other neurological problems in children --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST),[1]

⇤D3b : The vaccine may still have been used where no other option was available and upon consideration in individual cases, for instance for people travelling to areas where an epidemic was in progress. --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST),[2]

⇤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)

⇤D2 : By September 2010 there was no conclusive prelimininary impact of the vaccine in other countries and research was ongoing in several countries to monitor the effect of the vaccine in preventing illness and death. Side effects are still there and will be treated poorly in these countries. --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST),[3]

←D1 : This statement is true in the case of Finland that preliminary analyses of the impact of the swine flu epidemic in Finland in 2009 indicated that there were far fewer severe cases of influenza among pregnant women, who were among the first to be given the vaccine, than in countries where the first wave of influenza occurred before vaccinations were started. Also,in Europe alone, Pandemrix had been given to at least 30 million people and by end of August 2010 Sweden and Finland reported a total of 26 cases of narcolepsy. I dont think this risk is too high as the statement suggests --June 00:56, 3 April 2011 (EEST),[4]

←D3a : The decision to use Pandemrix was probably led by panic and other choices should be considered at this point when narcolepsy cases were identified. --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)

--# : This is a valid comment. However, comments do not affect the outcome of a discussion. You might want to develop this into an attack or a defence. --Jouni 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)

←D4 : Finland used a vaccination with additives, against the recommendation of WHO. --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)

→D5 : Additives can cause flu-like symptoms, increasing the public's opinion against vaccination --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST), [5]

--# : Good usage of branches! However, branches do not affect the outcome of a discussion. You could use this branch also to defend J2 and then it would have an impact on this discussion. --Jouni 07:45, 2 April 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)

⇤D6 : The reputation may have been poor especially in Finland, Sweden and in informed people outside these two countries at the time Narcolepsy cases were reported to be associated with Pandemrix but at this stage, however according to WHO it does not appear that narcolepsy following vaccination against pandemic influenza is a general worldwide phenomenon as you have stated, therefore its not a global view and it may still be used where its reputation is good. --June 02:45, 3 April 2011 (EEST), [6]

←J3 : In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [7]