Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group D"
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:{{comment|# |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.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)}} | :{{comment|# |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.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
− | :{{defend|D4 |Finland used a vaccine with adjuvants (Hg and squalene) for whole population, against the recommendation of WHO. WHO recommended that vaccine with adjuvant should not be be used for pregnant women and children because side-effects were not properly known|--[[User:Carmen Gil|Carmen Gil]] 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}} | + | :{{defend|D4 |Finland used a vaccine with adjuvants (Hg and squalene) for whole population, against the recommendation of WHO. WHO recommended that vaccine with adjuvant should not be be used for pregnant women and children because side-effects were not properly known|--[[User:Carmen Gil|Carmen Gil]] 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}[http://www.rokotusinfo.fi/rokotteet/sikainfluenssa_html] |
− | ::{{branch|D5 | | + | ::{{branch|D5 |The lack of scientific-based information of the effects of adjuvants caused the lose of confidence in authorities, fear in public and increased the public's opinion against vaccination overall.|--[[User:Carmen Gil|Carmen Gil]] 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}, [http://www.rokotusinfo.fi/rokotteet/sikainfluenssa_html] |
:::{{comment|# |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.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)}} | :::{{comment|# |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.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)}} |
Revision as of 17:45, 3 April 2011
Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk
- Group members: Carmen, Minna & June
Statements:
Resolution:
(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
⇤D5 : Compared to other vaccines, Pandemrix has a lower Hg content (2.5 vs 25 µg), which could cause 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)
←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)
←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)
←J3 : In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [8] |
--# : General comment: Add links to the pages from where you found the arguments. See Group E. --Jouni 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST)
--# : JUNE: I have your notebook. --Jouni 11:50, 1 April 2011 (EEST)