Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 29: Line 29:
{{attack|A2 |The overall annual incidence of narcolepsy remained consistent with prevaccination scenarios|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:22, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
{{attack|A2 |The overall annual incidence of narcolepsy remained consistent with prevaccination scenarios|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:22, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}


{{defend|A1 |Even though a nine fold increase in narcolepsy was found in vaccinated population, the occurrence of narcolepsy was still very rare with this apparent increase. A number of different reasons may account for the observed rise in the incidence of narcolepsy namely: A (H1N1) infection, vaccination, combined effect of infection and vaccination, or some other factor entirely. Infections have been documented as causing narcolepsy.|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
{{defend_invalid|A1 |Even though a nine fold increase in narcolepsy was found in vaccinated population, the occurrence of narcolepsy was still very rare with this apparent increase. A number of different reasons may account for the observed rise in the incidence of narcolepsy namely: A (H1N1) infection, vaccination, combined effect of infection and vaccination, or some other factor entirely. Infections have been documented as causing narcolepsy.|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
:{{attack|A1 |No similar increase in incidence of narcolepsy is reported in other Nordic countries. Canada has extensively used this type of vaccine with no evidence of increased risk for narcolepsy|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
:{{attack|A1 |No similar increase in incidence of narcolepsy is reported in other Nordic countries. Canada has extensively used this type of vaccine with no evidence of increased risk for narcolepsy|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
{{defend|A2 |as there is presently no swine flu epidemic in Finland, there  is no immediate need for swine flu vaccination|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
{{defend|A2 |as there is presently no swine flu epidemic in Finland, there  is no immediate need for swine flu vaccination|--[[User:Jacob Attipoe|Jacob Attipoe]] 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
Line 37: Line 37:


{{defend|2 |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|2 |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|3 |In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}22930]}}
:{{defend_invalid|3 |In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}22930]}}
::{{attack|E6 |The vaccination used last year will most likely protect also against the possible swine flu epidemic of this year, although the virus has changed a bit.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:57, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}23692]}}
::{{attack|E6 |The vaccination used last year will most likely protect also against the possible swine flu epidemic of this year, although the virus has changed a bit.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:57, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}23692]}}
:::{{defend|E7 |Vaccination is a very good method of preventing swine flu infections.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:59, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}23692]}}
:::{{defend|E7 |Vaccination is a very good method of preventing swine flu infections.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:59, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/uutinen?id{{eq}}23692]}}
Line 47: Line 47:
{{attack|E5 |Nursing staff in hospitals should be vaccinated; it is their responsibility as medical professionals.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:54, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/MTV3+Arkkiatri+moittii+sikainfluenssarokotteen+vastustajia/1135250236010]}}
{{attack|E5 |Nursing staff in hospitals should be vaccinated; it is their responsibility as medical professionals.|--[[User:Sallamari Tynkkynen|Sallamari Tynkkynen]] 10:54, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/MTV3+Arkkiatri+moittii+sikainfluenssarokotteen+vastustajia/1135250236010]}}


{{comment|D1 |The decision to use Pandemrix was probably led by panic and other choices should be considered at this point|--[[User:Carmen Gil|Carmen Gil]] 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
::{{defend|D2 |Finland used a vaccination with additives, against the recommendation of WHO|--[[User:Carmen Gil|Carmen Gil]] 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
:::{{defend|D3 |Additives can cause flu-like symptoms, increasing the public's opinion against vaccination|--[[User:Carmen Gil|Carmen Gil]] 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
{{attack|D4 |Pandemrix has a lower Hg content than other vaccines (2.5 vs 25 µg), which could cause other neurological problems in children|--[[User:Carmen Gil|Carmen Gil]] 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST)}}
}}
}}


Revision as of 08:29, 1 April 2011

Darm exercise 4

Tasks:

  • Make pairs and select one group A-E (D and E have Finnish material).
  • Look at page Discussion for theoretical and practical advice. Also page op_fi:Keskustelun jälkijäsentäminen may be useful.
  • Look at the two or three links on your group's page.
  • Read the texts and try to identify arguments about the use of Pandemrix. Note that arguments can be (and most are) indirect arguments.
  • Rewrite the arguments in such a way that they can be understood outside the original context.
  • Place the arguments into a hierarchical tree of attacking and defending arguments pointing toward the main statement about Pandemrix use.
  • You can also make up your own arguments, or if you have extra time, read additional material (see end of the page).
  • When each group has done their own part, there will be a general discussion about all argumentations by the groups. All argumentations will be merged onto this page based on the discussion.
  • Think: How many readers do you need to make this extra effort of collecting, organising and synthesising information and opinions a worthwhile activity of social learning?

Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high.

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

⇤--B10: . All data compiled to date indicate that pandemic vaccines including Pandemrix match the excellent safety profile of seasonal influenza vaccines, which have been used for more than 60 years. --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:12, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--B11: . Adjuvanted vaccines commonly provide a stronger immune response than unadjuvanted vaccines and also provide a broader immune response allowing for some potential drift of the influenza virus (Pandemrix is an adjuvanted vaccine). --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:12, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--B12: . The number of cases of side effects of H1N1 vaccines (including Pandemrix) is in line with normal background rates on a population basis, as reported in a recent study European Medicines Agency --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:12, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--A1: . According to EMA, data received so far is still insufficient to establish a causal relationship between Pandemrix and narcolepsy. One possible explanation for the results is that Pandemrix could interact with unknown local environmental and/or genetic factor in contributing to the increased risk of narcolepsy among the vaccinated population aged 4 to 19 years in Finland --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--A2: . The overall annual incidence of narcolepsy remained consistent with prevaccination scenarios --Jacob Attipoe 11:22, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--A1: . Even though a nine fold increase in narcolepsy was found in vaccinated population, the occurrence of narcolepsy was still very rare with this apparent increase. A number of different reasons may account for the observed rise in the incidence of narcolepsy namely: A (H1N1) infection, vaccination, combined effect of infection and vaccination, or some other factor entirely. Infections have been documented as causing narcolepsy. --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--A1: . No similar increase in incidence of narcolepsy is reported in other Nordic countries. Canada has extensively used this type of vaccine with no evidence of increased risk for narcolepsy --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--A2: . as there is presently no swine flu epidemic in Finland, there is no immediate need for swine flu vaccination --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


⇤--1: . 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--2: . The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--3: . In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [1] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--E6: . The vaccination used last year will most likely protect also against the possible swine flu epidemic of this year, although the virus has changed a bit. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:57, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [2] (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--E7: . Vaccination is a very good method of preventing swine flu infections. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:59, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [3] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--E8: . WHO recommended that H1N1 virus strain be included in the seasonal flu vaccines for the 2009/2010 season, because H1N1 is still in circulation, but behaving like a seasonal flu virus. --Anna Kokkonen 11:10, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [4] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--E9: . The information supplied on the safety and effectiveness of three of the pandemic-influenza vaccines was considered complete enough for the Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use to recommend their use outside a pandemic situation. --Anna Kokkonen 11:10, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [5] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--E4: . The side effects of Pandemrix have been accentuated, although the benefits are much more significant. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:50, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [6] (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--E5: . Nursing staff in hospitals should be vaccinated; it is their responsibility as medical professionals. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:54, 1 April 2011 (EEST) [7] (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----D1: . The decision to use Pandemrix was probably led by panic and other choices should be considered at this point --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--D2: . Finland used a vaccination with additives, against the recommendation of WHO --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--D3: . Additives can cause flu-like symptoms, increasing the public's opinion against vaccination --Carmen Gil 11:25, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--D4: . 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Discussion groups:


Additional material:

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:Assessment_of_the_health_impacts_of_H1N1_vaccination&oldid=19812"