Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group D

Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk

Carmen, Minna, June

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high. NOTE! The time of the statement is September 2010. Closing statement: Not accepted because Pandemrix has lower mercury concentrations than other vaccines. (A closing statement, when resolved, 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--D1: . At least this was true in 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence),[1]

⇤--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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack),[2]}}

⇤--D3: . The decision to use Pandemrix was probably led by panic and other choices should be considered at this point when narcolepsy cases were identified, however 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack),[3]}}

----#: . 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

D5: . 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: relevant branch)

----#: . 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--J3: . In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [4] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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

}}

----#: . General comment: Add links to the pages from where you found the arguments. See Group E. --Jouni 07:45, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

• Evolution of a pandemic, World Health Organization (WHO), 2009 (Report)
• [5]
• [6]

----#: . JUNE: I have your notebook. --Jouni 11:50, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)