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

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk

Oluyemi, Bate

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 benefits are high and risks are small, uncertain and maybe caused by something else.

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

Argumentation:

⇤--B1: . 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.The number of cases of side effects of H1N1 vaccines (including Pandemrix) is in line with normal background rates on a population basis.(European Medicines Agency.) --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:12, 1 April 2011 (EEST) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . According to THL's (Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare) Vaccine Department's head, Dr. Terhi Kilpi,`the Pandemrix vaccine alone did not cause narcolepsy in Finnish children`. --Oluyemitoyinbo 09:51, 4 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--B2: . 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) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/H1N1/vaccines/Pages/QA_health_professionals_vaccines.aspx

⇤--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)

⇤--B4: . No link to the vaccine has been established concerning the side effect. --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:20, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . What is the different between B3 and B4? If there is no clear difference, they should be merged. If there is, it should be clarified. --Jouni 07:31, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--B5: . A positive effect of the vaccine can be felt from pregnant women --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:20, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Can you be more specific? What do you mean by "can be felt from"? Does the vaccine make women feel better? Is it especially effective in pregnant women? --Jouni 07:31, 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), [1] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--B6: . So far any relationship between the vaccination and the reported symptoms (narcolepsy) can not be concluded. --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:24, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
----#: . I don't see how this relates to reputation. Or is the argument misplaced? --Jouni 07:31, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--B7: . According to Dr Kilpi, the most probable explanation for increase in children's narcolepsy in Finland is that narcolepsy was triggered by the Pandemrix vaccine together with something else. Dr Kilpi says that ongoing investigations aim to find out whether the other factor is genes, H1N1 virus, some other virus or something else. --Oluyemitoyinbo 11:31, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Who says an argument is a secondary thing, and this information should be given as a reference to the original source. However, if you want to strengthen your argument by saying that this argument is given by a real expert, then you should create a new defending argument about the expertise of the person who says it. (However, this kinds of arguments are weak and usually useless unless there is no substantive evidence at all.) The same applies to B3. --Jouni 07:31, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . General comment: Add links to the pages from where you found the arguments. --Jouni 07:31, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:Assessment_of_the_health_impacts_of_H1N1_vaccination/Group_B&oldid=19885"