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

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk

Anna, Sallamari

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 mainly because risks are small and benefits high.

(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)

←--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)

⇤--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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) [1]
----#: . I am not sure if this is a convincing argument about reputation. However, you may want to create a new argument about the safety of Pandemrix, and then it would be defended by this argument. --Jouni 08:15, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--J3: . In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) [2]

⇤--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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) [3]

----#: . This may be true but what is the connection to the statement? --Jouni 08:15, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--E7: . Vaccination is a very good method of preventing swine flu infections. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:59, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) [3]
←--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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) [1]

⇤--E4: . The side effects of Pandemrix have been accentuated, although the benefits are much more significant. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:50, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) [4]

⇤--E5: . Nursing staff in hospitals should be vaccinated; it is their responsibility as medical professionals. --Sallamari Tynkkynen 10:54, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) [4]

----#: . This may be true but what is the connection to the statement? Does this actually relate more to E4 than the main statement? --Jouni 08:15, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 European Medicines Agency (EMA): Information page on Swine flu
  2. ↑ THL press release 25 Aug 2010
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 THL press release 9 Dec 2010
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Helsingin Sanomat: Arkkiatri moittii sikainfluenssarokotteen vastustajia (in Finnish)
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:Assessment_of_the_health_impacts_of_H1N1_vaccination/Group_E&oldid=19985"