Severe Complications After Getting New Flu Vaccine

[webfact]

Four develop severe complications after getting new flu vaccine

By Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

Published on January 23, 2010

The Department of Disease Control yesterday reported that a man and three women had developed severe complications after being administered the vaccine against typeA (H1N1) influenza.

One of the four, a 31yearold woman, lost her baby soon after delivery following a flu shot, said DDC directorgeneral Dr Manit Teeratantikanon. The woman is now well.

During the first round of the vaccination programme from January 11 to 21 for people in highrisk groups, the DDC found that four people had developed severe complications and 19 had developed mild complications.

The other three people disฌplaying severe postvaccination complications have also now recovered.

They are: a 31yearold man, who had partial paralysis of the face; a 38yearold woman, who developed fever and renal problems and had trouble breathing; and a 29year old woman, who suffered choking and constriction five minutes after vaccination, as well as severe itching.

"All of them have now recovฌered and are under close obserฌvation," Manit said.

More than 40,000 people received the influenza vaccine during the first 10 days of the programme.

Meanwhile, the Public Health Ministry yesterday reported that the virus had killed 198 people in Thailand since the outbreak hit the counฌtry last May.

-- The Nation 2010-01-23

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[givenall]

As I said before who in the right mind will get the vaccine if they are not at risk. This is very mild flu and has less complication than common influenza. So let the nature cure the problem and not Thai Madison.

[sedeflonga]

The consequences were knows beforehand... R.I.P. babyboy

[geriatrickid]

Anyone that concludes that this vaccine is dangerous based upon this news item is an idiot. Here's why;

40,000 subjects with 19 mild reactions and possibly 4 serious ADRs and not one death.

4 out of 40,000 is well within the accepted risk parameter.

In the meantime, 168 unvaccinated people died.

The problem with a news item like this is that it encourages speculation. It is poorly written and focuses on the negative, when the data presented is in fact very positive.

One doesn't know if the 4 serious ADRs are really related to the vaccine since key information is missing;

- What were the underlying medical conditions?

- Did the post event data demonstrate a true relationship with the ADR?

- What is the identification of the type and source of vaccine administered?

Miscarriages are unfortunately a normal part of the child bearing process and occur at all stages of a pregnancy. To date I am unaware of any miscarriages associated with the vaccine in the countries reporting to the public health agencies in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU. The other ADRs described suggest an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Either someone was not properly screened or didn't know they had an allergy to the ingredients used in the vaccine preparation. Although the subjects were distressed, the reported rate of ADR is well within acceptable safety standards and no evidence is given to support a statement of relationship.

Seriously, <deleted> is wrong with the boneheads at the Nation that they have to fling the feces?

Edited January 23, 2010 by geriatrickid

[steady]

Anyone that concludes that this vaccine is dangerous based upon this news item is an idiot. Here's why;

40,000 subjects with 19 mild reactions and possibly 4 serious ADRs and not one death.

4 out of 40,000 is well within the accepted risk parameter.

In the meantime, 168 unvaccinated people died.

The problem with a news item like this is that it encourages speculation. It is poorly written and focuses on the negative, when the data presented is in fact very positive.

One doesn't know if the 4 serious ADRs are really related to the vaccine since key information is missing;

- What were the underlying medical conditions?

- Did the post event data demonstrate a true relationship with the ADR?

- What is the identification of the type and source of vaccine administered?

Miscarriages are unfortunately a normal part of the child bearing process and occur at all stages of a pregnancy. To date I am unaware of any miscarriages associated with the vaccine in the countries reporting to the public health agencies in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU. The other ADRs described suggest an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Either someone was not properly screened or didn't know they had an allergy to the ingredients used in the vaccine preparation. Although the subjects were distressed, the reported rate of ADR is well within acceptable safety standards and no evidence is given to support a statement of relationship.

Seriously, <deleted> is wrong with the boneheads at the Nation that they have to fling the feces?

You're right when you say that there are lots of holes in the reporting.....well that is normal for here. However if (surprisingly) there are some facts amongst it then 4 serious reactions would not be acceptable anywhere else in the world. That's one in 10,000. It's a lot of reactions in a population. About 6,000 in Thailand, if you include the less severe reactions then the figure goes a lot higher, about 20,000 more. Here your argument about not getting the vaccine holds water. Why have 6,000 or more hospital cases when you can avoid it especially as the flu has been proven to be less serious than the average flu.

Yet again we find ourselves discussing incomplete or vague reporting. Such is life in this part of the world.....

[PoorSucker]

Anyone that concludes that this vaccine is dangerous based upon this news item is an idiot. Here's why;

40,000 subjects with 19 mild reactions and possibly 4 serious ADRs and not one death.

4 out of 40,000 is well within the accepted risk parameter.

In the meantime, 168 unvaccinated people died.

The problem with a news item like this is that it encourages speculation. It is poorly written and focuses on the negative, when the data presented is in fact very positive.

One doesn't know if the 4 serious ADRs are really related to the vaccine since key information is missing;

- What were the underlying medical conditions?

- Did the post event data demonstrate a true relationship with the ADR?

- What is the identification of the type and source of vaccine administered?

Miscarriages are unfortunately a normal part of the child bearing process and occur at all stages of a pregnancy. To date I am unaware of any miscarriages associated with the vaccine in the countries reporting to the public health agencies in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU. The other ADRs described suggest an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Either someone was not properly screened or didn't know they had an allergy to the ingredients used in the vaccine preparation. Although the subjects were distressed, the reported rate of ADR is well within acceptable safety standards and no evidence is given to support a statement of relationship.

Seriously, <deleted> is wrong with the boneheads at the Nation that they have to fling the feces?

Meanwhile, the Public Health Ministry yesterday reported that the virus had killed 198 people in Thailand since the outbreak hit the counฌtry last May.

Are you suggesting that during the vaccination campaign (January 2010) 168 out of the total of 198 died.

Can you provide with a source.

[hazz]

The problem on judging vaccine safety is that immediately after taking the vaccine you join something called the real world and in the real world bad things unfortunately happen. I can guarantee that there are some people who have had the vaccine and within 24 hours died in traffic accidents and nobody's going to blame the vaccine for that. The problem comes with with medical issues; vaccinate enough people and any kind of medical issue is going to happen to someone within 24 hours of the vaccination. This medical bad luck usually drowns out the vaccine related stuff.

for example I believe that 20% of first trimester and 3% of second trimester pregnancies end spontaneously with a miscarriage. So vaccinate enough pregnant women and you are going naturally see miscarriages very soon after the vaccination which have nothing to do with the vaccine; its human nature to blame the vaccine.

Quoting numbers of people who get ill after taking the vaccine is meaningless drivel. What we need to be told the the difference between the rates of illness between vaccinated and unvaccinated people; together with the probability that this difference could be caused by chance.

[animatic]

During this time period after the vaccinations no people died.

And noe reported from the vaccinations so far for that time period.

So we can't add those 168 previous deaths to it.

These numbers also can mean, 1/1739 chance.

40,000 / 4 = 10,000 or 1/10,000

40,000 / 23 = 1739 or 1/1739.13

Extrapolated to a higher number of vaccinations;

100 in a million people will have severe complications.

Including those 100 very ill with mildly ill for a total of

575 illnesses caused in a very short time for every million vaccinations.

So for Thailands 65 million ALL getting vaccinated.

575 x 65 = 37,375 Thais will get ill from mild to severe with this vaccination.

Edited January 23, 2010 by animatic

[ScubaBuddha]

As I said before who in the right mind will get the vaccine if they are not at risk. This is very mild flu and has less complication than common influenza. So let the nature cure the problem and not Thai Madison.

Garitrickid, thanks for bringing some rational discussion to these often irrational threads on vaccinations.

givenall, pregnant woman are at high risk. For example, my brother-in-laws hospital in San Francisco buried two pregnant women in December who died from swine flu. "It's nasty" he said of A/H1N1. He said advising against getting the flu vaccine, swine or otherwise, is insane. My sister, his wife, is an MD as well, and they vaccinate both themselves and their kids at the first chance they get.

He also said something very interesting. He said that the reason why we recommend giving vaccinations to those in the population who are not at risk is to reduce the chances of them becoming a vector for those who are at risk.

It's a numbers game and vaccination wins hands down every time.

[geriatrickid]

Animatic, if you wish to crunch numbers then you have to have accurate data. At this time there is zero relationship between the vaccine and the possible 4 serious ADRs. That doesn't mean that ADRs have not occurred, just that the vaccine has not been established as the cause. Due to the fears expressed, it was agreed by most nations to use a strict Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This means that everything is reported. The "sorting" through giving a the cause and effect comes later. This is attributable to the emphasis upon safety and the fact that health agencies put public fears ahead of pure risk.

If we look at the 4 serious ADRs reported, nothing is presented that says the reactions are attributable to the vaccine per se. What if the subjects had an allergy to eggs and did not know it? What if a subject presented with an undiagnosed immune disorder? Lots of what ifs, and there is nothing in the results that suggests that the vaccine in itself is dangerous. If we look at the western data, there is not one confirmed fatality, nor any serious long term ADRs attributable to the vaccine, so if the Thai health authorities sourced the vaccine from Australia for the trial or manufactured in accordance to the current protocols, the results would be the same. Again I stress that even in the Thai clinical trials, not one person has died. However, of those that were not vaccinated, 198 died.

Please keep in mind that this specific vaccine is really no different than the other flu vaccines that have been around for the last decades. If people were growing horns out of their head, or dropping dead, we would have seen it by now. This flu variant is just that, a variant.

If people do not wish to take the vaccine, that is their personal choice and I respect that. However, it is a decision based on personal choce on not on any data to date that indicates the vaccine is dangerous.

Are you suggesting that during the vaccination campaign (January 2010) 168 out of the total of 198 died.

Can you provide with a source.

I made a typing error when I typed 168 and not 198. Thank you for correcting this error. Failing eyesight. My apologies. The nation reported a total of 198 have died as a consequence of the infection. These 198 people were not vaccinated.

If people want to be critical, what they should instead be looking at whether or not the vaccine is effective. Sometimes vaccines do not work on people. There has to be an efficicacy review and of course, the Nation doesn't even mention that.

I was vaccinated in early December. The version was the same one that is available in Australia, Canada and most of the USA. To date, I have had no complications and am still alive. Most of my colleagues and their families have been vaccinated. Not one ADR.

[Felt 35]

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal

by F. William Engdahl

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma‘s industry’s influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the PACE, a body representing 47 European nations including Russia, has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry. The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and even caused death.

The motion was introduced by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former SPD Member of the German Bundestag and now chairman of the Health Committee of PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe). Wodarg is a medical doctor and epidemiologist, a specialist in lung disease and environmental medicine, who considers the current “pandemic” Swine Flu campaign of the WHO to be “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the Century.”[1]

The text of the resolution just passed by a sufficient number in the Council of Europe Parliament says among other things, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The "bird-flu"-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu"-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.”[2]

The Parliamentary inquiry will look into the issue of „falsified pandemic“ that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, who benefit from the production of drugs and untested H1N1 vaccines. They will investigate the influence of the pharma industry in creation of a worldwide campaign against the so-called H5N1 “Avian Flu” and H1N1 Swine Flu. The inquiry will be given “urgent” priority in the general assembly of the parliament.

In his official statement to the Committee, Wodarg criticized the influence of the pharma industry on scientists and officials of WHO, stating that it has led to the situation where “unnecessarily millions of healthy people are exposed to the risk of poorly tested vaccines,” and that, for a flu strain that is “vastly less harmful” than all previous flu epidemics.

Wodarg says the role of the WHO and its the pandemic emergency declaration in June needs to be the special focus of the European Parliamentary inquiry. For the first time, the WHO criteria for a pandemic was changed in April 2009 as the first Mexico cases were reported, to make not the actual risk of a disease but the number of cases of the disease basis to declare “Pandemic.” By classifying the swine flu as pandemic, nations were compelled to implement pandemic plans and also the purchase swine flu vaccines. Because WHO is not subject to any parliamentary control, Wodarg argues it is necessary for governments to insist on accountability. The inquiry will also to look at the role of the two critical agencies in Germany issuing guidelines on the pandemic, the Paul-Ehrlich and the Robert-Koch Institute.

Bravo!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16667

[WarpSpeed]

Anyone that concludes that this vaccine is dangerous based upon this news item is an idiot. Here's why;

40,000 subjects with 19 mild reactions and possibly 4 serious ADRs and not one death.

4 out of 40,000 is well within the accepted risk parameter.

In the meantime, 168 unvaccinated people died.

The problem with a news item like this is that it encourages speculation. It is poorly written and focuses on the negative, when the data presented is in fact very positive.

One doesn't know if the 4 serious ADRs are really related to the vaccine since key information is missing;

- What were the underlying medical conditions?

- Did the post event data demonstrate a true relationship with the ADR?

- What is the identification of the type and source of vaccine administered?

Miscarriages are unfortunately a normal part of the child bearing process and occur at all stages of a pregnancy. To date I am unaware of any miscarriages associated with the vaccine in the countries reporting to the public health agencies in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU. The other ADRs described suggest an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Either someone was not properly screened or didn't know they had an allergy to the ingredients used in the vaccine preparation. Although the subjects were distressed, the reported rate of ADR is well within acceptable safety standards and no evidence is given to support a statement of relationship.

Seriously, <deleted> is wrong with the boneheads at the Nation that they have to fling the feces?

Well stated.........Agree completely......

Though I must say that until a history is better documented and established and not being in the high risk groups I am delaying any vaccines for the moment.....Most likely next season....

[animatic]

Sole based on the numbers presented I made some calculations.

Nothing more.

But you always presume I have some contrarian agenda to yours.

[katana]

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal

by F. William Engdahl

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma‘s industry’s influence on WHO...<snip>

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16667

More in the same vein here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...hine-again.html

[geriatrickid]

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to Investigate WHO and "Pandemic" Scandal

This article and the opinion expressed by the German politician must be taken in context. It has ZERO relevance to Thailand. Big Pharma is not involved in the manufacture of the vaccine in Thailand. The vaccine is being manufactured locally and being supplemented by imports from countries with a surplus. The seed stock was provided to the WHO from Health Canada and the US CDC at no charge.

The article is in respect to the EU and has no relevance to the countries where the epidemic was first experienced. The US CDC and Health Canada made the decision to proceed with a vaccine program on their own. Other countries like Australia and New Zealand made their own decisions after taking into account the experience in North America and input from the WHO.

The conspiracy theory is playing fast and lose with what happened. The epidemic started in Mexico and spread quickly to the USA and Canada. The population was close to panic. Children were dying, schools were closed down and there was a palpable fear that an already vulnerable economy would not be able to withstand absent workers. People were treating Latinos like lepers and there were calls to close borders and deport Latinos. Fortunately, the US and Canadian governments withstood the public pressure and acted responsibly. Had the borders closed the North American economy which was already teetering would have collapsed.

ERs were filled with people that were ill and a great many that thought they were seriously ill. The result was that those in need of medical attention were facing serious life threatening delays. There was a period when all the respirators at some hospitals were at 100% capacity. Based upon the information on hand and the increasing number of deaths, particularly in the population that was not normally at risk, the health authorities were under tremendous pressure to respond. The SARS crisis was a massive blow to the Canadian public health system and the response to (A) H1N1 was to ensure that a SARS crisis did not repeat itself. The US CDC had learned from the SARS crisis and it too applied the expensive lessons that were learned. How many times does it have to be repeated? The vaccine program framework was already in place. Prices were subject to already agreed upon parameters. The decision was to err on the side of caution and to be prepared. This was more cost effective than to wait for the expected costs to the social fabric and the economy. When there were delays in providing the vaccine in some North American cities, there were cries of conspiracy against the poor and those that were not on the priority list. The decision to vaccinate the entire population was in part motivated to maintain social peace. Imagine what the consequences would have been had the vaccine only been offered to certain groups. Where there is a point of disagreement is that The WHO first suggested 2 doses, but the US CDC and Health Canada determined that 1 dose would be sufficient. The impact is that the respective governments had purchased twice what was needed. Although costly to the USA and Canada, the surplus vaccines are for the most part being given away free of charge to poor countries as they have a limited shelf life.

I do not doubt for a minute that there may be some collusion between vested financial interests and personnel at the WHO. I believe that this is common in Continental Europe (excluding the Scandanavian countries, particularly Denmark, that have strict oversight.) One need only look at past scandals regarding allegations of inappropriate behaviour at the Olympics, the pursuit of government investments and allegations of bribery within the French, Italian and German political systems. However, the allegations raised by the German politician should be considered within the EU and German experience as it is not applicable to what occurred in North America, the epicentre of the epidemic, nor can it be applied to Thailand where the WHO had no say in how the vaccine was to be sourced.

Sole based on the numbers presented I made some calculations.

Nothing more.

But you always presume I have some contrarian agenda to yours.

You have misunderstood my point. I was pointing out that number crunching at this point is not reliable because the data base is not complete. It will take more time to obtain sufficient data in order to draw a reliable conclusion. I was not questioning your motives, just advising caution. Cheers

Edited January 24, 2010 by geriatrickid

[animatic]

And you missed my point.

There were limited numbers, that was totally obvious,

but they added up to some other numbers.

Just other ways of looking at the same numbers.

Edited January 24, 2010 by animatic