Please read if you HAVEN’T had the flu shot already!

[Natsku]

https://www.hs.fi/english/article/N...+-+victims+to+get+compensation+/1135269054227
I wonder if it can effect a foetus in the same way it did children.

 

[lisaf]

"Recommendations for the use of seasonal flu vaccines for 2010/2011 remain unchanged, it said, the issue of narcolepsy had not been linked with any other H1N1 pandemic flu vaccines, seasonal flu vaccines or any other adjuvanted, or boosted, vaccines used in childhood immunization programs.

GSK said it was reviewing the report and "it would be premature to draw any conclusions on a potential association between Pandemrix and narcolepsy until this European investigation has been completed."

Hanna Nohynek, the NIHW's vaccine safety officer, said the baseline risk for narcolepsy in children aged four to 19 was less than 1 per 100,000, and the study found that among those who had the Pandemrix shot the risk rose to 8.1 per 100,000.

According to GSK, more than 31 million doses of Pandemrix have been administered worldwide in 47 countries. The company said it had received reports of a total of 162 cases of narcolepsy as of January 31, 2011, with 70 percent of these cases of narcolepsy originating from Finland and Sweden."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/flu-shot-narcolepsy-_n_816868.html

I am a little leary of the fact that 70% of the cases were reported in Finland and Sweden... why would it be so much more prevalent there?
As the quote above says, its premature to draw any conclusions until it has been studied further. Did the company change something else about the vaccine when they added H1N1? Can you conclude that its the coverage for that variant of the flu that caused the problem or is it some other factor?

-PS I suffer from a type of narcolepsy myself, lol

 

[Natsku]

Really? Whats it like? (sorry to be nosy!)

It said 30% of Finns have the genetic basis for narcolepsy, don't know how that compares to the amount elsewhere but maybe thats why there was so many there.

 

[lisaf]

For the record, I don't think I have any swedish heritage Also never had a flu vaccine prior to this developing

I'm really lucky and don't have a severe form at all. As long as I'm doing things, I am pretty awake. But ask me to sit quietly with little stimulation (classroom, freeway driving) and I start to feel super drowsy. Pretty much like I've been drugged or dosed up on a drowsy-allergy med etc.
I won't pass out mid-sentence or during conversations like the movies show. I've been known to take a nap while pumping at work, lol.
The more interesting part is that I have a disorder called cataplexy which is linked to narcolepsy. Its an involuntary loss of muscle control... usually during extreme emotional situations. Meaning if someone startles me really bad or if I laugh too hard, I will lose control of my legs and fall on the ground. (its been described by my friends like those little tension-string-doll toys where you push on the base of the platform and the string loosens and the doll just falls down). I have had one extreme episode where my vital signs even diminished and I appeared to be unconscious and barely/not breathing though I remained conscious through it all, people performing CPR on me, ambulence ride, treatment etc. but I couldn't move a muscle. People with severe cataplexy have been known to end up in the morgue while still alive. Cataplexy can get worse for a while after a head injury and I'd hit my head in a car accident the week before that happened.

 

[lisaf]

oh, and its totally managed with medication. I just had to choose to stay on my medication during pregnancy even though its a Category C drug because I needed to keep my job. I decided not to nurse while on it though because there is an alternative medication that is known to be unsafe during pregnancy but has been shown to pass such small amounts through breastmilk that its not enough to affect the baby.

 

[BabyJayne]

Wow, you seem to have suddenly gone very defensive for some reason. We are not discussing whether we need it in the vaccine or not, so the fact that you "don't think so" is irrelevant to the discussion.

Whatever the origins, the vaccine for it was made in the same way as the seasonal flu vaccine - so essentially it was just the same as what you term a normal addition to to the vaccine. It's just a variant on it. The CDC (just referring to these as you did in an earlier post) says they are made in the same way and in the same places as the seasonal vaccine.

The CDC have completed some studies (2009-2011) and still recommend it. I think someone from there authored a report giving results on pregnant women who have had the jab, and they recommend it for pregnant women in 2011-12.

I stand by the fact that pregnant women have been having the flu jab for years, H1N1 vaccine is made in the same way, and if there was anything remotely raising concern over fetal abnormalities, miscarriage and other awful things, then they would be acting quickly, as they did with Thalidomide and withdrawing it for use in pregnant women.

I just think these facts, and they are facts, are as important as the information you disseminated in the first instance. It's personal choice at the end of the day, and if you want people to make an informed decision then both sides of the coin must be considered.

I wasn't defensive, just adamant that the H1N1 strain is not a normal variance of the "seasonal flu". (It isn't!) Yes, pregnant women have been having the seasonal flu vaccine for quite a while, with no apparent adverse affects. The H1N1 vaccine was introduced two years ago, and there have been conflicting reports as to the number of pregnant women who died from H1N1 and there are possible discrepancies in the VAERS reports regarding fetal harm. This is the VAERS summary from 1990-2009 (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/vaers/summary-pregnant.html), before the introduction of the H1N1 vaccine. At best the CDC is still monitoring "vaccine safety"; we won't know until after the fact. There isn't currently any information available for the past two flu seasons regarding H1N1 vaccine safety; please show me these studies you found for 2009-2011. All I can find are reports of pregnant women who had H1N1 flu while pregnant, evidence supporting the "need" for the vaccine...nothing on if the vaccine is actually "safe".

You have already quoted the studies in your OP, although you have read them very differently to the way I did.

The 2009-2010 report on the H1N1 vaccine in pregnant women. In your OP you bolded the 294 reports (bolded, of course) of adverse effects in pregnant women, without highlighting that only 131 of these reports were pregnancy specific. Also, the information you provided on this report doesn't highlight how many pregnant women had the vaccination - which is imperative information when comparing figures. If 131 reports of complications in pregnancy came after just a few hundred had the jab, then that would be hugely concerning. I don't have the figures, but seeing as the study was completed over the flu season vaccination programme 2009-2010, I would guess at the figure being pretty high. So 131 reports of complications from a vast number of pregnant women is probably the reason that "no concerning patterns were discovered".

Added to this is the other report you mention on the 20-year study on the flu vaccination, which showed (you failed to bold this part in your OP) "No unusual patterns of pregnancy complications or fetal outcomes were observed in the VAERS reports of pregnant women after the administration of TIV or LAIV."
The H1N1 vaccine is based on the same formulation as the seasonal flu vaccine, and this report and study shows no unusual patterns over 20 years of pregnant women having the vaccine.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/435844...lu-vaccine-safe-pregnancy-study/#.TpYAshwlZwc
For lighter reading, this is the Reuters news story on the study - with the author of both the studies mentioned above, Pedro Moro, commenting.

This guy has been involved with in depth studies on the flu vaccination (with and without H1N1) in pregnant women, and with all the first-hand information he has, he is still happy to recommend it.

I just want to reiterate that I completely respect those who choose not to have the vaccination for whatever reason. But I think this helps give a balanced view. At the very least I hope it encourages those reading this who have not yet made a decision to undertake proper evaluation, taking in both sides so you can come to a conclusion based your own interpretation of all the information available, and not just a few bolded numbers and figures.

 

[PegLeg2na]

The CDC have completed some studies (2009-2011) and still recommend it. I think someone from there authored a report giving results on pregnant women who have had the jab, and they recommend it for pregnant women in 2011-12.

Sorry, I originally read this as you had found studies that directly recommend the vaccine. You're right, none of the studies on the first page indicate anything to "worry" about but they do indicate the research is not conclusive (more research needs to be done).

You have already quoted the studies in your OP, although you have read them very differently to the way I did.

The 2009-2010 report on the H1N1 vaccine in pregnant women. In your OP you bolded the 294 reports (bolded, of course) of adverse effects in pregnant women, without highlighting that only 131 of these reports were pregnancy specific. Also, the information you provided on this report doesn't highlight how many pregnant women had the vaccination - which is imperative information when comparing figures. If 131 reports of complications in pregnancy came after just a few hundred had the jab, then that would be hugely concerning. I don't have the figures, but seeing as the study was completed over the flu season vaccination programme 2009-2010, I would guess at the figure being pretty high. So 131 reports of complications from a vast number of pregnant women is probably the reason that "no concerning patterns were discovered".

You might be interested in this project, then, which suggests otherwise (https://www.progressiveconvergence.com/H1N1-RELATED miscarriages.htm) specifically this article (https://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Statistical correction Exhibit4.pdf). Though not peer-reviewed, I think this information, especially the "Statistical correction" article, should be taken into consideration.

I just want to reiterate that I completely respect those who choose not to have the vaccination for whatever reason. But I think this helps give a balanced view. At the very least I hope it encourages those reading this who have not yet made a decision to undertake proper evaluation, taking in both sides so you can come to a conclusion based your own interpretation of all the information available, and not just a few bolded numbers and figures.

I agree, researching both sides is important. My original intent was to provide the possible negatives of the flu shot, not to provide the balanced view (though I did try by providing those articles--I bolded the parts that concerned me). It is much easier to find 'research'/recommendations/press releases supporting the flu shot. Also, the CDC states, "The most reliable information about vaccine side effects can be found in the manufacturers’ vaccine package inserts, vaccine information statements (VISs), or the Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practice’s (ACIP's) statements on vaccines" (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/vaers/summary-pregnant.html), I provided the links to all inserts on the first page and provided the information about pregnancy concerns. Despite all the opinions, the manufacturers state that it is NOT KNOWN whether or not the vaccines cause fetal harm, and that the vaccines should only be given to pregnant women when "clearly needed".

ETA: From the Reuters article, "During the 2009 and 2010 flu seasons, millions of pregnant women received the vaccine against swine flu, or H1N1 influenza, yet but less than 300 possible complications were reported to a national database. Researchers estimated that out of one million pregnant women who received the vaccine, 118 experienced a potential side effect from the shot." Please read the "Statistical corrections" article. 300 reported possible complications does not mean only 300 occurred! Likewise, 118 potential side effects (and what were they?!) does not mean only 118 occurred. I think this article and the one it's based on (posted on the first page) are misleading, especially since they fail to mention the reporting rate. Also, how can women report adverse reactions when they are given shots in random "clinics" set up in non-medical center locations (libraries, grocery stores, churches)?

 

[Natsku]

For the record, I don't think I have any swedish heritage Also never had a flu vaccine prior to this developing

I'm really lucky and don't have a severe form at all. As long as I'm doing things, I am pretty awake. But ask me to sit quietly with little stimulation (classroom, freeway driving) and I start to feel super drowsy. Pretty much like I've been drugged or dosed up on a drowsy-allergy med etc.
I won't pass out mid-sentence or during conversations like the movies show. I've been known to take a nap while pumping at work, lol.
The more interesting part is that I have a disorder called cataplexy which is linked to narcolepsy. Its an involuntary loss of muscle control... usually during extreme emotional situations. Meaning if someone startles me really bad or if I laugh too hard, I will lose control of my legs and fall on the ground. (its been described by my friends like those little tension-string-doll toys where you push on the base of the platform and the string loosens and the doll just falls down). I have had one extreme episode where my vital signs even diminished and I appeared to be unconscious and barely/not breathing though I remained conscious through it all, people performing CPR on me, ambulence ride, treatment etc. but I couldn't move a muscle. People with severe cataplexy have been known to end up in the morgue while still alive. Cataplexy can get worse for a while after a head injury and I'd hit my head in a car accident the week before that happened.

Eeek the cataplexy sounds a bit scary!

 

[BabyJayne]

The CDC have completed some studies (2009-2011) and still recommend it. I think someone from there authored a report giving results on pregnant women who have had the jab, and they recommend it for pregnant women in 2011-12.

Sorry, I originally read this as you had found studies that directly recommend the vaccine. You're right, none of the studies on the first page indicate anything to "worry" about but they do indicate the research is not conclusive (more research needs to be done).

You have already quoted the studies in your OP, although you have read them very differently to the way I did.

The 2009-2010 report on the H1N1 vaccine in pregnant women. In your OP you bolded the 294 reports (bolded, of course) of adverse effects in pregnant women, without highlighting that only 131 of these reports were pregnancy specific. Also, the information you provided on this report doesn't highlight how many pregnant women had the vaccination - which is imperative information when comparing figures. If 131 reports of complications in pregnancy came after just a few hundred had the jab, then that would be hugely concerning. I don't have the figures, but seeing as the study was completed over the flu season vaccination programme 2009-2010, I would guess at the figure being pretty high. So 131 reports of complications from a vast number of pregnant women is probably the reason that "no concerning patterns were discovered".

You might be interested in this project, then, which suggests otherwise (https://www.progressiveconvergence.com/H1N1-RELATED miscarriages.htm) specifically this article (https://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Statistical correction Exhibit4.pdf). Though not peer-reviewed, I think this information, especially the "Statistical correction" article, should be taken into consideration.

You don't honestly expect me to take this project/article seriously do you? Progressive Convergence and National Coalition of Organized Women??

I've read it through (and checked out their huge anti-vaccination website) and it is ridiculously flawed and should definitely not be taken into consideration.
The first obvious point is throughout this insanely biased article they quote a figure of "up to 3,587 miscarriages from H1N1 vaccine". This figure is the extreme upper limit of an uncontrolled estimate for an absolute number, again without any reference to the size of the base group (the total number of people having the vaccination) that, as I said before, is imperative when estimating risk.
They make no attempt to ascertain medical records and no comparisons to national miscarriage rates for the same period. They created their own poll, with no methodology to suit their own agenda...no wonder this is not peer reviewed!

I would go so far as to remove the links to be honest...

 

[PegLeg2na]

You don't honestly expect me to take this project/article seriously do you? Progressive Convergence and National Coalition of Organized Women??

I've read it through (and checked out their huge anti-vaccination website) and it is ridiculously flawed and should definitely not be taken into consideration.
The first obvious point is throughout this insanely biased article they quote a figure of "up to 3,587 miscarriages from H1N1 vaccine". This figure is the extreme upper limit of an uncontrolled estimate for an absolute number, again without any reference to the size of the base group (the total number of people having the vaccination) that, as I said before, is imperative when estimating risk.
They make no attempt to ascertain medical records and no comparisons to national miscarriage rates for the same period. They created their own poll, with no methodology to suit their own agenda...no wonder this is not peer reviewed!

I would go so far as to remove the links to be honest...

Aside from the inflated figures, the report brings up some excellent points: the CDC fails to show the limitations of VAERS reporting or the percentage of estimated under-reporting; the CDC does not acknowledge that not all flu shot clinics are not in a controlled setting; patients may not know about VAERS reporting (I didn't!); and the CDC does not have exact figures of who got the flu shot.

This study (https://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/11/1006.full) on Enhancing Vaccine Safety Surveillance says, "The proportion of cases of an adverse event after vaccination that are reported to VAERS (i.e., VAERS reporting completeness) is mostly unknown. Therefore, the risk of such an event cannot be derived from VAERS only". Moro also claims, "One important limitation of VAERS is that it collects data only on vaccinated individuals who have experienced an AE; the total vaccinated population is not known with certainty, and therefore, incidence rates of AE cannot be directly calculated. The number of individuals vaccinated is often estimated using the number of doses distributed or vaccine coverage data, derived from special surveys." So claiming a vaccine is safe based on reports that are KNOWN to be incomplete and limited is misleading.

The Moro article, states, "Because VAERS is a routine surveillance program that does not meet the definition of research, it is not subject to institutional review board review and informed consent requirements." ...Interesting...

Additionally, "The VAERS data provide no indication that the occurrence of SABs and stillbirths following influenza vaccination is higher than in the general population. The reporting rate for SAB in the current review of H1N1 vaccine reports was 25 times higher than the reporting rate to VAERS for SABs after the seasonal influenza vaccine during the period 1990-2009. This difference between 2009 H1N1 and 1990-2009 seasonal influenza vaccines is likely the result of enhanced and stimulated reporting." However, there is no comparison to the number of reports given previously.

"Additional studies in more than 7000 pregnant women vaccinated with inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine have failed to demonstrate increased risk of maternal, fetal, or infant complications. However, relatively few of these studies have included first-trimester pregnant women, demonstrating a gap that should be addressed in future vaccine safety research." Yet they still claim it's safe for all trimesters.

In fact, the "Comments" section of the Moro article is the longest section in the entire report, full of limitations, considerations, and the possibility of imprecise estimates that the reported figures are based on...yet these aren't represented in the results.

 

[BabyJayne]

They try and discredit VAERS and its limitations but then use it to try and prove their theory, which would incidentally be financially beneficial for them. I find it unbelievable that people have trouble listening to available research from people in the medical profession, yet someone completely unqualified can basically make up a paper with cherry picked figures and a made up poll and suddenly they are the oracle on it.
I appreciate the information you have provided, but I've yet to see anything credible and based in scientific fact that would really make me question having the vaccination or question its safety.

 

[PegLeg2na]

First of all, my argument isn't based on the NCOW article. It is based on the inconsistencies demonstrated in the "available research from people in the medical profession"...or the LACK of available research, rather, and the facts presented in the vaccine inserts. Secondly, I don't see how one organization can be discredited for inflating figures from a poor reporting system and another that is incompletely representing those same figures from the same poor reporting system in a "scientific report" is somehow not discredited. I think it's open to opinion if the government stamp and the fact that it's "science" makes something proof or not. History has shown instances of "safe" drugs or routine procedures actually being very harmful (X-rays during pregnancy, Thalidomide, certain antibiotics, Accutane etc.), but only ever after the fact.

I can see we're not ever going to see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. Just a question: does it bother you that the only people testing for or documenting adverse side affects are government scientists and the vaccine companies, no third-party (neutral) organizations? It bothers me.

 

[lisaf]

the third party organizations would need funding, which isn't going to happen.

I have trouble trusting anything said by a source that misrepresents data to intentionally skew things to their perspective. (for example, I believe in a lot of the causes Michael Moore is in favor of, but I have trouble with any of the claims made/shown in his documentaries because his tactics undermine the message he is trying to get across)

The lack of data about first-trimester vaccinations/miscarriages is probably due to 2 factors. Miscarriages are most common in the first trimester, and when I went to get my flu shot last year, they wouldn't give me one because I was 2 day shy of 12 weeks pregnant. I called my doctor and got their ok and then they let me do it. My doctor told me that there were no risks from the vaccine, but that they didn't want me to blame the vaccine if I ended up with a miscarriage from other causes. I asked the people giving the flu shot why they wouldn't give it to me without my doctor's permission and they said the same thing.

Imagine if a woman gets the flu during her first trimester and miscarries because she has a severe case of the flu. Now imagine that the flu vaccine has been proven to have absolutely no risks (something that of course is impossible without unethical testing). That woman now lost her baby because they have to keep people from being too afraid of the vaccine.
I recall a girl who posted on one of these vaccine debates months ago who had a missed miscarriage after being hospitalized from the flu. She felt the flu caused it because he baby's growth stopped at the time that she had been severely ill.

 

[BabyJayne]

First of all, my argument isn't based on the NCOW article. It is based on the inconsistencies demonstrated in the "available research from people in the medical profession"...or the LACK of available research, rather, and the facts presented in the vaccine inserts. Secondly, I don't see how one organization can be discredited for inflating figures from a poor reporting system and another that is incompletely representing those same figures from the same poor reporting system in a "scientific report" is somehow not discredited. I think it's open to opinion if the government stamp and the fact that it's "science" makes something proof or not. History has shown instances of "safe" drugs or routine procedures actually being very harmful (X-rays during pregnancy, Thalidomide, certain antibiotics, Accutane etc.), but only ever after the fact.

I can see we're not ever going to see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. Just a question: does it bother you that the only people testing for or documenting adverse side affects are government scientists and the vaccine companies, no third-party (neutral) organizations? It bothers me.

It's the quick reaction of the authorities in the case of Thalidomide, with regard to the relatively small percentage of those who were affected and with less sophisticated measurement tools (as it was the late 50s/early 60s) that helps me believe that if this vaccine (again, that has been in circulation and used by pregnant women for years) was causing any increase in pregnancy complications then it simply would not be available or recommended for pregnant women.

I'm not trying to make you see eye to eye with me. I respect your viewpoint. I just think the information you have presented is skewed and I have yet to see anything credible that would cause me to rethink my position. I also think women reading the opening post will be blinded by the points you deemed fit to bold and will ignore the important points you didn't highlight, which helps puts those figures in context. I think the opening post could prevent some from delving deeper, or cause unnecessary worry and it is this I find a shame.

I totally agree with looking into everything, examining and questioning and not taking everything you are told as gospel. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Stats are open to interpretation obviously. You could take the figure from VAERS and say - hey, look so many million had the jab, yet there were only x amount of miscarriages. Therefore the flu jab causes less people to have miscarriages. We know that is a silly claim to make, because it needs to be comparable. Yet most of the claims made on the flip side of the safety coin are exactly like this.

The facts are, as we know them, miscarriage rates are consistent with previous years. Regardless of who is doing the research, if there was a sharp increase in the rate of miscarriage etc (recorded by hospitals etc) then alarm bells would ring. They are not ringing, and the fact is that flu DOES cause maternal and foetal problems. Does it come down to the chance that you will catch flu and then the chance that would harm your baby, over the chance that a vaccination to prevent that could harm your baby? For me, the fact that one option is proven to happen and the other isn't makes it a black and white decision.

It's been interesting, and thanks for a clean discussion (it can happen on BnB!).

 

[PegLeg2na]

The facts are, as we know them, miscarriage rates are consistent with previous years. Regardless of who is doing the research, if there was a sharp increase in the rate of miscarriage etc (recorded by hospitals etc) then alarm bells would ring. They are not ringing, and the fact is that flu DOES cause maternal and foetal problems. Does it come down to the chance that you will catch flu and then the chance that would harm your baby, over the chance that a vaccination to prevent that could harm your baby? For me, the fact that one option is proven to happen and the other isn't makes it a black and white decision.

For me, it's because the flu risks are known and the vaccine risks aren't that I am not getting the vaccine, but I can see your point.

It's been interesting, and thanks for a clean discussion (it can happen on BnB!).

I agree, thanks! I'm also unbolding everything in the first post.