Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 Flu jabs for children
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Kate

21 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2005 :  16:15:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

I read with interest the news item on children's flu jabs in the US. Having looked into flu jabs for my daughter I found information quite scanty (perhaps I didn't look hard enough). I did find information on the DOH site on this year's 'campaign' and they listed the companies that were supplying this year's vaccines. At the bottom of the list it stated that they all contained thiomersal. However, a leaflet by the Welsh Assembly Government on flu jabs for children stated that thiomersal free vaccines should be given and were preferable but one containing thiomersal could be given if a thiomersal free one was not available.

Not sure she would have it anyway even if it didn't contain thiomersal but nice to see I didn't get a choice on what vaccine my child could receive. Basically, we are at the mercy of the idiots who source the vaccines and the companies that supply them.

If anyone does have any info it would be very welcome.

Sheri Nakken

United Kingdom
6 Posts

Posted - 11/24/2005 :  13:00:52  Show Profile  Visit Sheri Nakken's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Mercury is not the only danger with vaccines. There are many more. Encourage you to look into all of this

Formaldehyde, contamination with animal and human DNA, contamination with monkey viruses, mycoplasma contamination, some vaccines grown on aborted fetal tissue, aluminum, msg in vaccines, antibiotics in vaccines, fetal bovine serum, the antigen itself, the problem with injecting something directly and bypassing TH1 portion of immune system and so much more.



Sheri

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy
knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information
and religions destroy spirituality" ....Michael Ellner
Go to Top of Page

jackie

United Kingdom
117 Posts

Posted - 11/25/2005 :  17:44:49  Show Profile  Visit jackie's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Welcome to Sheri. As in everything in life there is good and bad. I'm sure we all know some very good people in all walks of life and others who do their professions a disservice.

Go to Top of Page

Kate

21 Posts

Posted - 11/28/2005 :  10:49:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks Sheri. I am very aware that it is not just the mercury that is of concern. For some people choosing not to vaccinate is not an easy choice when they have a child in an at risk group. Actually my husband and I are also in at risk groups. Whilst vaccines are around people will always use them but it is important that those that are given should be the least likely to cause side effects - hence my annoyance at not being given the choice of having a thiomersal free one for my daughter even though it is recommended by the Welsh Assembly Government.

I also agree with Jackie's comments. There are good and bad example in all walks of life and professions. I work for the NHS and work a few doors down from litigation so quite aware of the bad. However, if it wasn't for excellent doctors and nurses my husband would be dead - no ifs - no buts. There are many more people like him. For him, the risk of him not having a vaccine far outweigh the risks of having one. If people are going to be vaccinated it is important that the best vaccines are sourced. No doubt the thiomersal ones are cheaper !
Go to Top of Page

jabsadmin

1378 Posts

Posted - 01/22/2006 :  16:18:21  Show Profile  Visit jabsadmin's Homepage  Reply with Quote

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news5.shtml

EXCLUSIVE:
Nursing chiefs fear kids 'overloaded with vaccines' and Whitehall says it will save cash and lives


BABY FLU JAB ROW

By Keith Gladdis

BABIES will be given flu jabs up to the age of two under a controversial new government plan.

Medical advisers say vaccinating children could help stamp out flu epidemics, slashing costs to the nation in sickness, hospital treatment and deaths among the elderly.


But the plan, proposed by the government's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, is set to stir up a storm.


Parents fear their babies are being "overloaded" with vaccines, putting serious strains on their immune systems.

Already tots are given injections for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib vaccine at two months, three months and again at four months, when they also get meningitis C jabs.


Then, at around 13 months, babies are given the combined measles, mumps and rubella MMR vaccine.

Lindsey Hayes, of the Royal College of Nursing, said: "There is already concern over the number of vaccines offered to children from three months, with some parents choosing those they feel most important."


And Jackie Fletcher, of pressure group JABS (Justice, Awareness and Basic Support), said parents would be angry that children are being immunised to help protect the rest of the population.


She said: "Where are the trials on such young children, in combination with all the other vaccines they are getting, to show that this is a safe thing to do?"


Flu is responsible for 800,000 GP consultations every year, 19,000 hospital stays and 10,000 respiratory deaths.

A recent US study found that an 80 per cent uptake of flu jabs in children aged six months to 18 years would cut flu cases in the population by a massive 91 per cent.


Its findings are backed up in Britain by a Health Protection Agency review. But Rachel Jordan, senior scientist at the HPA, added: "What we can't say for certain is how much benefit there would be."


Go to Top of Page

jabsadmin

1378 Posts

Posted - 01/22/2006 :  16:33:36  Show Profile  Visit jabsadmin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15733718&query_hl=5

Lancet 2005 Feb 26-Mar 4;365(9461):773-80.

Comment in:
Lancet. 2005 Jun 18-24;365(9477):2086-7; author reply 2087.
Lancet. 2005 Jun 18-24;365(9477):2086; author reply 2087.


Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review.

Jefferson T, Smith S, Demicheli V, Harnden A, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C.

Cochrane Vaccines Field, ASL 20, 15100 Alessandria, Italy. Toj1@aol.com

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess evidence of efficacy and effectiveness of live attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccines in children up to 16 years of age.

METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE Biological Abstracts, and Science Citation Index to June, 2004, in any language, and contacted vaccine manufacturers and authors of relevant studies to identify additional data. We included randomised, cohort, and case-control studies comparing efficacy of vaccines against influenza (reduction in laboratory-confirmed cases), effectiveness of vaccines against influenza-like illness (reduction in symptomatic cases), or both, with placebo or no intervention. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, admissions, school absences, complications, and secondary transmission.

FINDINGS: We included 14 randomised controlled trials, eight cohort studies, one case-control study, and one randomised controlled trial of intraepidemic use of the vaccines. Live attenuated influenza vaccines had 79% efficacy and 38% effectiveness in children older than 2 years compared with placebo or no immunisation. Inactivated vaccines had lower efficacy (65%) than live attenuated vaccines, and in children aged 2 years or younger they had similar effects to placebo. Effectiveness of inactivated vaccines was about 28% in children older than 2 years. Vaccines were effective in reducing long school absences (relative risk 0.14 [95% CI 0.07-0.27]). Studies assessing the effects of vaccines against secondary cases, lower-respiratory tract disease, acute otitis media, and hospital stay suggested no difference with placebo or standard care, but lacked statistical power.

INTERPRETATION: Influenza vaccines (especially two-dose live attenuated vaccines) are efficacious in children older than 2 years. Efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccines differed strikingly. Only two small studies assessed the effects of influenza vaccines on hospital admissions and no studies assessed reductions in mortality, serious complications, and community transmission of influenza. If influenza immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing such important outcomes and undertaking direct comparisons of vaccines are urgently needed.

Publication Types:
Review

PMID: 15733718 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Go to Top of Page

Sheri Nakken

United Kingdom
6 Posts

Posted - 01/22/2006 :  18:58:46  Show Profile  Visit Sheri Nakken's Homepage  Reply with Quote
http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_sep30.php

go to be webpage for better formatting of chart - also encourage joining RedFlags and support their efforts

Dr. Yazbak, a pediatrician, now devotes his time to the research of autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury.

Influenza Vaccination of Infants: A Useless Risk

By Red Flags Columnist, F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
(tlautstudy@aol.com)

In the spring of 2004, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that all children 6- to 23-months of age be vaccinated against influenza because they were at “substantially increased risk for influenza-related hospitalizations.” (1)

A review in The Lancet suggests that influenza vaccination of infants is useless.
The influenza vaccines

There are two types of influenza vaccines on the U.S. market.

One is the recently released intranasal live virus vaccine that is not recommended for infants and children under five. MedImmune’s FluMist® will not, therefore, be discussed in this article.

The second is the older and well-known inactivated (killed) influenza vaccine that is administered by injection in the following dosage:

Children 6- to 36-months: 0.25 ml/dose
Children older than 3 years: 0.5 ml/dose
Adults: 0.5 ml/dose

Infants and young children receiving the vaccine for the first time should receive two doses one month apart. They, in fact, receive an adult dose within one 30-day period.

Only split-virus, subvirion, or purified surface antigen vaccines should be administered to children because of their decreased potential for causing febrile reactions. (1)

This year, Sanofi Pasteur will produce between 50 and 60 million doses of influenza vaccine for the U.S. market. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is planning to produce and sell about 8 million doses in the U.S., since the FDA licensed its product on Aug. 31, 2005. (2)

Chiron’s Liverpool facility has been trying to correct its manufacturing problems
for more than a year and will need approval by the British MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before it can ship out its first dose of vaccine. It is clear that Chiron is already too late for the start of the season. In the best scenario, it will provide 18 million to 26 million doses of vaccine for use in the United States.

It is evident that there will be a shortage of injectable influenza vaccine this season and that the CDC will have to promote the use of the intranasal live vaccine for those individuals for whom it is indicated.
Presentation and Preservatives

Sanofi Pasteur (Aventis Pasteur) offers four different options in its influenza vaccine Fluzone®: three thimerosal-free single-dose presentations including a 0.25 ml syringe for children 6 months to 35 months of age; either a 0.5 ml syringe or a 0.5 ml vial for persons aged 3 years and older; and a multi-dose vial with thimerosal as a preservative, licensed for those ages 6 months and above. (www.fda.gov/cber/products/inflave071405.htm)
The GSK U.S. product will be available in 0.5 ml syringes containing a trace amount of thimerosal remaining from the production process. The vaccine is licensed for adult use. http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/inflgla083105.htm
Chiron, if approved by the FDA and MHRA, will provide most of their U.S. product in multi-dose vials with thimerosal as a preservative — presumably for adults. They may also provide for children over the age of 4 years and for adults some 0.5 ml syringes containing trace amounts of thimerosal. (2)
The following table summarizes the relevant FDA information on the thimerosal content of all licensed influenza vaccines as of Sept. 6, 2005. (3)

Trade Name


Manufacturer


Thimerosal Concentration


Mercury

Fluzone


Aventis Pasteur Inc.


0.01%


25 µg/0.5 ml dose

Fluvirin


Evans


0.01%


25 µg/0.5 ml dose

Fluzone (no thimerosal)


Aventis Pasteur Inc.


0


0

Fluvirin (preservative free)


Evans


< 0.0004%


< 1 µg/0.5 ml dose

Fluarix


GlaxoSmith-Kline


< 0.0005%


< 1.25 µg/0.5 ml dose

To date, there is no national recommendation to use thimerosal-free or preservative-free flu vaccines exclusively in infants and younger children.

The CDC recommendation seems to be that thimerosal-free brands are preferred if they are available. If not, any available inactivated flu vaccine can be used in order to “protect” the infants.

Few states have mercury-free pediatric vaccine laws.
Influenza vaccination of infants

Is influenza vaccination of 6- to 24-month-old infants effective?
Will it decrease influenza-related hospitalizations as claimed by the ACIP?

The answer to both questions appears to be no.

This answer is based on an extensive review published in the Feb. 25, 2005 issue of The Lancet. The authors, Jefferson, Smith, Demicheli et al, literally analyzed every available reference on the subject that they could find in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE Biological Abstracts and Science Citation Index to June 2004 — in any language. They included 14 randomized controlled trials, eight cohort studies, one case-control study and one randomized controlled trial of intraepidemic use of the vaccine. (4)

The authors also:

* Contacted the vaccine manufacturers and the authors of all relevant studies
* And included every study ever published that compared the efficacy of influenza vaccines.

Surprisingly, they only found two small studies that assessed the effects of influenza vaccines on hospital admissions (the alleged reason for the CDC’s ACIP recommendation). And they could not find a single study that assessed reductions in mortality, serious complications or even community transmission of the disease.

Following a review of all the information they could find worldwide, the authors came to the following conclusions concerning the use of inactivated influenza vaccines in children younger than two years of age:

* There is no evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccine or reduction in symptomatic cases
* The efficacy of the vaccine, reduction in laboratory-confirmed cases, is similar to that of placebo.

In its publication Efficacy and Effectiveness of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, dated Aug. 8, 2005 and intended to support its recommendation, the CDC concedes in its opening statement that the effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine depends primarily on the age and immunocompetence of the vaccine recipient and the degree of similarity between the viruses in the vaccine and those in circulation. (5)

The following is all the information concerning the effectiveness of the inactivated influenza vaccine in children 6- to 23-months old that is available in that publication on the CDC web site:

“Children aged > 6 months can develop protective levels of anti-influenza antibody against specific influenza virus strains after influenza vaccination, although the antibody response among children at high risk for influenza-related complications might be lower than among healthy children….

“A 2-year randomized study of children aged 6--24 months determined that > 89% of children seroconverted to all three vaccine strains during both years. During year 1, among 411 children, vaccine efficacy was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 34%--82%) against culture-confirmed influenza (attack rates: 5.5% and 15.9% among vaccine and placebo groups, respectively). During year 2, among 375 children, vaccine efficacy was --7% (95% CI = --247%--67%; attack rates: 3.6% and 3.3% among vaccine and placebo groups, respectively; the second year exhibited lower attack rates overall and was considered a mild season). However, no overall reduction in otitis media was reported….

“A retrospective study among approximately 5,000 children aged 6--23 months conducted during a year with a suboptimal vaccine match indicated vaccine effectiveness of 49% against medically attended, clinically diagnosed pneumonia or influenza (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] codes 480--487) among children who had received 2 doses of influenza vaccine. No effectiveness was demonstrated among children who had received only 1 dose of influenza vaccine, illustrating the importance of administering 2 doses of vaccine to previously unvaccinated children aged <9 years).”

That’s it: 230 words.

A careful review of the CDC information reveals the following:

* Antibody response among children at high risk for influenza-related complications appears to be lower than among healthy children. In other words, children who were more likely to be hospitalized had less antibody response and less benefit from the vaccination.

* First study: During year two, vaccine efficacy among 375 children, was --7% against culture-confirmed influenza (95% CI = --247%--67%; attack rates: 3.6% and 3.3% among vaccine and placebo groups, respectively) and there was no reduction in ear infections. During year 1, vaccine efficacy was better. The study did not examine complications or hospital admissions.

* Second study: One dose of influenza vaccine was totally ineffective. Children who received two injections of vaccine had a 49 percent reduction in “clinically diagnosed” pneumonia or “influenza.” Because these were not culture-confirmed cases, the clinical illnesses may not have been due to the influenza virus or may have been due to a different strain of virus than that in the vaccine. In either case, vaccination would not have influenced the course of the illness — one way or the other.

Jefferson and associates concluded that immunization of very young children “is not lent support by the findings” of their extensive and detailed research of the world literature and could not find convincing evidence that vaccines can reduce mortality, admissions, serious complications, and community transmission of influenza. (4)

The Lancet study was funded by Regione Piemonte, Italy, the Oxford Childhood Infection Study, University of Oxford and a program grant from the U.K. Medical Research Council (MRC). Given that the MRC and The Lancet are two historically pro-vaccine institutions, the results of this careful review must be taken very seriously.

The two studies quoted by the CDC are limited, weak and irrelevant.

The CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices have a simple choice:

* They can continue recommending the useless influenza vaccination of infants aged 6 to 24 months

Or

* They can do the right thing and rescind the 2004 recommendation.



Now that is a tough choice!



References

1. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040701/practice.html
2. http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_sep26.html
3. http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm
4. Jefferson T, Smith S, Demicheli V, Harnden A, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review. Lancet 2005 Feb 26-Mar 4;365(9461):773-80. Review.
5. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/efficacy.htm



Addendum
October 3, 2005

Chiron has received initial approval from the FDA to distribute influenza vaccine in the United States for the 2005-2006 season and is expected to produce 18-26 million doses. According to a company spokesperson, each 0.5 ml dose of the Chiron vaccine will contain 25µg of mercury.

Sanofi Pasteur will also produce 50 million doses for the U.S. market and GlaxoSmithKline 8 million doses.

Sheri

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy
knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information
and religions destroy spirituality" ....Michael Ellner
Go to Top of Page

sich

1 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2006 :  08:29:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi all
In the case of child we have to take extra efforts in the bird flu infection. A leaflet by the Welsh Assembly Government on flu jabs for children stated that thiomersal free vaccines should be given and were preferable but one containing thiomersal could be given if a thiomersal free one was not available. And the proper solution of bird flu infection is tamiflu drug for more information visit here -
http://www.drugdelivery.ca/s3353-s-tamiflu.aspx it has less side effects.
Go to Top of Page

Kate

21 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2006 :  13:38:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks Jackie and Sheri. Really useful. For once I think really think I have made the right decision and not had her vaccinated.
The GPs/health visitors I have spoken to are quite unhappy to vaccinate babies and young children against flu. I spoke to my own GP who will usually vaccinate anything that comes through the door but he advised against it as well. This also seems to be the general feeling I have got from anything I have read.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05