-
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
-
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
Swine Flu 1976 & Propaganda
- Thread starter louis
- Start date
the doctor
Retired 2010
Re: Swine Flu 1976 & Propaganda
There was no way that the makers of the 1976 H1N1 vaccine could have known that it would result in the very rare and severe neurological adverse event of GB. The same will be true with the novel H1N1 vaccine when it is available this fall.
Why, while there were 500 cases counted of GB in the US among the 39,000,000 people who were vaccinated, this represents a very small number of cases. 500/39 MM = 1.3 cases in every 100,000 people vaccinated.
If we had the usual time to test both the efficacy and safety of the 1976 or coming novel H1N1 vaccine it would require several months at a minimum and be conducted in less than 10,000 people. Given the very low incidence of the GB events, there would have been only a 1 in 10 chance of seeing even a single case of GB in these studies if done in 1976 prior to the vaccines release. So, there was a 90% chance that even if that vaccine or indeed the new novel H1N1 vaccine were fully tested according to standing US FDA protocols, GB would not have been detected.
What is important to bear in mind about this issue is the risk vs benefit of the use of an efficacious vaccine for the person given it. For instance, the 1976 H1N1 pandemic did not develop because there was sufficient heard immunity present among those aged 20 and over to keep the transmission rate among the population low. What's more, vaccinating another 39,000,000 people in the US extended herd immunity considerably further especially to the extent those receiving it were under age 20 for which the 1976 strain was a new virus. The US population was 150,000,000 at that time so the vaccine program reached 26% of all living Americans.
The combination of the 26% of the pop vaccinated in 1976 together with the herd immunity due to natural H1N1 infections occurring prior to 1957 can easily be expected to have pushed the percentage of the pop with some form of immunity to the magic >50% level where pandemics can not tread well.
We had no pandemic in 1976 and and the US CDC and drug makers took the hit. But in retrospect it is very possible that if they did not take the expedited action they did, we could have had one. We will never know who lived as a result of the 1976 flu vaccine. We do know who died and made disabled from it and that's the rub.
There are no free lunches any where including in medicine. There will be unexpected as well as expected adverse reactions to the novel flu vaccine, of this we can be certain. What else is certain though, IMO that if the novel strain becomes really ugly and it could, those accepting the vaccine will be much better off than those rejecting it.
A good example is the MMR vaccine for measles mumps and rubella. We know from years of experience with naturally occurring measles 1 in 1000 kids will die from it or have terrible and permanent disabilities including brain damage from measles cerebritis. Regrettably, those vaccinated for measles have these same reactions but the rate is 1 in 1,000,000. For the 1 in a million with these terrible side effects of vaccination and their families and friends this is a great tragedy. But consider the 999 children in a million kids and their families who were spared these awful consequences of the natural measles.
The risk vs benefit calculation is pretty clear here. For every million kids given the vaccine, 1 will suffer instead of 1000. While not great, that is, IMO the kind of trade off that makes great sense and is one that is both ethical and moral. That does not make it acceptable for the 1 who gets the side effect and medical researchers are working on ways to try and reduce its rate further but this has proven to be very tough.
As stated, there is no free lunch and there are always risks with drugs and vaccines. What is the key though is not to focus on the 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000 who have to pay the lunch bill for all the rest. What is important to also consider is in the case of measles for instance, the 999 kids that did not.
Grattan Woodson, MD
There was no way that the makers of the 1976 H1N1 vaccine could have known that it would result in the very rare and severe neurological adverse event of GB. The same will be true with the novel H1N1 vaccine when it is available this fall.
Why, while there were 500 cases counted of GB in the US among the 39,000,000 people who were vaccinated, this represents a very small number of cases. 500/39 MM = 1.3 cases in every 100,000 people vaccinated.
If we had the usual time to test both the efficacy and safety of the 1976 or coming novel H1N1 vaccine it would require several months at a minimum and be conducted in less than 10,000 people. Given the very low incidence of the GB events, there would have been only a 1 in 10 chance of seeing even a single case of GB in these studies if done in 1976 prior to the vaccines release. So, there was a 90% chance that even if that vaccine or indeed the new novel H1N1 vaccine were fully tested according to standing US FDA protocols, GB would not have been detected.
What is important to bear in mind about this issue is the risk vs benefit of the use of an efficacious vaccine for the person given it. For instance, the 1976 H1N1 pandemic did not develop because there was sufficient heard immunity present among those aged 20 and over to keep the transmission rate among the population low. What's more, vaccinating another 39,000,000 people in the US extended herd immunity considerably further especially to the extent those receiving it were under age 20 for which the 1976 strain was a new virus. The US population was 150,000,000 at that time so the vaccine program reached 26% of all living Americans.
The combination of the 26% of the pop vaccinated in 1976 together with the herd immunity due to natural H1N1 infections occurring prior to 1957 can easily be expected to have pushed the percentage of the pop with some form of immunity to the magic >50% level where pandemics can not tread well.
We had no pandemic in 1976 and and the US CDC and drug makers took the hit. But in retrospect it is very possible that if they did not take the expedited action they did, we could have had one. We will never know who lived as a result of the 1976 flu vaccine. We do know who died and made disabled from it and that's the rub.
There are no free lunches any where including in medicine. There will be unexpected as well as expected adverse reactions to the novel flu vaccine, of this we can be certain. What else is certain though, IMO that if the novel strain becomes really ugly and it could, those accepting the vaccine will be much better off than those rejecting it.
A good example is the MMR vaccine for measles mumps and rubella. We know from years of experience with naturally occurring measles 1 in 1000 kids will die from it or have terrible and permanent disabilities including brain damage from measles cerebritis. Regrettably, those vaccinated for measles have these same reactions but the rate is 1 in 1,000,000. For the 1 in a million with these terrible side effects of vaccination and their families and friends this is a great tragedy. But consider the 999 children in a million kids and their families who were spared these awful consequences of the natural measles.
The risk vs benefit calculation is pretty clear here. For every million kids given the vaccine, 1 will suffer instead of 1000. While not great, that is, IMO the kind of trade off that makes great sense and is one that is both ethical and moral. That does not make it acceptable for the 1 who gets the side effect and medical researchers are working on ways to try and reduce its rate further but this has proven to be very tough.
As stated, there is no free lunch and there are always risks with drugs and vaccines. What is the key though is not to focus on the 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000 who have to pay the lunch bill for all the rest. What is important to also consider is in the case of measles for instance, the 999 kids that did not.
Grattan Woodson, MD
the doctor
Retired 2010
Re: Swine Flu 1976 & Propaganda
I just watched the 60 Minutes video and will update my statistics for cases of neuro complications seen after the vaccination program.
46,000,000 were vaccinated not 39,000,000
4000 people filed claims.
If all the claims were valid that means that the incidence rate for a serious adverse event from the vaccine was 1 in 10,000 not 1 in 100,000 as I posted above.
IMO though, even is all these claims were true cases, the comments and conclusions made in my post remain valid.
Grattan Woodson, MD
I just watched the 60 Minutes video and will update my statistics for cases of neuro complications seen after the vaccination program.
46,000,000 were vaccinated not 39,000,000
4000 people filed claims.
If all the claims were valid that means that the incidence rate for a serious adverse event from the vaccine was 1 in 10,000 not 1 in 100,000 as I posted above.
IMO though, even is all these claims were true cases, the comments and conclusions made in my post remain valid.
Grattan Woodson, MD
Re: Swine Flu 1976 & Propaganda
"As stated, there is no free lunch and there are always risks with drugs and vaccines."
Your math may be correct, but the denying of the facts, for people to make there own decision is outright wrong here.
But maybe having arrived into the "information age" more and more will wake up to the massiv deceit of the last decades.
And no, if you can make a buck out of it there is virtually no conscience. Just the other week, the CEO of Novartis (with an estimated personal income of 40 million a year) said the company will under no circumstances give away any medicine for free to poorer nations ,arguing that what dos'nt cost anything is not valued in this world. Very strange, i am appalled to be a native citizen living in the same town as him !!
"As stated, there is no free lunch and there are always risks with drugs and vaccines."
Your math may be correct, but the denying of the facts, for people to make there own decision is outright wrong here.
But maybe having arrived into the "information age" more and more will wake up to the massiv deceit of the last decades.
And no, if you can make a buck out of it there is virtually no conscience. Just the other week, the CEO of Novartis (with an estimated personal income of 40 million a year) said the company will under no circumstances give away any medicine for free to poorer nations ,arguing that what dos'nt cost anything is not valued in this world. Very strange, i am appalled to be a native citizen living in the same town as him !!