Va. teen suffers rare illness (GBS) after swine flu shot ~ CDC says "no clear link."

[mzmolly]

A 14-year-old Virginia boy is weak and struggling to walk after coming down with a reported case of Guillain-Barre syndrome within hours after receiving the H1N1 vaccine for swine flu.

Jordan McFarland, a high school athlete from Alexandria, Va., left Inova Fairfax Hospital for Children Tuesday night in a wheelchair nearly a week after developing severe headaches, muscle spasms and weakness in his legs following a swine flu shot. He will likely need the assistance of a walker for four to six weeks, plus extensive physical therapy.

“The doctor said I’ll recover fully, but it’s going to take some time,” the teenager said.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Jordan is among the first people in the nation to report developing the potentially life-threatening muscle disorder after receiving the H1N1 vaccine this fall.

More at > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33845867/ns/health-cold_and_flu/

">MSNBC

[ccharles000]

1. how sad

[mzmolly]

4. Thankfully he's expected to fully

recover.

[BeatleBoot]

2. And over 4,000 people have died in the U.S.

because they didn't get the vaccine.

[mzmolly]

3. Not sure you can make that assertion?

The vaccine isn't even widely available yet. Not to mention it's not 100 effective.

[BeatleBoot]

5. Link

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/new-data-to-show-4000-us-deaths-from-swine-flu-/1


I got my shot last Saturday (Asthma).

[mzmolly]

6. That does not prove

any of the people involved would be alive if they were vaccinated. HOPEFULLY that is the case, but to assert as much is not accurate. Regardless, it negate the experience of those with severe reactions to vaccination.

[BeatleBoot]

9. I respect your personal decision and see your point.

But I'll guarantee you that there is a higher correlation (and even causation) between getting vaccinated and staying healthy than not.

[mzmolly]

15. That may be.

At least in the short term.

Peace

[LeftishBrit]

58. You seem to be trying to have it both ways...

You point out that not all of the people who died of swine flu would necessarily have been saved by vaccination; yet you seem to assume that all serious illnesses that followed vaccination were caused by the vaccination. If one can't prove the former, then one surely can't prove the latter either.

'That does not prove any of the people involved would be alive if they were vaccinated'

I will concede that it does not prove that *all* of them would be alive if they were vaccinated (given both that no vaccine is 100% effective, and that some of the patients who died already had serious underlying conditions). But surely, unless you are assuming that the vaccine is totally ineffective, you must conced that vaccination would probably have saved *some* of them?

[mzmolly]

97. I assume no such thing.

"yet you seem to assume that all serious illnesses that followed vaccination were caused by the vaccination."

Of course vaccines would have prevented some deaths, and YOU have to admit they would have CAUSED some as well. You also have to admit that we as a society appear to think it's worse to die from a virus than a vaccine.

I actually think that this IS a time when a vaccine is needed. I also feel that this vaccine was manufactured due to an actual need vs. a desire to simply profit. However, I wish we would stop dismissing legitimate concern, which prevents the manufacture of an even better product, along with greater confidence in said product.

I'm so tired of being told what we can discuss in regard to vaccination and what we can't.

[LeftishBrit]

108. I disagree that...

'we as a society think that it is worse to die from a virus than from a vaccine'. I think that we as a society are simply aware that a lot more people do die from viruses than from vaccines!

'Of course vaccines would have prevented some deaths, and YOU have to admit they would have CAUSED some as well'

But the numbers are not equal. Even if we assume that all of the deaths soon after vaccines are caused by the vaccine, the vaccines would have prevented far more deaths than they would have caused.

Of course, all deaths are tragic, and vaccines should be made as safe as possible, and people should be more carefully screened for underlying disorders that could make vaccines (as well as many other things) more dangerous.

'I actually think that this IS a time when a vaccine is needed. I also feel that this vaccine was manufactured due to an actual need vs. a desire to simply profit. However, I wish we would stop dismissing legitimate concern, which prevents the manufacture of an even better product, along with greater confidence in said product.'

I agree there.

'I'm so tired of being told what we can discuss in regard to vaccination and what we can't.'

I am not telling anyone what they can discuss! However, what bothers me in the whole debate (and I am not speaking of your posts) is that some people go way beyond concern about the side effects of certain vaccines and start arguing (or at least endorsing sites that argue) that

(1) governments should not make vaccines *available* to those who want them.

(2) government provision of health services is at best suspect, and at worse they are trying to kill us all, and that all who follow government-sponsored medical advice are 'sheeple'. Often the sites that endorse such views are in general hard-right-libertarian; sometimes even 'teabagger'-sponsored.

(3) there is something immoral in even wanting vaccines and other forms of modern medicine, and we should rely on our 'natural defenses'. Those who rely on medicines/ vaccines are either wimps who are seeking to avoid trivial pain, or they are responsible for their own lack of robust health because they have failed to lead healthy lifestyles.

and/or

(4) Anyone who supports vaccines must be doing so, not out of an honest belief that they work or are necessary, but out of a desire to see 'Pharma' profit, if not actual shilling. This can sometimes come across as "It is wrong for you to get vaccines because it could make the bad guys profit!"

As I said, I am *not* saying that *you* say these things, but they *are* expressed on the board, and they can be so threatening to those of us who rely on modern medicine for survival, or have family who do, that it may lead to our sounding more gung-ho than we really intend to be. I do worry about side effects of all medicines; I do think medicines should be made as safe as possible; my doctor who has had to listen to all my concerns and postponements about various treatments would be very surprised to see me regarded as an uncritical and unquestioning 'vax-to-the-maxer' or pill-taker. However: I will defend the *right* to government-provided medicines and vaccines against the concept that government medicine is dangerous, that people should rely on their 'natural defenses' or that the use of far-right sources is ever justifiable. And no, these are not strawmen; they have come up on the board on numerous occasions.

[mzmolly]

112. When people die as a result of an illness

we have a collective sympathy. When we have a vaccine reaction that leads to death, and some wish to examine it, what we hear is "vaccines cause less death than virus's do". That's not compassionate or fair is it? Shouldn't we ALL ask why some people die or have severe reactions to vaccines? Shouldn't we be honest about the cost of the so called one size fits all policy? Shouldn't we express some intellectual curiosity vs. brush every reaction under the "sh*t happens" rug?

I will agree with you that extremism exists on this board, but I suggest that both sides of this debate have their fanatics.

Peace

[Chemisse]

117. I completely agree with you Molly, about the extremism

Whenever this subject comes up it is as though people are responding to phantom posters who are endorsing pseudo-science. It doesn't matter what you say, if you are introducing anything contrary to 'all vaccines are utopian', you push these buttons and people just turn the criticism on.

It's rather like censorship. No discussion along those lines is tolerated - period.

I personally think the chances of getting GB or some other dire consequence from the swine flu vaccine are much, much smaller than the already tiny chance of dying from the flu itself. But I really don't see the need to get angry about it. I think it's fun to talk about.

[mzmolly]

122. "It's rather like censorship. No discussion along those lines is tolerated - period."

Exactly right!

[Confusious]

132. Vaccine odds

10 million doses, 6 problems = 10 million to 6

Chance of getting hit by lightning = 5000 to 1

I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning.

[mzmolly]

137. Do you have some kind of link?

I tend to doubt your numbers.

[Confusious]

141. Since your so lazy.........

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_odds_of_being_struck_by_lightning

According to the U.S. National Weather Service, the odds of being struck by lightning -- in your lifetime -- are 1 in 5,000.

The odds of being struck in any given year: 1 in 700,000


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/29/60minutes/main5451803_page4.shtml

Asked if they have found any serious side effects related to the vaccine, Gellin told Pelley, "We're looking hard and we haven't seen anything like that yet."

"Nothing yet? Out of ten million doses?" Pelley asked.

"Out of 10 million doses," Gellin said.

But what could I expect? real digging into causes requires work, which you didn't want to do. That explains alot.

[mzmolly]

143. Lazy? This from the person who hasn't bothered to read the OP?

I wasn't asking for a link about lightening, but I expect you knew that?

I'll take your non answer to mean that you haven't anything substantial to back up your assertion about the vaccine. Thanks for the "lazy" response.

[Confusious]

145. Well, you said you doubted my numbers

the numbers I gave in the post were odds. Changing goalposts?

You didn't want to look them up, what am I to think?

I gave a like to the number of injections given, I didn't expect you to argue with the 6 number, unless that was the number you doubted but then if you think there are more, you're asking me to prove something which is impossible to prove unless you want numbers made up, which would be a lie. I go on reported cases.

Another thing - a vaccine is a dead virus. You can't just "make up" a new vaccine like a drug.

And I did read the OP.

[mzmolly]

147. The burden of proof is yours. And you've failed once again.

:hi:

[Confusious]

148. You can lead an anti-vaxxers to facts

But they won't believe anything other then what they want, whether or not it's the truth .

So Sad.

[mzmolly]

150. When you lead anyone to them facts you speak about

you might have a point.

Sad, indeed.

[Confusious]

152. My point proven

Thank you.

[mzmolly]

153. Ah

nope. :hi:

[Confusious]

155. yep.....

And it becomes more and more clear.

[mzmolly]

156. Nah, but thanks for kicking the

thread. :hi:

[Confusious]

159. Np, I hope it stays here to show

Just how stubborn and resistant to facts people like you are, and when you feel like you're losing, you change the argument.

A real eye opener for people, and maybe change a few minds, away from you I might add.

[mzmolly]

160. You've presented nothing resembling fact. I asked you to back up your assertion

on the number of reactions to the H1N1 vaccine that you made here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=76501&mesg_id=77012

You have not done so. You can't, because the data is not in.

[Why Syzygy]

8. Les'see

If they DON'T get the shot, get sick, possibly die, it is because they DID NOT get the shot.
If they GET the shot, get sick, possibly die, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the shot.

That about cover it? Cake and eat too?

[BeatleBoot]

11. Let's See. How many people have died from GBS versus H1N1?

GBS = 25

H1N1 = 4,000


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/earlyshow/health/main5246940.shtml



But hey, life in general is a crap shoot.

I'll play the odds.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. And for those who won't even bother to read your link...

""This is actually less than -- or at most equal to -- the expected rate of this disease in the general population," Ashton told CBS News. "It is a difficult determination to make with 100 percent certainty, but for the people who were affected, and who thought it was due to the vaccine, obviously it was devastating." "

[BeatleBoot]

13. I got the shot because

My doctor told me that I must. He demanded it.

Asthma. Don't know if you know what it's like, but that TV commercial with the goldfish flopping around outside of it's tank. It's like that at times.

And H1N1 hits the respiratory system first.

It was a no brainer for me to get the shot.

I work with people who have kids and some of them are not letting them be vaccinated. While it breaks my heart personally, it's their decision and I am not a "butt-in-ski".

[Warren Stupidity]

14. I only butt-in when teh stupid shows up here.

Yes of course it is up to each individual how to handle this, I just hope decisions are not made based on media-induced fear-mongering propagated by the anti-vaccination crowd.

[mzmolly]

18. So MSNBC is now teh stupid?

:eyes: What's "stupid" is pretending that no one is ever injured from any vaccine, ever.

[uppityperson]

28. And WHO is saying "no one is ever injured from any vaccine, ever"?

I'd like to see a link to a post saying that (and not a sarcastic one). And yes, people taking "no clear link" for "OMG! THEY SAID NO LNK SO THERE MUST BE A LINK!!!!!" are teh stupid.

[mzmolly]

30. What some say is essentially what I noted. And, it is also suggested that we NEVER

discuss vaccine injury when it happens! If we do, we're "teh stupid."

Also I would ask YOU to provide PROOF of this assertion: "OMG! THEY SAID NO LNK SO THERE MUST BE A LINK!!!!!" WHO said this?

[Confusious]

146. We think its stupid to discuss

Because the odds for most vaccines are so low, your better off discussing getting hit by lightning, getting injured in a car accident, or falling out of the sky in an airplane.

[mzmolly]

151. 1/700000 = the odds of getting struck by lightening. 1 in 1000 doses

are the odds of having a reaction to vaccine.

[Chemisse]

118. That is exactly what I mean!

About talking to a psuedo-poster - some fear mongering anti-vaccine person. Who is that here? Are you just continuing some argument on some other thread?

Why would you call someone stupid for posting something that concerns her? Why not talk about it sensibly? There is plenty of logic to back you up - why act to censor the discussion?

[LeftishBrit]

94. Supposing even that we assume...

that all deaths shortly after the vaccine were caused by the vaccine, and that only half of the deaths caused by swine flu would have been prevented by the vaccine - that would *still* be many more people dying from not having the vaccine than from having it.

[mzmolly]

99. Why not assume that we could actually prevent vaccine

related deaths by figuring out why they happen and who they're likely to happen to?

[LeftishBrit]

102. Actually that wouldn't be a bad idea...

A certain amount is known already. People who are already ill, or suffering from immunity problems, should avoid certain vaccines - as they should also avoid exposure to infections. Better and quicker diagnosis of underlying health problems would probably prevent a large proportion of the relatively few but tragic vaccine-related deaths - as well as of many other unnecessary deaths of people whose illnesses and vulnerabilities are not recognized.

[mzmolly]

106. That's all I ask

LeftishBrit. Let's honestly discuss what happens and find out as much as we can about why. I would like us to explore more about these issues given we're told essentially, that we all must take part in this particular intervention.

[Chemisse]

119. The whole GB reaction - if it is valid

And not just due to the natural incidence of the disease, smacks of autoimmune reaction to an antigen - in this case the flu vaccine.

Why would someone react in that way to a vaccine and not to the disease itself? Since we have so much trouble with autoimmune diseases at this time, intensive research in this area would be very helpful.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. The OP left this out:

"So far, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have received five reports of GBS in people who received the H1N1 vaccine since Oct. 6, not including Jordan’s case, said Dr. Claudia J. Vellozzi, deputy director for immunization safety.

Out of about 40 million doses of H1N1 vaccine available to date, that’s a far lower rate of GBS than the 1 case that develops in every 1 million people who receive the regular flu vaccine."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33845867/ns/health-cold_and_flu/%20/div

And both MSNBC and the OP appear to be ignorant of this:

"Guillain-Barre syndrome is a rare disorder; its frequency is about 1 to 2 cases in every 100,000 people per year in the United States."
http://www.neurologychannel.com/guillain/index.shtml


Ooops. Given the data so far, the H1N1 vaccine might actually lessen your chance of coming down with GBS, but heck don't let the facts get in the way of a good scare.

[BeatleBoot]

10. Thank you.

[HuckleB]

16. Very good point.

[mzmolly]

17. The "OP" can post only four paragraphs

per DU rules. ;) I posted the first four. However, one has to consider the number of people exposed to H1N1 in order to contrast that figure to the 40 million you note. Also, I'm not sure who's trying to scare people? I posted the fact that the boy is expected to fully recover, remember?

Apparently it's only ok "scare" people about H1N1?

[Jim__]

21. A couple of notes.

You state:

And both MSNBC and the OP appear to be ignorant of this:

"Guillain-Barre syndrome is a rare disorder; its frequency is about 1 to 2 cases in every 100,000 people per year in the United States."

That's somewhat of a surprising statement given that the article referenced in the OP states:

“We know that GBS and other illnesses occur routinely in the U.S.,” Vellozzi said, noting that 80 to 120 cases are diagnosed each week in the general population.

That's essentially the same as the number that you cite. No?


You also cite this statement:

Out of about 40 million doses of H1N1 vaccine available to date, that’s a far lower rate of GBS than the 1 case that develops in every 1 million people who receive the regular flu vaccine.

And, I'm not quite sure how to square that figure with the statement that GBS occurs in 1 to 2 people out of every 100,000 per year in the US. Is the flu shot a protection against GBS? well, according to the Mayo Clinic the flu shot is a trigger of GBS, a rare trigger, but still, I have to wonder how to take Vellozzi's statement that 1 in every 1 million who receive the flu shot get GBS. That would seem like a protection against GBS.

Guillain-Barre may be triggered by:

• Most commonly, infection with campylobacter, a type of bacteria often found in undercooked food, especially poultry
  
• Surgery
  
• Epstein-Barr virus
  
• Hodgkin's disease
  
• Mononucleosis
  
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
  
• Rarely, rabies or influenza immunizations
  

[ingac70]

19. No clear link my foot....

My uncle got a shot for the '76 swine flu and got GBS. Took years for him to recover.

[mzmolly]

20. Shhh, the only time there is a legitimate concern, is if disease

is the culprit. Remember that going forward! ;)

[HuckleB]

22. Please compare and contrast the vaccines from the 1970s with the vaccines today.

Thank you.

[ingac70]

23. Well, in comparison, both could cause Guillain-Barre syndrome.

In contrast the '76 swine flu vaccine killed more people than actually died from swine flu.

[HuckleB]

24. Gee, that's convincing.

:eyes:

[ingac70]

25. I don't know what you want from me....

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/20/2478

"Influenza vaccines have traditionally been made in chicken eggs, and Campylobacter is an endemic infection among chickens and a known cause of GBS"

[HuckleB]

26. A little intellectual honesty.

You clearly have not done any research into the differences between vaccines in the '70s and now.

[ingac70]

27. That research is pretty honest.

They are still made with chicken eggs. According to this paper, the difference between now and the '70s is better food safety, as instances of GBS have fallen of since the mid '90s.

Of course, if you would have read it, you would have already known that. ;-)

[HuckleB]

32. Yeah, so you finally looked up one piece of information on the matter...

... and you think that's all that's needed for intellectual honesty?

Seriously?

[ingac70]

33. Yeah, I do....

Campylobacter cause GBS. Campylobacter is in eggs. Flu vaccine is made using eggs. Pretty simple really.

[HuckleB]

36. In other words, you're choosing to make assumptions.

The scientific process does not matter to you.

Now I understand.

[ingac70]

37. ....

the bacteria is known to cause GBS and infects chickens. And what do the vaccines in the 70s and vaccines now have in common? They are made with chicken eggs!

Common sense trumps all.

Why don't you show me proof that what I've posted is wrong? Using the scientific process, of course!

[HuckleB]

38. Prove it.

And read up: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5071_Yin_Chapter_1.pdf

Oh, and try to remember that there is a difference between association and cause.

[ingac70]

39. I already did.

Read it.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/20/2478

[HuckleB]

40. That's one study among many.

And even that study is hardly conclusive.

Nevermind that you appear to be jumping from one thing to another with each post.

[ingac70]

41. I've been right on message the whole time.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565691_2

Campylobacter infection is a well-known cause of GBS.

[HuckleB]

44. You're on message all right.

Your science is wanting, however. You seem to think that you can post one anecdotal piece --- that doesn't necessarily match up with you last anecdotal piece or statement -- after another, and somehow that proves something that you want to believe.

Meanwhile association vs. causation does not seem to have entered your thought process.

PS -- http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/167892.php

PS II -- http://pandemicflu.bmj.com/resources/swine-flu-answers/does-vaccine-cause-guillain-barre-syndrome

[ingac70]

46. From yourlink....

"Vaccination (rabies or influenza immunizations) has also been linked to the onset of Guillain-Barré syndrome."

Mmmm, I wonder why? ;-)

Oh, and they use eggs to make the rabies vaccine, too.

[HuckleB]

48. Way to pull a line out of context.

I am done attempting to discuss anything with you. Intellectual honesty is clearly not a priority for you. Your obsession with eggs, while ignoring every other factor makes that clear alone.

[ingac70]

50. ....

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/21/1374

[HuckleB]

54. You really don't get it, do you?

Yes, there are lots of studies. Now why do you think that the scientific community does not conclude what you choose to conclude?

[mzmolly]

53. The Mayo does say this -

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/guillain-barre-syndrome/DS00413/DSECTION=risk-factors

* Most commonly, infection with campylobacter, a type of bacteria often found in undercooked food, especially poultry

If eggs are a factor, I wonder if something as simple as pasteurizing eggs might help in preventing GBS?

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118896541/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

:shrug:

[HuckleB]

55. From reading from various sources today, I'd say that's an opinion that's not universal.

There are no studies that show seasonal flu vaccines increasing the incidence (vs. the incidence in the population as a whole) of Guillaun-Barre since the H1N1 vaccine of the '70s. Knowing that, I don't get the point of all this theorizing.

[mzmolly]

64. HuckleB, take a look at this.

Paul Harasim (March 25, 2009). "Flu Shots: Vaccine decisions complex – But Nevada's health officer has no doubts what to do". Las Vegas Review-Journal. http://www.lvrj.com/news/45975417.html. "The 1978 book The Swine Flu Affair revealed that developing Guillain–Barré syndrome was about 11 times greater with the vaccination than without. Yet it noted that the risk was very low; about one in 105,000 who were vaccinated got it."

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain%E2%80%93Barr%C3%A9_syndrome#Influenza_vaccines_and_GBS

GBS may be a rare side-effect of influenza vaccines, with an incidence of about one case per million vaccinations.<11> There were indeed reports of GBS affecting about 500 people who had received swine flu immunizations in the 1976 U.S. outbreak of swine flu — 25 of which resulted in death from severe pulmonary complications, leading the government to end that immunization campaign<12>. However, the role of the vaccine in these cases has remained unclear, partly because GBS had an unknown but very low incidence rate in the general population making it difficult to assess whether the vaccine was really increasing the risk for GBS. Later research have concluded to the absence of or to very small increase in the GBS risk due to the 1976 swine flu vaccine<13>. Further, the GBS may not have been directly due to the vaccine but to a bacterial contamination of the vaccine.<14>

If this is as simple as say a bacteria, the solution might also be as simple as screening or as I said, pasteurization. If there were a greater scientific curiosity about this issue on the part of drug makers, or public health officials, we'd know the cause and we could take preventive measures. Instead we here "well it's rare, don't worry about it." I'm not personally greatly worried about GBS, but some people are and that doesn't make selling the public on vaccines, in the time of an emergency as easy as it could be.

[HuckleB]

68. Yeah.

Again, that's back to the 1976 vaccination program. What caused the problem has been looked into repeatedly, and it hasn't been figured out. However, that side effect has not been repeated since.

[mzmolly]

72. Some feel they've

figured it out apparently. I guess my question is why we haven't figured it out? If if is the bacteria, surely we COULD have found out if we actually tried. But, there is no incentive on the part of pharma given most people are comfortable rolling the dice it seems?

[HuckleB]

86. If it was as simple as the bacteria, then perhaps they would have figured it out.

Since the causes of GBS are still in question generally, that makes it even more difficult to assess.

[mzmolly]

98. The Mayo said the bacteria is the most common cause.

"Most commonly, infection with campylobacter, a type of bacteria often found in undercooked food, especially poultry"

Seems to me that this is not as much of a question as you presume?

[HuckleB]

105. Well, if that's what you want to go with, by all means, go with it.

Most reputable sources that I've found are not willing to make that claim. The evidence I've seen does not warrant making that claim, IMO.

[mzmolly]

111. The Mayo cites the CDC and others

in their references section. For example the CDC states:

http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/gbs.htm

"It is thought that GBS may be triggered by an infection. The infection that most commonly precedes GBS is caused by a bacterium called Campylobacter jejuni."

Also, "Raw eggs and egg products, and raw or unpasteurized milk are another source of Campylobacter bacteria."

http://simcoemuskokahealth.org/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/DiseaseInformation/CommunicableDiseaseFactSheets/Campylobacter.aspx

[HuckleB]

114. That does not mean that Mayo's conclusions are correct.

I can cite lots of studies, and I can still be wrong in my conclusion.

[mzmolly]

120. The CDC makes this claim.

As do others in the scientific community. Denying that it's true doesn't mean that you're correct, either Huck.

[HuckleB]

123. I don't see the CDC making any such claim.

Further, most of what I've seen in the scientific community makes no such claim. I'll go with the current consensus, which is that we don't know.

[mzmolly]

125. Then you didn't read my post #105 very carefully Huck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=76501&mesg_id=76711

From the CDC "The infection that most commonly precedes GBS is caused by a bacterium called Campylobacter jejuni." ~

http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/gbs.htm

[HuckleB]

126. Ah, yes, one little information piece, written by who knows...

And yet, none of that really matters, because this is all about what amounts to a bar room discussion of "theories" that don't have much to do with the real world of vaccines. This is a sideline, in other words. A distraction. And I'm tired of the distractions on this board.

Good night.

[mzmolly]

128. Oh c'mon.

The Mayo and the CDC both note the bacteria as being linked to GBS. This is actually positive info if true because the prevention may be quite simple.

Have a good night yourself Huck. :hi:

[HuckleB]

130. Yeah, that's nice.

But it has nothing to do with the vaccine. That's my point. If that caused the problem with the vaccine in 1976, that would have been an easy find. And the studies that have been done went much further into detail than something like that.

Good night. I am tired and cranky.

[mzmolly]

131. I have to say I disagree. I wish officials knew what caused the issue in 1976.

However, even if they do have an idea, we'd probably be spared the blunt truth? Especially given eggs are still used in vaccine production?

As for me, I'd feel better knowing what it was and then encouraging a solution. It's far more frightening to me to consider that we haven't a clue what the issue was with the 76 vaccine. If it's bacterial in nature, a quick antibiotic treatment may be preventive KWIM?

PS here is one study that makes a connection: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9665983

This article seems to suggest that the vaccine may be protective against the bacteria in some cases?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828628/

Like I say, answers are always a step forward.

Peace

[HuckleB]

134. Again, if eggs were the issue, the research that's been done would have found the problem.

Eggs have been used since, with no such correlation. It's time to let the "egg" controversy rest.

Cheers.

[mzmolly]

135. Do notify the CDC

and the Mayo quickly as they're apparently not as informed.

[HuckleB]

138. Is that really your response?

:-(

[mzmolly]

139. How about this. I just contacted Medimune, who makes the nasal H1N1

vax. I asked them about the bacteria in question. They said while they don't screen for any particular bacteria, they use an antibacterial/antibiotic in the vaccine called Gentamicin. As a consumer I am satisfied with this. That said, I have not called any other vax manufacturers to pose the same question.

Then again, the more I look into Gentamicin ... ;)

Take Care HuckleB.

[ingac70]

65. A pasteurized egg is a dead egg.

Eleven days after the eggs have been fertilized, the influenza virus is injected into the eggs and accumulates in the fluid surrounding the embryo.

The embryo becomes infected so that the virus can multiply. After several days of incubation, machines open the eggs and harvest the virus.

[mzmolly]

71. Ahhh,

well then, screening for the bacteria in question may be effective?

[ingac70]

73. Perhaps...

I seriously doubt they give enough of a shit to do that, especially if any of them have an attitude like HuckleB.

[mzmolly]

74. They wont give a shit if

we don't, that's for sure. That's what annoys me the most I guess. Many people would rather be dismissive than demand that valid questions be answered. As a consumer I want ANSWERS. And, I have the right to demand them given I'm paying the freaking bill. Doesn't mean I'll get anywhere, but I will keep asking questions. ;)

[ingac70]

77. I'll just do my best to avoid egg based vaccines....

until it is addressed. Of course, if I get bit by a rabid dog, I'll have no choice but take my chances with the vaccine... but for something like the flu, no way.

[mzmolly]

80. I hope to see more synthetic vaccines

in the future. That alone may address many potential issues.

[uppityperson]

89. Poor logic there. Here is more on gbs and campylobacter and other causes...

http://www.gbs-cidp.org/aboutgbs.htm
What Causes GBS?

The cause is not known. Perhaps 50% of cases occur shortly after a microbial (viral or bacterial) infection such as a sore throat or diarrhea. Some theories suggest an autoimmune mechanism, in which the patient's defense system of antibodies and white blood cells are triggered into damaging the nerve covering or insulation, leading to weakness and abnormal sensation.

http://www.gbs-cidp.org/newsletters/spring00gbsandcampylobacter.htm
About two-thirds of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) patients have a history of a preceding infection, usually an upper respiratory tract infection or gastroenteritis. A number of microorganisms, both bacterial and viral, have been implicated in GBS, and possible associations with Campylobacter jejuni, (C. jejuni), cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr (EB) virus and mycoplasma have been demonstrated in case-control studies. The frequency of C. jejuni infection is much higher in Japan than that in the USA or Europe. In contrast, GBS in Japan is associated less frequently with CMV infection than in western countries.

[mzmolly]

100. An auto immune reaction could also explain why some develop GBS

as a result of vaccination.

[uppityperson]

29. that was 1976 vaccine. this is a different one. Yes, they have changed vaccines since then

Different vaccine.

[mzmolly]

31. How have they changed the vaccine?

Other than the virus itself?

[ingac70]

35. It is a bacteria in chicken eggs (Campylobacter) that causes GBS....

and chicken eggs are used to make flu vaccines, even today. The only reason GBS isn't as bad as it was in the 70s is better food safety.

[HuckleB]

113. For starters...

From: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/171049.php

"Issues are raised about vaccine safety with comparisons made with the different vaccine administered in the USA in 1976. This is misleading. In 2003 the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in conjunction with the Irish Medicines Board and other European regulatory authorities introduced a procedure to prepare for future vaccines that could be used in a pandemic. These used 'mock-up' pandemic influenza vaccine which mimicked the future vaccine that would be used in terms of its composition, manufacturing and control and considered as identical to this vaccine except that it did not contain the material from the actual viral strain responsible for the pandemic. Since then there has been continuous review of animal and human studies with these mock-up vaccines on their safety and effectiveness. This has allowed for timely development of vaccines that are considered safe and effective for use in a pandemic without advanced knowledge of the viral strain responsible. Non-clinical and clinical testing is being done on an ongoing basis to provide information on immune response and safety. Outcomes from these studies completed to date indicate that the pandemic vaccine is as safe as the seasonal influenza vaccine, which is used every year in Ireland."

[mzmolly]

121. The article you posted touts the safety of mercury in vaccines as well.

But, thanks for the info.

[ingac70]

34. They still use eggs to make it....

and the bacteria that causes GBS, Campylobacter, is in eggs.

[mzmolly]

43. Interesting

thanks.

[HuckleB]

45. I disagree.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/167892.php

"The exact cause of Guillain-Barré syndrome is unclear. It is difficult determine who is most at risk. However, it is often preceded by an infectious illness such as a respiratory infection or stomach flu. It is likely that the infection causes the immune system to attack the body's own nerves. Fortunately, Guillain-Barré syndrome is relatively rare, affecting only 1 or 2 people per 100,000. It is slightly more common in men than women and can affect people of any age, including children."

On edit, another interesting bit: http://pandemicflu.bmj.com/resources/swine-flu-answers/does-vaccine-cause-guillain-barre-syndrome

Take care.

[ingac70]

49. ....

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/21/1374

[HuckleB]

56. What is the conclusion of that single study?

And how do you apply it to the rest of what you've posted?

[ingac70]

60. What happened to....

"I am done attempting to discuss anything with you. Intellectual honesty is clearly not a priority for you. Your obsession with eggs, while ignoring every other factor makes that clear alone."

I wasn't even addressing you in this thread. I was posting links for mzmolly.

[HuckleB]

62. Thanks for proving that your only point in being here is to play games.

[HuckleB]

115. Again, you make a big assumption about campylobacter, all by itself.

And you make an even bigger assumption in thinking that campylobacter had anything to do with the GBS cases related to the 1976 vaccine.

Further From: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/171049.php

"Issues are raised about vaccine safety with comparisons made with the different vaccine administered in the USA in 1976. This is misleading. In 2003 the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in conjunction with the Irish Medicines Board and other European regulatory authorities introduced a procedure to prepare for future vaccines that could be used in a pandemic. These used 'mock-up' pandemic influenza vaccine which mimicked the future vaccine that would be used in terms of its composition, manufacturing and control and considered as identical to this vaccine except that it did not contain the material from the actual viral strain responsible for the pandemic. Since then there has been continuous review of animal and human studies with these mock-up vaccines on their safety and effectiveness. This has allowed for timely development of vaccines that are considered safe and effective for use in a pandemic without advanced knowledge of the viral strain responsible. Non-clinical and clinical testing is being done on an ongoing basis to provide information on immune response and safety. Outcomes from these studies completed to date indicate that the pandemic vaccine is as safe as the seasonal influenza vaccine, which is used every year in Ireland."

[SidDithers]

59. '76 vaccine != '09 vaccine...nt

Sid

[ingac70]

61. Not really...

but both are made with chicken eggs...

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/20/2478

[SidDithers]

66. Are you suggesting chicken eggs cause GBS?...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19388722

Our review indicates that, with rare exceptions, associations between vaccines and GBS have been only temporal. There is little evidence to support a causal association with most vaccines. The evidence for a causal association is strongest for the swine influenza vaccine that was used in 1976-77. Studies of influenza vaccines used in subsequent years, however, have found small or no increased risk of GBS.

Sid

[ingac70]

69. Campylobacter causes GBS...

Campylobacter is found in chicken eggs. Flu vaccine is made with eggs.

[uppityperson]

87. MANY things cause GBS, including cdiff and "wtf".

Your "logic" isn't.
High cholesterol causes arteriosclerosis. Cholesterol is found in chicken eggs. Flu vaccine is made with eggs. Flu vaccine causes arteriosclerosis.

Cdiff causes GBS (have a friend who was paralyzed with gbs after severe diarrhea from cdiff). There are many triggers for GBS, including unknown aka "wtf".

[ingac70]

90. .....

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/20/2478

[uppityperson]

93. here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=76501&mesg_id=76673

You still have poor logic

[mzmolly]

101. The Mayo indicates that the bacteria in question is the most common

cause.

"Most commonly, infection with campylobacter, a type of bacteria often found in undercooked food, especially poultry"

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/guillain-barre-syndrome/DS00413/DSECTION=risk-factors

[HuckleB]

91. Exactly.

Alas, I don't think your point is going to be heard.

[HuckleB]

63. It's amazing how many people had a relative who got GBS in 1976.

Especially considering how few people actually got GBS.

Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-1007.htm

[ingac70]

75. And how many people have told you that?

My uncle was in a wheel chair for over a year, but thanks for calling me a liar.

[HuckleB]

81. You can make whatever assumptions you want to make.

I've seen dozens of such claims this Fall.

[uppityperson]

88. It's amazing how many people were priestesses or shamens in past lives.

[HuckleB]

92. No doubt about it.

[uppityperson]

95. I did a past life regerssion once, many yrs back, got looked at funny when I came up with only

being a slave when everyone else was a priestess or shamen. Oh well.

[HuckleB]

104. Hmmm.

I was probably some ditch digging sap who died from an overdose of homeopathic medicine.

[conscious evolution]

157. My father caught it

Two days after having the vaccination.
One of the worst cases on record to survive it,too.100% paralysis.Was in ICU for several months on a respirator.Took years to get over it.Still has numbness in his forearms from it.
His records are used in at least two medical schools as case studies.
All this and his bill was only a little over $300,000.:shrug:

[HuckleB]

42. Don’t Blame Flu Shots for All Ills, Officials Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/health/policy/28vaccine.html

I do have a hard time with the press sensationalizing stories such as this.

Cheers.

[mzmolly]

47. Would be nice if the same officials would actually investigate

the matter?

[HuckleB]

51. Should we investigate every illness that pops up?

With what resources?

People get sick. We know that. Sometimes they get sick right after they go to the grocery store. Sometimes they get sick right after they see a bad movie. Sometimes they get sick right after they get a promotion. Sometimes they get sick right after they rake the leaves. Sometimes they get sick after they get a vaccination.

I don't see how anecdotes pushed forth by a news media focused on entertainment helps any of that. It was interesting to see the part in the NYT article where Cronkite criticized the press in the '70s for hyping the issue then.

[mzmolly]

67. When people die, from like causes after a particular intervention, YES.

Heck tax vaccines to pay for various scientific inquiry, if we have to.

On the one hand people here say "how dare you suggest we deny vaccines can have serious side effects" and on the other hand we have people comparing likely reactions to a trip to the grocery store.

[HuckleB]

70. I really don't know what you want to be done.

It's not like these issues aren't already studied.

[mzmolly]

76. As I've said

screening for the bacteria might be of help? Especially when we have a case like the one above. Trace the lot and screen for the bacteria in question. Rule it out as a cause, or not. That's what I'd like to see.

[HuckleB]

82. Screening for the bacteria when?

[mzmolly]

83. I don't much care

when.

[ingac70]

84. It should be part of the quality control process. n/t

[HuckleB]

85. So how do you know that it isn't already done?

[mzmolly]

96. I can't find any indication that is is.

You?

[HuckleB]

103. I can't see how a vaccine would be created without such quality controls.

http://www.who.int/immunization_safety/monitoring/en/

http://www.who.int/immunization_safety/en/

I think it's hard to find something that specific, because one would likely have to find the small print details of quality control.

[mzmolly]

107. I'll tell you what, I'll try to reach the manufacturer(s)

and find out next week. :hi:

[HuckleB]

109. Well, ok then.

Enjoy the weekend.

[mzmolly]

110. You as well.

:hi:

[ingac70]

52. They can't....

because people would stop getting vaccinated all together if they new the truth, even though chances are low something really bad will happen.

I refuse to get a regular seasonal flu shot after being the sickest I have ever been (though not deathly sick or disabled, thank goodness) after getting one 10 years ago. I usually don't get sick, but my workplace was handing them out for free and encouraging it. Never again.

[HuckleB]

57. People do know the truth.

And they still get vaccines. Most people can make a logical risk vs. benefit analysis.

[mzmolly]

78. I'd be more likely to be vaccinated if they would take precautionary measures.

I'd have more confidence in the system, period if drug makers expressed any desire to find answers in cases like this. IF they find the bacteria is an issue, for example, they'd probably find a simple solution. What I don't think they realize is that it would help their bottom line, ultimately.

[tiptoe]

79. There's an apparent *additional* approach for protection against H1N1:

True, the odds are less than 1-in-1000 the recent finding was just a chance occurrence, so use your own judgment in weighing risk-reward of boosting the innate immune system with vitamin D3 and the same with vaccinating to boost the adaptive immune system...likewise with boosting both immune systems, as Dr. John Cannell advised back in May 2009 "to be fully armed, with both Vitamin D and the best modern conventional medicine has to offer" before the September finding.

Also, aside from apparent protection against H1N1, there seem other benefits of maintaining wellness with vitamin D.

 

[HuckleB]

116. From before the trials began. This shows the differences in surveillance between 1976 and today.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=629120

[mzmolly]

124. Did you see this part?

"We won't know that the vaccine is safe until it's given to large numbers of people," said Dr. Scott R. Lilli bridge, a professor at the Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Rural Public Health in Houston and executive director of the National Center for Emergency Medical Preparedness and Response. "Every vaccine has a trade-off and a safety profile."

... and this? ...

"All vaccine decisions are made under tremendous uncertainty, Lips itch said, and the current situation is no exception."

So good to see honesty in this health policy debate. As a parent, I appreciate it and am far more inclined to trust common sense forthright commentary, than the pro-pharma clap trap that generally accompanies any discussion about vaccines.

[HuckleB]

127. Yes.

But I take that as part of the whole. THE WHOLE! The full picture.

I'm tired of going off on tangents, without context. I really have no more patience for that type of discussion.

[mzmolly]

129. As do I. And, I appreciate an honest look at the big vaccine picture.

It's all to rare, frankly.

Peace :hi:

[LeftishBrit]

133. What really bothers me...

is the framing of the whole vaccine debate as 'pro-pharma' or 'anti-pharma'.

I don't want vaccines to be available because I am 'pro-pharma' or want them to make a profit. I just want vaccines and other medications to be available to protect the health of the many vulnerable people who are incapable of just 'relying on natural defenses'. If this could be done with as little involvement of any sort of big business as possible - all the better! But it should be done in whatever way is possible. Healthcare for vulnerable people is more important than either helping pharma companies to make a profit, or preventing them from making a profit.

It is very like the way that opponents of welfare benefits, or of public services provision, reframe the debate in terms of the supporters of such provisions as 'pro-big-government' and the projects that they support as 'spending projects'. Few people want 'big government' for its own sake, and even fewer want 'spending' for its own sake. They want the universal provision of public services to help all the people, not just the rich; and welfare benefits to prevent or alleviate poverty. But once such issues get framed as being 'pro-pharma' or 'pro-big-government' or 'pro-spending', it results in losing sight of people's real needs and diverting attention to financial concerns of 'who profits'. 'Who profits' is an important *secondary* concern; it is important to ensure that pharma, and insurance companies, and other businesses, and government officials, do not profit at the expense of the public, so that as much as possible goes to those who really need the medical procedures or other public services. But talking about vaccine support as 'pro-pharma' basically implies: "Vaccines must be no good *because* bad guys can profit from them" or even "It is better than you should drop dead than undergo a medical procedure that might benefit bad guys".

Financial concerns should not be the top issue in the vaccine debate - in either direction.

[mzmolly]

136. What about the anti-vaccine framing?

That's why I use the term "pro-pharma" - it's a sarcastic rebuttal.

I want vaccines available to everyone who wants them and I want my well thought out decision to be respected if I choose to opt out. The problem I have is with the contrary claims 1. vaccines are highly effective yet 2. if not everyone engages we're doomed. BOTH can't be true.

[LeftishBrit]

154. I don't usually use the term 'anti-vaccine' unless I am referring to a person or group that

explicitly claims to oppose vaccines in general.


'I want vaccines available to everyone who wants them and I want my well thought out decision to be respected if I choose to opt out.'

My view too. But if governments don't provide vaccines, then they will not be available to all who want them.

'the contrary claims 1. vaccines are highly effective yet 2. if not everyone engages we're doomed. BOTH can't be true.'

Well, I would not say that 'we're doomed' if not everyone engages. I am, at least in the vast majority of cases, NOT in favour of mandates. However there are two issues:

(1) Vaccines are not 100 per cent effective, and some are more effective than others. Therefore vaccinated people have *some* chance of catching the disease, even if a tiny one. Therefore, in order to prevent anyone from catching the disease, a certain percentage of people need to be vaccinated. The necessary percentage will vary with the level of effectiveness of a particular vaccine, and also with the natural frequency of the disease.

(2) Not everyone can be vaccinated. Some vaccinations can only be given to those over a certain age. Some cannot be given to people with immune disorders, or taking medications that suppress immunity. Some people cannot have certain vaccines due to an egg allergy. Etc. Often the people who cannot be vaccinated are also those who are most vulnerable to the diseases themselves, so that it is particularly important that their chances of exposure are reduced.

In any case, I don't really mind whether someone else chooses to be vaccinated, so long as they don't deny *others* their right to vaccination.

The things that do bother me are:

(1) The assumption that certain disorders must be due to vaccines, and that any evidence to the contrary must be the result of suppression by 'pharma', can actually interfere with research into other causes. This involves autism first and foremost, but also some other disorders, one of which *I have* (Crohns disease), so I have personal as well as social reasons to be concerned about diversion of research resources.

(2) The implication that comes up from time to time that people who want or need to have vaccines, or in some cases *any* form of conventional medicine, are either corrupted by 'Big Pharma', or are wimps who are relying on drugs and vaccines instead of taking responsibility for keeping healthy by proper diet and lifestyle. This has a lot of parallels with the right-wing view that people who are poor and need welfare benefits are spongers who are not taking responsibility for earning a living. I find both types of view distressingly harsh and unjust to many.

(3) Closely related to (2): the implication that right-wing people, views and sources are acceptable if they oppose or question certain vaccines. I would never knowingly quote a right-wing source in SUPPORT of vaccines, and I think that the most important thing is to be united in opposition to all that is right-wing. The Right, especially the hard ('teabagger'-type) Right is a disease more dangerous than most infectious diseases or any vaccines.

[mzmolly]

158. I've heard all the arguments for mass vaccination before.

I believe that if vaccines are safe and effective, we should not have to bully the population into getting them. They will sell themselves.

I too want the government involved. Far more appealing to me than simply leaving it to private industry. I think the H1N1 vaccine, is an example of creating a vaccine due to potential demand vs. creating a seeming demand for vaccination.

[LeftishBrit]

161. If they are made universally available and free...

then the problem of 'bullying' vs 'selling' is largely removed. Most people will get them.

[mzmolly]

162. Over 90% of the US population is in compliance.

But I'd love to see profit removed from all medicinal intervention, regardless. :hi:

[Christa]

140. I got GBS in 1976 from the swine flue vaccine

I almost died, was on a ventilator for 6 weeks, two full months in ICU and another month in hospital. I could not even swallow or close my eyes the first month.

I refused the vaccine this time.









there is no god and I am his prophet.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

142. my friends dad got the swine flu shot back then

He was a very healthy farmer until he got that shot.

He became bedridden shortly after.

[mzmolly]

144. Oh my,

I'm so sorry.

[HuckleB]

149. WHO Update Re: Safety of Pandemic Vaccines

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11684:who-update-re-safety-of-pandemic-vaccines&catid=88888984:h1n1-virus-swine-flu&Itemid=88890169

"To date, fewer than ten suspected cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome have been reported in people who have received vaccine. These numbers are in line with normal background rates of this illness, as reported in a recent study. Nonetheless, all such cases are being investigated to determine whether these are randomly occurring events or if they might be associated with vaccination."