Talk:Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination/Group A

From Opasnet
Jump to: navigation, search

Pandemrix should not be used because of narcolepsy risk

Jacob, Enembe

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Pandemrix should not be used any more anywhere because its narcolepsy risk is too high. NOTE! The time of the statement is September 2010.

Closing statement: Not accepted because benefits are clear and risks small and uncertain.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

⇤--J1: . Despite risks, Pandemrix is an effective vaccine and has clearly net positive effects in countries where emergency treatment is poorly available for severe swine flu cases. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--A1: . According to EMA, data received so far is still insufficient to establish a causal relationship between Pandemrix and narcolepsy. One possible explanation for the results is that Pandemrix could interact with unknown local environmental and/or genetic factor in contributing to the increased risk of narcolepsy among the vaccinated population aged 4 to 19 years in Finland --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--A2: . The overall annual incidence of narcolepsy remained consistent with prevaccination scenarios. --Jacob Attipoe 11:22, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--A3a: . Even though a nine fold increase in narcolepsy was found in vaccinated population, the occurrence of narcolepsy was still very rare with this apparent increase. --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . This sounds like an attack, not defence, of the main statement. The same applies to A3b. --Jouni 07:05, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--A3b: . A number of different reasons may account for the observed rise in the incidence of narcolepsy namely: (H1N1) infection, vaccination, combined effect of infection and vaccination, or some other factor entirely. Infections have been documented as causing narcolepsy. --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . I divided your argument into two because the parts seem to be separate things. --Jouni 07:05, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
⇤--A4: . No similar increase in incidence of narcolepsy is reported in other Nordic countries. Canada has extensively used this type of vaccine with no evidence of increased risk for narcolepsy --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
----#: . Is this a defence of argument A3b rather an attack? --Jouni 07:05, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--A5: . As there is presently no swine flu epidemic in Finland, there is no immediate need for swine flu vaccination --Jacob Attipoe 11:18, 1 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--J2: . The reputation of Pandemrix is globally so poor that it is impossible to use it any more. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--J3: . In Finland, THL decided to stop the use of Pandemrix. --Jouni 23:05, 31 March 2011 (EEST), [1] (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Add links to pages from where you found your arguments. --Jouni 07:05, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . You could rethink the relations between arguments A1, A2, A3b, and A4. Can you e.g. develop a new, clear, and strong argument that is defended by all of them? --Jouni 07:05, 2 April 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Retrieved from "http://opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:Assessment_of_the_health_impacts_of_H1N1_vaccination/Group_A&oldid=19844"