It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adverse reactions to the Swine Flu vaccine soar.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   





Adverse reactions to the Swine Flu vaccine soar.

Glaxo Smith Kline have recalled a batch of Swine Flu vaccines containing around 170,000 vaccines in Canada, due to a larger than expected number of adverse reactions. GSK say that they expect to have reports of a severe adverse reaction in a approx 1 in every 100,000 persons receiving the vaccine, however, with this particular batch they were seeing about 1 in every 20,000 after six people suffered anaphylaxis shock after having the vaccine.



See also: H1N1 Vaccine causing miscarriages.

Not good.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by loam]




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Anaphylaxis is not adverse, it is never considered an "adverse" reaction. You may not have an egg allergy when you eat eggs but it is different when its in the blood stream.



Glaxo Smith Kline have recalled a batch of Swine Flu vaccines containing around 170,000 vaccines in Canada, due to a larger than expected number of adverse reactions. GSK say that they expect to have reports of a severe adverse reaction in a approx 1 in every 100,000 persons receiving the vaccine, however, with this particular batch they were seeing about 1 in every 20,000 after six people suffered anaphylaxis shock after having the vaccine.


Actually only 100,000 have been recalled and the 170,000 you mention have been SET ASIDE. Next time use a Canadian source instead of an American source if you want to get an actual image of what's going on in Canada.


Dr. Joel Kettner, Manitoba's Chief Medical Officer of Health, urged people not to be alarmed, noting the anaphylaxis reactions were short-lived and all the patients recovered.


And really, the adverse reactions are quite rare, hence the statistic of:


Earlier this week, the country's chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones, noted that of the 6.6 million doses of H1N1 vaccine given so far to Canadians, there have been 36 serious adverse reactions reported.


The percentage of people who had adverse reactions is less than 1%. Really there is clearly nothing to worry about.

Source: CTV



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Oh god. I live in Canada and this just reinforces my opinion that these vaccines are untested and potentially dangerous. That's why I am not getting this shot. No way.

There's a big push now to get pregnant women vaccinated, if you live in the Toronto area and listen to the radio, you know what I'm talking about.

I think a lot more cases of women having miscarriages are going to start coming out of the woodwork. That is, if the media decides to report them.

People in Ontario, (can't speak for other states/provinces) are being manipulated through the media radio/TV/newspapers into believing that they must get this shot.

Even my own mother has called me on several occasions asking why I haven't gotten my "H1N1" shot yet! I guess I told my father that I was skeptical about the vaccine, its potential side effects and its effectiveness. All valid concerns. Thats when the phone calls started.


Seriously though, this is not good news.

Time will tell.

S&F.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dnevnoi

The percentage of people who had adverse reactions is less than 1%. Really there is clearly nothing to worry about.


For real? I guess maths ain't your strong point.

1% =1:100

0.00001% = 1:100000

By your own words, you are saying that cases of adverse reactions 1000 times above normal, is normal. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I'm not ready to write off those 1%'ers just yet.

The numbers are probably still being disputed, but we should pay attention when the percentage of reactions occur.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dnevnoi
Anaphylaxis is not adverse, it is never considered an "adverse" reaction. You may not have an egg allergy when you eat eggs but it is different when its in the blood stream.




Someone had better tell the CDC and the entirety of the medical community!


See for example the term "adverse" and "anaphylaxis" used in connection with other vaccines:




CDC: Vaccine Side Effects, Adverse Reactions...

This report provides updated information concerning the potential adverse events associated with vaccination for hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

These changes include information on the following vaccines and the possible adverse events associated with their administration:

* Hepatitis B vaccine and anaphylaxis;
* Measles vaccine and a) thrombocytopenia and b) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis or disseminated disease in immunocompromised persons;
* DTP and chronic encephalopathy; and
* Tetanus-toxoid-containing vaccines and a) GBS, b) brachial neuritis, and c) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis.





Originally posted by Dnevnoi
Actually only 100,000 have been recalled and the 170,000 you mention have been SET ASIDE. Next time use a Canadian source instead of an American source if you want to get an actual image of what's going on in Canada.




You see a meaningful difference between 'recalled' and 'set aside'?




Moroever, you have the math completely wrong. 170,000 represent the approximate number of doses comprising the batch of concern. Any lesser number found in various sources (including Canadian ones
) is an approximation of the remaining doses from the batch in question which had not been already administered.


Maybe you should read your Canadian sources more closely.



Originally posted by Dnevnoi
And really, the adverse reactions are quite rare...


Except in the case of this particular batch, which obviously Glaxo had also apparently agreed was inappropriate, as evidenced by their reaction to the issue.

Maybe you should argue the point with them.




[edit on 21-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers

For real? I guess maths ain't your strong point.

1% =1:100

0.00001% = 1:100000

By your own words, you are saying that cases of adverse reactions 1000 times above normal, is normal. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.


You aren't listening, I said it was under 1%. When I calculated it I got 0.545 x 10 to the -6th. Definitely not thousands of times above normal. And yes, adverse reactions are always normal when its just 36 people in a group of 6.6 million. I've seen people get anaphylaxis from Advil, which is about as adverse as it gets.


less than 1%



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

See for example the term "adverse" and "anaphylaxis" used in connection with other vaccines:


I go with the logic that it has become so common (never been to a clinic that doesn't have a drawer full of epipens) that it should just be considered a predicted risk.





CDC: Vaccine Side Effects, Adverse Reactions...

This report provides updated information concerning the potential adverse events associated with vaccination for hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

These changes include information on the following vaccines and the possible adverse events associated with their administration:

* Hepatitis B vaccine and anaphylaxis;
* Measles vaccine and a) thrombocytopenia and b) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis or disseminated disease in immunocompromised persons;
* DTP and chronic encephalopathy; and
* Tetanus-toxoid-containing vaccines and a) GBS, b) brachial neuritis, and c) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis.



What is the most common way to grow vaccines: Grow them in eggs. What happens to people with unknown egg allergies: Anaphylaxis.


You see a meaningful difference between 'recalled' and 'set aside'?


I do, you see in Canada when we have faulty products 'set aside' means 'hold off the packing tape' whereas 'recalled' means 'return to sender'.


Moroever, you have the math completely wrong. 170,000 represent the approximate number of doses comprising the batch of concern. Any lesser number found in various sources (including Canadian ones
) is an approximation of the remaining doses from the batch in question which had not been already administered.


You're wrong, its okay.

I'm a Canadian, I know what my Canadian sources are saying.


Except in the case of this particular batch, which obviously Glaxo had also apparently agreed was inappropriate, as evidenced by their reaction to the issue.


That's mostly PR and Canadian health regulation saying, 'Yeah, so we kinda need you to check up on this. People are spamming our support lines.'

You've never really heard of the saying "better safe than sorry" have you. Well they need not be sorry because just like their vaccines they are being safe.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnevnoi
 


If all of that seems persuasive to you, then okie dokie by me.

I believe others, as myself, require more coherent logic and something more meaningful than a series of simple unsupported denials.


[edit on 21-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
well well .. How exactly are the people with adverse reaction counted? I have the feeling that the religion called "modern medicine" will refuse to classify a lot of the reaction as being caused by the vaccine "nono, it was not the vaccine" . Also, what id the adverse reaction will happen next week , is this still recorded as an adverse reaction? What if the unborn children are going to come up with serious health issues , will we ever know it was the vaccine?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
ps: in the moment when the vaccine producers will be liable for the potential side-effects (proven long or short term adverse reactions) then I will start thinking I was wrong about fearing the vaccine more than I fear the flu itself.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Romanian]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I posted this news 2 days ago.

Batch of H1N1 vaccine pulled
Manitoba notices spike in severe allergic reactions
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Here's a new article from Friday that mentions most of the vaccine which has been recalled has already been used.


On Thursday, GlaxoSmithKline asked health officials to hold back a batch of swine flu vaccine that appears to be causing higher rates of severe allergic reactions.

The company said it's a precaution, pending an investigation. Manitoba health officials say they have noticed severe allergic reactions from the batch in question at a rate of one in 20,000, compared with the normal rate of one in 100,000.

Since most of the vaccine in question has already been used, the decision to withhold what's left is not expected to have an impact on overall supplies.


www.cbc.ca...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
This is only an small start we shall soon see more reactions and maybe deaths, i like said before i know for one thing the media will cover up those deaths as H1N1 Flu deaths like they before, who knows what more they could have lied to us.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Well, what do you seriously expect from allowing known poisons to be pumped into your bloodstream, bypassing all bodily filters?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
i don't think the numbers are correct, my opinion 50% will develop some crap,

unless they have an immunity of a superman,

docs have been told to any complain regarding effect of vaccine to submit to other disease.

even if mercury flushed well trough your blood at first, it will develop you cancer after



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   




top topics



 
3

log in

join