Europe probes swine flu shot, narcolepsy link

Europe probes swine flu shot, narcolepsy link

www.google.com

LONDON — The European Medicines Agency is investigating whether there is a link between narcolepsy and a swine flu vaccine.

Narcolepsy is a rare disorder that causes people to suddenly fall asleep.

In a statement issued Friday, the agency said there have been a "limited" number of narcolepsy cases in people mainly in Sweden and Finland who got the Pandemrix shot, made by GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Officials in France have also reported six cases of narcolepsy in three children and three adults.

(visit the link for the full news article)

ATS Team:

I found this information interesting.

It was my assertion right from the beginning of the Swine Flu "drama" that it would not be the "flu Armageddon" touted by many.

I must say, I also made my own decision not to have the Swine Flu vaccination, albeit I am a supporter of vaccination technology in broader terms.

This just goes to further illustrate what an extraordinarily complex area this is.

Narcolepsy can be quite a nasty condition, so this issue shouldn't be treated flippantly.

Some of the vaccination & pharmaceutical savvy members might like to comment on this.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 28-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I can tell you what the verdict will be already!

From the official verdict yet to be given

There is no scientific proof...
There is no evidence of a link...

Ahem, what trail of bodies?!!!

The vaccination gravytrain is probably the biggest snake-oil scam ever and anyone who goes up against it is doomed to failure as what happened to poor Dr Wakefield.

ATS - MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield awaits punishment verdict

Wakefield will be widely remembered for the smear campaign launched by the medical profession against him despite any argument to the contrary as this report makes clear.

Why Medical Authorities Went to Such Extremes to Silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield (articles.mercola.com)

In the years after his initial controversial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.

All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.

This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.

Says Wakefield:
“… it’s been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.”

Experts are always pointing to the successes of vaccination but seem to miss the irony that the standard of proof for these claims is lower than the standard required to prove their dangers.

The findings in this report about the link with autism is just one of many that show how you can build a great case against vaccines but get nowhere with it.

Child Health Safety - Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism
In addition to vaccines being a biologically plausible cause of the worldwide increases in autistic conditions in children we have also seen legal cases in the USA confirming vaccines have caused autism in US children: AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

The data presented here provides further evidence of the unscientific approach of medical researchers when publishing papers purporting to support the claim there is no association between vaccines and autism.

When proving the efficacy of vaccines, scientists can overlook important information in their rush to publish. The Salk vaccine is credited with defeating Polio.

Polio in the United States
To the present, the Salk vaccination program is promoted as victorious, and serves as a proof for the poliovirus theory. It also serves to bolster all other germ theories (regarding predatory microbes) and the general image of Modern Medicine.

However, the evidence points to polio's direct relationship to DDT use as graphically illustrated here which provides greater detail for the U.S. period of 1912-1970, and summarizes the vaccination issues mentioned in the linked report. You'll note the direct relation with the rise and fall of DDT use and where the Salk vaccine sits in the timeline (1955).

Polio in the United States
To the present, the Salk vaccination program is promoted as victorious, and serves as a proof for the poliovirus theory. It also serves to bolster all other germ theories (regarding predatory microbes) and the general image of Modern Medicine. The pesticide theory is characterized as irresponsible and dangerous.

Needless to say, the charge that DDT predisposed to poliomyelitis was dropped after the disease was controlled through the use of vaccines. ...such irresponsible claims could produce great harm and, if taken seriously, even interfere with scientific search for true causes and realistic means of preventing the conditions in question. (Hayes and Laws (1991))

However, Hayes and Laws statement, above, is invalid because, 1) The vaccination programs are irrelevant to the decline of polio, while 2) pesticides correlate perfectly with polio, and 3) Dr. Biskind did not drop his charges, he alleged conspiracy "to convert into its opposite, the overwhelming evidence." The often published Biskind evidently was relegated to self-publishing after 1955.

Similar arguments exist against most vaccines but the indoctrination programs we're subjected to are so intense and effective that we cannot collectively educate ourselves out of them and those who try to inform the public face great legal (and sometimes physical) dangers.

reply to post by JohnJasper


JohnJasper.....

On the one hand.....

I don't take quite the "hard line" attitude as do you, pertaining to vaccinations.

On the other hand.....

The subject is not in my areas of medical "expertise" & I can see you are very well versed in this subject.

It will be very interesting to see what transpires.....it could take years.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

JohnJasper.....

On the one hand.....

I don't take quite the "hard line" attitude as do you, pertaining to vaccinations.

I have been swayed by the anti-vaccine arguments and therefore am alarmed by the damage being done to the world population by the perpetuation of this fraud. Perhaps I'm just being foolish.

It will be very interesting to see what transpires.....it could take years.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

It's actually been going on for centuries. There's no real reason to think that this one will be any different. The recent introduction of cervical cancer vaccine and the swine flu pandemic proved that the industry still discounts any adverse reactions but grants itself full credit for any cures or preventions as well as completely ignoring any discussion of long-term affects.

You don't seem that interested (despite having raised the OP) but should you get a quiet moment, try tracing through these references.

Shelton: The Hygienic Care of Children (1931), Chapter xxvii, Vaccinia provides reams of information including the ancient traditions of vaccination plus those reports that would have been common knowledge in early 20th century.

In England and Scotland the decline of vaccination has been accompanied by the practical disappearance of smallpox. Here are the figures, briefly England, 1871-75 percentage of vaccination 97.6%; smallpox deaths per million people, 228; 1910-20 percentage of vaccination 43.9; smallpox deaths per million people 0.4. Scotland, 1855-1874 one of the best vaccinated countries of the world, "not an unvaccinated child in Scotland;" 9,087 children under five years old died of smallpox; 1907-1919 with about one-third of the children vaccinated only 7 deaths under five years from smallpox.

Smallpox is always worse where vaccination abounds. The scratch of vaccination is the "scratch of death." Yet our medically controlled Health Boards cook up fake epidemics (sound familiar? JJ,) create panics for profit, such as the ones in Kansas City in 1921, Pittsburgh in 1924, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington in 1925. An effort was also made to create a panic in New York in 1925, but due to the open fight against it by the New York Evening Graphic, the Commissioner of Health called it off.

The Dangers of Smallpox Vaccination, Compiled by Gary Krasner also provides pages of information on this subject.

The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, and hygiene had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.

One of the conclusions in Thomas McKeown's seminal work, The Modern Rise of Populations (1976, also endorsed by a Lancet editorial, 2/1/75), was that the decline in mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries was essentially due to the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, and that it was not the result of immunizations. Similar studies by scholars John and Sonia McKinlay (1977) shows that almost all the increase in human lifespan since the year 1900 is due to reductions in infectious disease, with medical intervention (of all kinds) accounting for only about 3 percent of that reduction. According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, Vol.2, "there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries."

(emphasis added - JJ)

I realise that there's also tons of pro-vaccination data out there but I'm not convinced by the one's that I've read and they completely conflict with the paradigm of health that I subscribe to. I also subscribe to two adages:

- Follow the money!

- Judge them not by their words but by their results.

Yours truly,
JJ

reply to post by JohnJasper


JohnJasper.....

You don't seem that interested (despite having raised the OP) but should you get a quiet moment, try tracing through these references.

I'm interested in this area.

The problem is, I do so much reading as it is, it gets difficult to traverse all of areas of discussion in detail.

I will look at the material to which you have linked.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not