All two to 17-year-olds in the UK are to be offered annual flu vaccinations.

I thought I would post this as I know there are some among you who fear vaccine programmes and doubt their veracity and safety.

If 30% take up the offer, there will be 11,000 fewer hospitalisations and 2,000 fewer deaths each year, the chief medical officer for England says. The children will be immunised using a nasal spray rather than an injection, starting in 2014 at the earliest. The injectable flu vaccine will continue to be offered to the over-65s, pregnant women and those with medical conditions such as asthma. Children usually get a mild and sometimes unpleasant illness from seasonal flu. They rarely suffer complications. Youngsters who do are usually in the at-risk groups already offered a flu vaccine. Prof Dame Sally Davies: "This should result in 11,000 fewer hospitalisations and 2,000 fewer deaths each year"

The Joint Committe on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said the new strategy would avert a large number of flu cases among children as well as many severe cases and deaths, mostly among the elderly and others vulnerable to the infection. Chief medical officer for England, Prof Dame Sally Davies, told me: "Even with moderate uptake of 30% it's estimated that this should result in 11,000 fewer hospitalisations and 2,000 fewer deaths each year.

www.bbc.co.uk...

For me this sounds like a good idea as this age group spreads the flu so much quicker that others. The estimates of lives saved for an extra £100 million a year sound like a good trade off.

Thoughts from the UK and all members?

I watched this on bbc news 24 very early this morning

What i found interesting was the presenter asked the person giving the report on it `is this a new vaccine` and the person replied `no its been in the u.s for 10 years`!! HUH? if it was such a great vaccine why wait 10 years

I dont like the look of this

reply to post by sopheruk


This is apparently one of the precautions on the pack of this stuff.

"FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days."

articles.mercola.com...

I.e. anyone with any kind of serious illness. Somewhat of a worry if the vaccine is liable to spread the very flu it is trying to prevent. I suppose that is a possibility for most vaccines though?

More detail on the numbers of extra school nurses required for this programme, others who could administer the nasal spray and concerns.

The NHS must find more than 1,000 extra school nurses to give the flu vaccine to healthy children under plans announced on Wednesday to expand the vaccination programme to all children aged two to 17

To meet the demand, advisers on the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI) said the NHS needed several times as many school nurses, or others who could safely administer the spray, at least for the intense two-month period each autumn before the flu season begins. Schools in the UK currently have the equivalent of 1,168 full-time nurses

The government is in discussions with the health regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), about whether parents, teachers and others trained by nurses can take on the role of administering the vaccine to children.

"We are exploring all options at the moment," a spokesperson for the Department of Health told the Guardian. David Elliman, a consultant in community health at Great Ormond Street hospital in London, said he had "immense concerns" about the resources needed to implement the plan, and criticised the JCVI for not making public the models used to arrive at the estimates. "School nurses are already very hard stretched and come nowhere near delivering the basics from the Healthy Child Programme. If this is just added in to their workload, it will devastate their morale. If it is carried out by 'lay personnel' is this appropriate? Giving immunisations involves much more than just administering the vaccine, but counselling parents and, where appropriate, the young people. Lay people would not have the knowledge to do this," he said.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I would personally like to see this kept in the hands of health professionals rather than Teachers and Parents. Perhaps Chancellor Osborne could include this in the inevitable stimulus package he is now going to have to put together?

Well I can tell you right now, my kids will not be getting the vaccine...why ?

Because, when my son was three he got pneumonia (after the flu apparently), the following year I asked for him to be vaccinated against flu because there are times when pneumonia can have the long term effect of weakening the chest. They refused.

For the next three years each year I asked, and each time the reply was no he doesn't need it.

When my daughter was little, she was in the first batch of kids to be offered the pneumonia vaccine, which I let her have (after 3 nights in hospital with little lad on a IV, I wasn't taking any chances), but my son was still within the age limit of being able to be vaccinated, yet again I was refused.

When they offered the swine flu vaccine, I refused, and I will continue to for two reasons..

1) They are quite selective when they want to be, as to who actually gets a vaccine
2) Both children now have hardy immune systems

I would be really interested as to why now the government chooses to begin a universal flu vaccine programme for children, because I am not buying the "it will keep down the icidence of severe flu cases" it is a blatant spend the government can't really afford, and has never been applied before, so why now ?

reply to post by solargeddon


Why now? Well I assume through a cost based analysis carried out by The Joint Committe on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) who refer to it as a new strategy. The figures come from

Those figures are based on an unpublished study from the Health Protection Agency and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

This report should be published to hold this programme in as much transparency as possible. On the matter of If you do not want your children to be immunized you willl not have to.

The UK is thought to be the first country in the world to offer free flu immunisation to all children. Like all other vaccines here it will not be compulsory.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I mean even if you believe your kids now have hardy immune systems I suppose the benefit is to the rest of society in containing the spread of the seasonal flu.

This is how ITV is covering the story.

The Government's experts have pondered long and hard before recommending that kids between two and 17 should be given a flu vaccine from 2014. Why? Well first some facts. Giving this vaccine will be a logistical nightmare. The target is to give the vaccine in a nasal spray in the six weeks before the flu season starts every year (two doses the first year and one thereafter) to nine million youngsters. Schools and GPs will be pressed into the campaign. For a start there isn't enough vaccine and there's only one manufacturer. That's why it won't start until 2014.

Then there's the bigger potential problem of persuading parents to get their children vaccinated. That's why its a nasal spray that means less distress. And its free on the NHS. What's more some kids with chronic illnesses are in high-risk groups that are already entitled to a free jab. A mass vaccination campaign for all kids should make sure more of them get protected.

But the main reason for the childrens' vaccination is to curb the spread of flu. Schools are virus factories. One kid with flu goes to school and next week half the school have got it.

www.itv.com...

I think the societal benefits as laid out are well worth the cost of the programme. Flu is a nasty killer for the elderly and infirm, anything that can dent its spread significantly, as it appears this immunization campaign can, should be applauded.

Anyone in the US have any stories or information about Flumist's use over there and its safety record, effectiveness?

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Well for me, I have always allowed my children to enter the vaccination programme, they are up to date with everything including MMR, but the refusal to vaccinate my son against the flu, has changed the course of my thinking, mainly because having had the pneumonia, technically there was a potential for him to be considered high risk, as like I said above, the illness can effect the long term health of his chest.

Sadly this is all happening a little late in the day to change my thinking, a friend of mine has a son who has always had the jab becuase he is high risk, and has an allergy to something in vaccines (think its egg ?), so everytime he has any vaccine including the flu one, he has to spend 12 hours in hospital, so for him a nasal one might be good, but the benefit to all the healthy children is going to be zero, in fact my concern is perhaps the vaccine may cause more problems than it solves, for instance mutate.

That said it constantly mutates, but there is more than one flu out there at any one time, and the only one they vaccinate against is the one perceived to be the problem that year, one day the virus will figure this out, it has to, we might not like it, but a virus is fighting for its own future all the time, just as we do.

For me presently this is an unecessary step, which may not entirely benefit the high risk groups, because the strain most prevelant that season may be miscalculated, another strain may be rife, resulting in no difference.

reply to post by solargeddon


It is about benefit to ALL in society at risk in flu outbreaks. As in the kids who spread it the most, this will be dented through this campaign.

This is interesting and relates to the potential harm that could be casued to those already suffering from a low immune system, if they come in close contact with one of the immunized

Is a nasal spray safer than a jab? If so, then why aren’t all vaccines given nasally?

It's not any safer. Both ways of giving vaccines - by injection or by nasal spray are very safe. The nasal vaccine is different from injected vaccine. The spray contains a live but weakened form of the flu virus and actually causes a very mild flu infection. The injected vaccine contains only killed virus.

– PROF ADAM FINN, PROFESSOR OF PAEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL

www.itv.com...

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by sopheruk

 

This is apparently one of the precautions on the pack of this stuff.

"FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days."

articles.mercola.com...

I.e. anyone with any kind of serious illness. Somewhat of a worry if the vaccine is liable to spread the very flu it is trying to prevent. I suppose that is a possibility for most vaccines though?

I have noted this in other vaccine threads. It's not just this vaccine. It's been proven with several vaccines that the recipients of the vaccine can shed the virus for up to 3 weeks after they get the vaccination. In my mind, THAT should put an absolute END to all the nonsense about "keep your un-vaccinated self away from me or I'll sue you." It's also, "keep your vaccinated self away from me!"

I don't wish to be the 'conspirator' starter in this thread but has anyone here ever heard of 'Agenda 21'? Vaccines are for population control and making the corrupt medicine manufacturers lots of money!

The simple fact of the matter is FLU Vaccines do not work. My brother got the vaccine a few years or so ago when the Swine Flu fiasco was in full force and he takes it every year. And what happens every autumn and winter? He get's full blown Flu. And it knocks him for 6 sometimes keeping him in bed for a couple of weeks. He even got a really bad case of Glandular Fever that knocked him out.

I told him. Don't take the vaccine. Did he listen? Nope...........I never take it. I have refused every time especially during the Swine Flu farce. Do I get Flu? Nope. Worst I have had is the sniffles. Unvaccinated people do not get serious Flu. The reason for that is their immune systems are not compromised by dangerous chemicals found in the vaccine.

Here's a list of the ingredients of the H1N1 vaccine which is basically the same as the normal Flu vaccine made by Glaxo Smith Kline.

BIOLOGICAL INDEX

chicken embryos (eggs)
influenza virus, H5N1
virus culture

CHEMICAL INDEX

alpha-tocopherol
aluminum adjuvant
AS03 adjuvant
Daronrix
disodium phosphate
formaldehyde
magnesium chloride
octoxynol 10
polysorbate 80 (Tween 80
potassium chloride
potassium dihydrogen phosphate
sodium chloride
sodium deoxycholate
squalene
thiomersal (thimerosol) (MERCURY)
vitamin E

Vitamin E is the only ingredient I would allow into my body. The rest are too dangerous especially Mercury which is toxic for the human body and causes all sorts of Neurological disorders such as Autism.

It should be up to u if you want to take poison but now the Government are making them mandatory. Which is against Human Rights!!

So to hell with the government and their poisons. And hello to Vitamin D3 which wipe out any Bio-Engineered Flu virus!

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


No its not the same as all other vaccines. Most other vaccines use inactive strains of the virus, this vaccine uses an ACTIVE strain so everyone that gets the vaccine is getting a little bit of the flu.

13,000 or so die every year from the flu in the UK (90% elderly), it seems more like they are trying to spread the flu than help it.

My children will NOT be getting the vaccine. Their immune systems will fight the bugs if they catch them. I can't see the logic in it at all.

Double Post

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


They are using the "herd" mentality. Why do you think they are trying to vaccinate everyone? They are doing it because they are relying on the Flu spreading by giving it to everyone under 17. They are perpetuating it...

This wont reduce the number killed from it, rather it will increase the number...

Why can't those who are scared of the flu just go and get themselves vaccinated and leave the rest of us alone?

Not all of us believe big pharma are flawless gods...

reply to post by jrmcleod


I find it hard to believe that the medical establishment in this country are intentionally, through this vaccine, out to kill more of the population of the UK.

reply to post by NuclearPaul


The vaccination programme is not mandatory, it will be down to parents and the children to decide whether they want to participate, but of course this will be a major boon for the pharmaceutical company, MedImmune, Inc., and their profits.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by NuclearPaul

 

The vaccination programme is not mandatory, it will be down to parents and the children to decide whether they want to participate, but of course this will be a major boon for the pharmaceutical company, MedImmune, Inc., and their profits.

Indeed its not mandatory but how long will it be before children are victimised for NON participation? Its another form of control where children will not be allowed into school until they have had it. The UK is very quickly following the US and there is one way we should not be going and thats the "American Way".

I've just listened to the Jeremy Vine show on BBC radio2 and yet again he had the resident " quack " Sarah Jarvis pushing for people to give this vaccine to their kids.
This is the same woman who was pushing for the British public to take the swine-flu vaccine.
Claiming that there definitely was a pandemic.
She works on other shows for the BBC . All the time, pushing for vaccines to be given to our kids.

I think she obviously works for the big pharma's.

When you look at the statistics, vaccines hardly make a difference when it comes to the Flu.
This is nothing but another scam.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk


For me this sounds like a good idea as this age group spreads the flu so much quicker that others. The estimates of lives saved for an extra £100 million a year sound like a good trade off.

Thoughts from the UK and all members?

So you have no problem with immune destroying adjuvents, heavy metal intoxication, cell lines drawn from aborted fetuses, and the possible use of the vaccines to sterilize, experiment with, or infect the youth of the UK?

No wonder the UK is at the head of the pack when it comes to police surveillance tactics. May your chains rest on you lightly.