There are good and valid reasons to get the annual seasonal flu shot,
especially if you have an underlying medical condition such as asthma,
heart disease, or a weakened immune system.
But, for
the vast majority of healthy people (under the age of 65), there are
also good and valid reasons NOT to get the annual influenza shot.
Although some are distrustful of all vaccines, there are specific
reasons to be wary of the influenza vaccine;
these include:
• Complications related to the flu shot. Many people report feeling sick after getting the flu shot, and children have been reported to suffer from febrile seizures. Reports of narcolepsy and adverse reactions to the flu shot appear to be on the rise.
• The flu shot is not entirely effective.
You can still get the flu, even if you are vaccinated. So, while you
incur the risks for adverse side effects you may still get the flu.
* The effectiveness of the anti-flu treatment Tamiflu has been called into question,
and it appears that it does not lessen hospital stays. Further it
appears some of the results of the trials were intentionally withheld
when they painted a picture of doing exactly the opposite of the
intended affect. There was one trial that seemed to suggest that
Tamiflu lessened the ability of the immune system to fight influenza.
• Lack of legal recourse (civil) especially in the US if you are harmed by the flu shot. A
US Supreme Court decision (BRUESEWITZ et al. v . WYETH LLC) sided with
vaccine makers in a case involving a Pennsylvania girl who was denied a
claim in vaccine court and was not allowed for file a claim in civil
court. The fact is that if you lose your case in “vaccine court” you
will have no further legal recourse. Some, including Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor,
argue that there are now no serious consequences for vaccine
manufacturers if they produce a faulty product and that no other
industry in America has such a comprehensive “get out of jail free”
card.
• Most healthy people do not require hospitalization for the flu, even though suffering from the flu is uncomfortable.
• Washing your hands frequently, eating healthy, and getting plenty of sleep are very good ways to avoid getting the flu.
• The majority of health care providers (approximately 60%) choose NOT to get the flu shot every year. Even
the risk of termination of their job is not great enough of a threat to
convince them to risk getting the flu shot. [ Edit note: in 2012, the
numbers have improved. One study shows that 60% + of health care
providers are now getting the flu shot. But, this improvement has
happened after employers threatened termination for non-compliance.
The fact that so many health care providers are still leery of getting
the flu shot speaks volumes. ]
• Recommendations for getting the flu shot vary widely from country to country. For example, most countries in Europe only recommend those aged 65 or over get the flu shot (with no underlying medical condition).
• The odds of dying from the flu are minuscule.
The CDC’s numbers for mortality are suspect, at best. Influenza is
grouped with pneumonia statistics, thus blurring any meaningful
comparisons. But, even the CDC admits that most deaths occur among the
elderly population, yet still insist that everyone (over 6 months of
age) get the flu shot. The is especially at odds with reality, given
that pediatric deaths associated with flu are now at historically low levels.
• Valid
reasons to mistrust government and pharmaceutical pronouncements,
including the influence of money in the political process. The recent case of trial tests of the antibiotic drug “Trovan” on African children,
allegedly without parental consent, illustrates problems with the
industry. Recent news reports about past horrors amplify the point. *
• Valid reasons to mistrust media outlets.
Many newspapers, web sites, and television news programs are beholden
to vast pharmaceutical advertising dollars. Anyone who questions the
necessity of flu shots is instantly branded a kook or “dangerous.” An
outlet that does not follow the party line risks losing advertising
dollars to other programs that are not so choosy about what they
publish.
• Not all flu shot formulas are the same. Risks vary by formula. The nasal flu shot, Flumist, contains a live, albeit weakened, influenza virus.
So,
we will continue to remain skeptical of the CDC's blanket
recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot.
As with all medical decisions, you should ask your doctor if you should get the flu shot. But, also ask him/her if they have gotten the flu shot themselves.
Hopefully they will be honest with you.
See also: Flu Shots: Panacea or Propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
*AP IMPACT: Past medical testing on humans revealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022700988.html
Showing posts with label vaccine court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vaccine court. Show all posts
Friday, August 16, 2013
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Vaccine makers shielded from suits says Supreme Court
In a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court today ruled that vaccine makers cannot be sued outside of a specially designated "vaccine court," created by National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
The justices apparently struggled with some ambiguities in the law, with Justice Scalia writing that the "lack of guidance for design defects [in the drugs] combined with the extensive guidance for the grounds of liability specifically mentioned in the act strongly suggests that design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability."
However, Justice Sotomayer (with Justice Ginsburg) dissented, saying that
to "pre-empt all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers for covered vaccines, the majority’s decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements.
This concern is especially acute with respect to vaccines that have already been released and marketed to the public. Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins. Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history remotely suggests that Congress intended that result."
Links to the Supreme Court decision can be found: here.
The ruling was in response to a case brought by the Bruesewitz family, against Wyeth (now owned by Pfizer, Inc), in which the Breusewitz's claimed that their infant daughter was harmed by toxins in a booster shot.
The justices apparently struggled with some ambiguities in the law, with Justice Scalia writing that the "lack of guidance for design defects [in the drugs] combined with the extensive guidance for the grounds of liability specifically mentioned in the act strongly suggests that design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability."
However, Justice Sotomayer (with Justice Ginsburg) dissented, saying that
to "pre-empt all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers for covered vaccines, the majority’s decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements.
This concern is especially acute with respect to vaccines that have already been released and marketed to the public. Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins. Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history remotely suggests that Congress intended that result."
Links to the Supreme Court decision can be found: here.
The ruling was in response to a case brought by the Bruesewitz family, against Wyeth (now owned by Pfizer, Inc), in which the Breusewitz's claimed that their infant daughter was harmed by toxins in a booster shot.
Labels:
PFE,
Pfizer,
pharma,
supreme court,
vaccine court,
Wyeth
Monday, February 21, 2011
FluGen raises $ 7.8 million for development of Flu Patch
As reported by the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, FluGen a "Madison company that is trying to develop a safer flu vaccine, has landed $7.8 million of funding that should allow it to being one of its leading technologies into human clinical trials this year.
Knox LLC of Las Vegas, the investment vehicle for a wealthy University of Wisconsin-Madison alum, led the funding round.
FluGen will use the money to fund a Phase I clinical trial for its vaccine delivery device, a micro-needle skin patch the size of a poker chip the company says is more effective and less painful than standard needle injections. In the trial, FluGen will use a vaccine that already is on the market, said Paul Radspinner, the company's president and chief executive officer.
The patch promises to make vaccines more effective in older people because it delivers them into the skin, which is able to maintain immunity longer than the rest of the body, Radspinner said. It will also be less invasive, and therefore less scary, for children, he said."
The Journal Sentinel article also pointed out the encouraging business environment in Wisconsin.
"The climate for capital formation and investment in bioscience innovation in the state of Wisconsin is strong and likely to attract substantial additional outside investment interest in the months and years to come…" Mancheski said.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/116603133.html
#flu #pharma
Knox LLC of Las Vegas, the investment vehicle for a wealthy University of Wisconsin-Madison alum, led the funding round.
FluGen will use the money to fund a Phase I clinical trial for its vaccine delivery device, a micro-needle skin patch the size of a poker chip the company says is more effective and less painful than standard needle injections. In the trial, FluGen will use a vaccine that already is on the market, said Paul Radspinner, the company's president and chief executive officer.
The patch promises to make vaccines more effective in older people because it delivers them into the skin, which is able to maintain immunity longer than the rest of the body, Radspinner said. It will also be less invasive, and therefore less scary, for children, he said."
The Journal Sentinel article also pointed out the encouraging business environment in Wisconsin.
"The climate for capital formation and investment in bioscience innovation in the state of Wisconsin is strong and likely to attract substantial additional outside investment interest in the months and years to come…" Mancheski said.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/116603133.html
#flu #pharma
Labels:
flu,
flugen,
influenza,
patch,
skin patch,
vaccine court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)