Jump to content

Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic vaccine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.105.0.102 (talk) at 22:32, 6 December 2009 (→Delete "Dystonia" section?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


2009 H1N1 Swine Flu: Is It Really Worth Making A Vaccine?

Copyright violation removed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs mention of the companies currently developing vaccine, and their status.

I seem to recall that there are about 20 companies currently developing vaccines. - unsigned

Also see flu research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulation Agenda?

The last paragraph refers to a conspiracy theory that has no place in a serious article. I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.106.240.10 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html#ixzz0OYsgebSH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.209.244 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article refers to the 1976 vaccine, the problems of which are well known and studied. No evidence of relevance to the current vaccine cited.LeadSongDog come howl 14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is confusion between 1979 swine flu and the current strain. We need improved citation to make sure that data is relevant to the current strain. I would also like to see clarification in the exact names of the several vaccines being deployed currently. this way the FDA stats can be found on effectiveness, side effect etc.. Along with proper citations in matters such as this.[User talk:Wikiappend]

Influenza prevention

This is not really about this article but it is a call for help on a related article, influenza prevention. My hope is to eventually have this article put into the "In the News" section, but it does not yet have appropriate content nor is it of high enough quality. I would like a consensus for this article and experienced editors to improve it. Any helpful edits to this article are greatly beneficial. Thank you. Sagan666 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

This article should be renamed to H1N1/09 influenza vaccine, Influenza vaccine (H1N1/09), Influenza vaccine (panedmic H1N1/09), Pandemic H1N1/09 influenza vaccine, or similar. On a side note, more pharmacological information should be incorporated.   — C M B J   05:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about one vaccine but about several vaccines developed for the virus strain in question. Therefore the article's title (currently 2009 flu pandemic vaccine) should be changed to something with the word "vaccines", not "vaccine". --Mathew5000 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna fish, mercury, and thiomersal

The relevance of this comparison is far from clear.

  1. There's no discussion of the relative toxicity of the different forms of mercury
  2. There's no discussion of the target organ(s). Are they suggesting the mechanism is hepatoxic in both cases?
  3. There's no context to explain how much of the mercury from each source is retained by the body, whether it metabolizes to a different form, or for how long it is retained

More to the point, why are we citing a newspaper for this instead of a WP:MEDRS?LeadSongDog come howl 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thimerosal eliminates fungi and bacteria within the dose. Keeping the dose consistent but more importantly...safe. For pandemics, multi-dose vials are used. Sometimes a vial may be used on more then one day. There have been several tragic incidents when there is no preservative. When countries order multi-million doses, preserving the dosage is important. Mercury or methyl mercury is not the same as thimerosal which is a derivative of ethyl mercury. They do not have the same profile and the body excretes far more EM then MM. Bottom line, the risks were minimal and not using thimerosal created new huge risks. The section could be expanded.--scuro (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the comparison is plainly clear. It is there to help the reader conceptualize the amount of mercury being discussed. Braidcutter (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better to answer bad science with more science or just remove the offending article? SlimVirgin posted edit:

"The amount of mercury in the nonadjuvanted vaccine exceeds the daily safety level for pregnant women in Canada. Health Canada has established the safe dietary level of mercury for pregnant women at 0.2 micrograms (millionths of a gram) per kilo of body weight; the nonadjuvanted H1N1 vaccine contains 25 micrograms of mercury."

Although this is properly sourced and accurate it implies something with is known to be untrue. I opted to answer its equivocation by dispelling it but am more inclined just to remove it.Braidcutter (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Scratchpad for later: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/Seafood/FoodbornePathogensContaminants/Methylmercury/ucm115644.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.51.47 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methylmercury reports "Ingested methylmercury is readily and completely absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract.". Doesn't this remove the need for the 18:02, 31 October 2009 24.97.194.121 edit? 24.66.51.47 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Never mind found http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/ bioavailibity of the administration type is irrelevant, unless the fool wants it to be relevant, in with case I'll take a double hit of the vaccine before I touch the tuna. Edited it out.

Fish Oil

I was listening to the radio, and a person said that the vaccine contains an adjuvant that consists of fish oil, water and Vitamin E. Is this true? If so, it is not suitable for vegatarians, should this be included in the article. 193.133.92.229 (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 193.133.92.229, Vegetarian: Noun, Eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or fish or (often) any animal products. So you can inject as much meat as you want into yourself, no problem. Just can't EAT it. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.173.115 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some of the vaccines contain an "adjuvant" which contains squalene, vitamin E and water, one of the brand names of the vaccines with this formulation is Fluad, containing the MF59 adjuvant. Squalene is an oil that can come from fish or plants, and I'm not 100% sure where the vaccine oil came from. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Control?

I'm guessing this was some moron. It was barely English anyway. Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSharp (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Hi, the section about the side-effects is full of primary sources, rather than secondary ones, and even someone's blog. It's very important with an issue like this that Wikipedians aren't dipping into clinical studies, then selecting and interpreting them themselves. Sentences such as "clinical studies have found x" are being supported by one study. But what if there are other studies that show not-X, or criticism of the study that showed X? We really ought to be relying on secondary sources that give an overview. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sentences such as this, which I have removed, give undue weight to a single study that wasn't even published in a PubMed-listed journal. We already cite two authoritative reviews on this topic, so giving "equal space" to the minority view violates NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a primary source, Tim, but a secondary one. The minority view, so long as published by secondary sources, needs to be included. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence said "A 2008 study published in Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry found that.." so the source being cited was the primary study. I'll summarise the minority views on this topic by broadening "Neurodevelopmental disorders" to "developmental disorders", in the second paragraph. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source I used was a news source. That's what meant by a secondary source -- another publication citing the primary source. I think we should stick to what secondary sources say, rather than interpreting primary sources ourselves, as the policy says; see WP:NOR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you cite a secondary source, but attribute the information to a different primary source, that is a bit confusing. Do you want me to try to find a better secondary source that gives an overall summary of this minority view? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could say that X reported the study by Y: that would include both sources. But yes, please, if you can find a better secondary source, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could put it that way, if you think this study is particularly important. I'm off to work later this afternoon, so I'll have a search for something that discusses this in much more general terms. The WHO, CDC and NHS would be particularly authoritative secondary sources to cite (as well as their material being free access), apart from those, we could also use medical organizations such as the AMA or the RSM. I'm was a bit concerned because this single study was (in the version I saw) being given equal weight to the views of the WHO, which hit a nerve! I'm very glad you found this article by the way, I've been monitoring Influenza, Swine flu and 2009 flu pandemic, but I didn't realise this one existed until you added it to the template. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was almost certainly one of the neuroscientists the journalist interviewed who pointed the study out, so that's why I thought it was worth including. I'll have a look at writing it to make clear who the sources are. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braidcutter

Hi, I left your Health Canada source, but removed the primary one. Wikipedians shouldn't be relying on primary sources alone. We can refer to primary sources but only if secondary sources have done so. Otherwise we end up with a situation where any Wikipedian can highlight this or that or the next study to demonstrate x or y or z. The point of relying on secondary sources is that we hope they've done some of the correct filtering for us. Please see the policies, WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, one google search later and its more or less back. Your edits seem to outline a preconceived notion on your part which is not supported by the science. But this is not my problem.

I assert that anything beyond the tuna sandwich comparison should be moved to Thiomersal controversy, it is not needed in this article. Also the science seems to point to the tuna doing more damage then the vaccine. (presenting at higher levels after consumption), then thiomerisal does after injection. And also sticking around much longer. Some studies pointing to 2-10 times longer depending on whether it is monkeys/humans/infants blood or brains. Braidcutter (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough to have a preconceived notion. :) I would just like to see an article written on the basis of secondary sources, not editors interpreting primary ones. SlimVirgin 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but regardless of policies, it shows an intellectual lack of curiosity to undo an edit when a 30 second google search will reveal what is required in this case a secondary source citing (and repeating) what was asserted. If you hit the discuss page first with a request to change sources I would've done it for you. For this I will redo what I've done here tonight only more in line with what you apparently do not want to hear. Furthermore I assert that your edit should be removed for the intellectual dishonesty of the source in question. Daily limits are for daily things, vaccines are not a daily thing. Braidcutter (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following. Which edit required nothing but a 30-second Google search to find a good source? SlimVirgin 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. I was confused because you edited logged out. So your first edit was, using primary sources:

It has been concluded[1] that: "Mercury clears from the body faster after the administration of ethylmercury than after the administration of methylmercury; the brain-to-blood mercury concentration ratio established for methylmercury will overestimate mercury in the brain after exposure to ethylmercury; and because ethylmercury decomposes faster than methylmercury, the risk of brain damage is less for ethylmercury."[2]

Replaced by this, partly using a secondary source:

Also Ethylmercury is excreted from the body much quicker Methylmercury.[3] Likewise daily intake advisories set for things that are known to Bio-accumulate and could conceivably be eaten regularly such as seafood containing Methylmercury should not be extended to things which are expelled from the body quicker and the exposures only happen once or twice a year like Thiomersal.

Could you post a link for the source you used above, and does it say exactly what you wrote? I notice you placed the source only after the first sentence. SlimVirgin 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found the link myself. [1] Could you point out where it says what you wrote? SlimVirgin 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend citing PMID 12884410 or PMID 15121295 if you want a source that discusses this point, as this is a review that deals with this topic specifically. However, this much detail may not be justified as we have to be careful not to rewrite the article on the thiomersal controversy, but just to summarise its main points. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence is common sense, my edit was dealing with the false equivocation made by "Researcher Chris Shaw" in the source for the edit I'm answering. Secondly its in the section entitled "Why is exposure to mercury a concern?" I don't know how to link it better, I can't find any # marks on the page to jump too. Braidcutter (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Braidcutter, please stop being so combative and insulting, we are all trying to improve the article here, so your personal comments are both unwelcome and unhelpful. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furhermore the reference in question [2], has errors and gaps in its research and fact checking. For instance it says "Some companies, like Unilever and L’Oréal, have agreed to stop using squalene in cosmetic products." Which is untrue, they have agreed to switch to plant squalene [3]. It is shoring up to be a poorly researched, intellectually dishonest, "hit piece".Braidcutter (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the section on mercury and autism, citing the most authoritative sources possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, it looks good. SlimVirgin 02:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, sorry it took so long. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize! :) It's great that you're expanding it. I came here as a reader, actually, not an editor, hoping to find some intelligent information about whether to be vaccinated. All I found was "don't worry, it's fine," accompanied by a photograph of a tuna sandwich. :)
I know we're not meant to give medical advice, but if you're wondering about getting vaccinated, definitely do it if you have any health conditions like asthma or heart disease, if you're preganant, or if you have contact with the elderly or young children. Otherwise the flu is really unpleasant (the people I know who have got it have lost about half a week) but not life-threatening, so you could take your chances if you wanted to. Since I work in a hospital and near sick children I have no option, but even if I didn't I'd probably get it anyway. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to give medical advice, suffice it to say that "don't worry, it's fine," was not the status of this page recently nor should it be. To be sure, there are risks with taking a vaccine, but in the words of Han-Solo "these are not the risks you're looking for" or something like that. Opting for the vaccine is the same as cashing in one set of risks for a different set of risks with orders of magnitude different odds/outcomes. The popular press seems more concerned with repeating non-risks then what is actual. Braidcutter (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for the (non)-advice. :) I'm still trying to decide. Also wondering if it's still spreading at a rate that justifies being concerned. It's so hard to judge from what gets published. SlimVirgin 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squalene

However, there have been fears that the squalene contained in adjuvanted 2009 H1N1 vaccine might be linked to neurological and other disorders, including Gulf War Syndrome, autism, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. A 2009 U.S. Department of Defense study comparing healthy Navy personnel to those suffering from Gulf War syndrome was published in the journal Vaccine, it found no link between the presence of squalene antibodies and illness, with about half of both groups having these antibodies and no correlation between symptoms and antibodies.[8] Moreover none of the vaccines given to troops during the Gulf war actually contained any squalene.

Why would the Department of Defense conduct a study regarding squalene antibodies and Gulf War Syndrome if there was no squalene in the vaccines given to troops in the first place? SlimVirgin 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered why they bothered as well! However, since no squalene-containing vaccines were licensed or used in the US in 1990, this idea that they might have caused Gulf War syndrome is pretty odd to say the least. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the introduction of the Navy study below, they also say there there was no known exposure. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the 1991 Gulf War, many veterans reported health problems that remain unexplained. Although the war was comparatively short-lived, soon after several studies described chronic, nonspecific, multisymptom illnesses in veterans who believed their illnesses were secondary to war-related exposures [1], [2] and [3]. Hallmarks of the multisymptom illnesses included symptoms such as fatigue, neurocognitive complaints, and musculoskeletal pain.

Multiple vaccine administration and, in particular, vaccination against anthrax, was suggested as a possible etiology [4]. Suspicion of anthrax vaccination increased considerably after the publication of independent research from the private sector that suggested the multisymptom illnesses were consistent with autoimmune disease presentations, likely triggered by exposure to squalene. The published research was careful to state that the “…laboratory-based investigations do not establish that squalene was added as adjuvant to any vaccine used in military or other personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War Era”. This study suggested that an immune response to squalene was involved in the pathogenesis, although the no known exposure to a squalene adjuvant was ascertained or reported from the study subjects [5]. The study was subsequently recognized as “inconclusive” by the Institute of Medicine [6]. Although the United States General Accounting Office published a specific and detailed account of anthrax vaccine development and Department of Defense policy regarding the use of adjuvants [7], concerns persisted regarding the potential for vaccine-induced illnesses [8].

In subsequent years, validated assays for squalene antibodies were developed [9], [10] and [11]. It was proposed that such assays might be applied to stored sera from a population previously surveyed for multisymptom illness after 1991 Gulf War deployment. We therefore proposed a blinded test of the relationship, if any, between squalene antibodies and chronic multisymptoms reported by Navy construction workers.

Thank you. Does it actually say that no squalene was used? I can see only that, "laboratory-based investigations do not establish that squalene was added as adjuvant to any vaccine used in military or other personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War Era." SlimVirgin 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The GAO report they reference in ref 7 was the one I added to the article, and they say that there was "no known exposure" to this type of adjuvant in the private sector study's subjects. I'd interpret that as "they never got any" myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that sentence for now because it looked a bit odd and raised more questions than we answered. SlimVirgin 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could just remove any mention of Gulf War syndrome? Even the "Straight.com" article says this is not a very well-supported idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the alarmist talk is sourced to primary sources that merely suggest concern. People get paid to invent content like this. Without medically reliable secondary sources indicating that these concerns are considered actionable by responsible bodies, these claims of concern are not encyclopedic and do not meet with Wikipedia policies. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It seems to be one of the key concerns, so I don't think we should remove it. I saw an article somewhere else that Chris Shaw had contributed to or was interviewed for that mentioned it, as I recall. I'll try to find it later. SlimVirgin 23:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good read. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A key concern of who? I have seen almost nothing about this outside of this "Straight.com" article and some alt-med blogs. This seems to be internet rumour more than a real concern backed by reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This source http://www.flu.gov/myths/index.html is useful on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found two good sources (NYT and Newsweek) that attribute the "concerns" about squalene to rumours spread by chain e-mails and anti-vaccination groups. If people are being misinformed about this, WAS 4.250, it is probably a good idea to lay these rumours to rest in this article, using reliable sources that discuss and analyse the activities of these groups. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go for it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked closely yet, but I like this sentence: "These rumours generally make unfounded claims that the vaccine is dangerous and may also contain conspiracy theories." Hey, I think I'll have some of it in that case. :p SlimVirgin 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! :) I've reworded that, to avoid the implication that conspiracy theories are now being produced in liquid form. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would explain a lot. :) SlimVirgin 01:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kids under 10 need two doses, 3 weeks apart

I think it is notable that the CDC recommends one dose of vaccine for older children and adults, but two doeses for kids 9 and under. This is stated clearly in the CDC documents about the two vaccines: the shot Information Statement 2009 H1N1 Inactivated Influenza Vaccine 10/2/09 and the nasal spray Information Statement 2009 H1N1 LAIV 10/2/09 

Children through 9 years of age should get two doses of
vaccine, about a month apart. Older children and adults need
only one dose.

The CDC's general vaccine FAQ makes for confusing reading: [4]

Where in this story should this information go, that the CDC says kids under 10 need two doses "about a month" apart?

Right after the CDC's list of who should get the vaccine?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

I agree with SlimVirgin, I don't think including this is a good idea. It seems, from the proposed text, to be a way of giving undue weight to fringe views expressed in sources such as http://www.theflucase.com/, http://www.wearechangeuk.co.uk/, YouTube, and even (ironically) http://www.davidicke.com These views are lacking any support in reliable secondary sources and the sources proposed fail the general verifiability policy as well as the more specific medical sourcing guideline. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Dystonia" section?

The one reported possible dystonia case

A. not dystonia & B. not after swine flu vaccination but seasonal vaccination

  1. ^ Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS, Cernichiari E, Clarkson T (2005). "Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal". Environ. Health Perspect. 113 (8): 1015–21. PMC 1280342. PMID 16079072. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Magos L (2003). "Neurotoxic character of thimerosal and the allometric extrapolation of adult clearance half-time to infants". J Appl Toxicol. 23 (4): 263–9. doi:10.1002/jat.918. PMID 12884410.
  3. ^ [Thimerosal in Vaccines Questions and Answers "Thimerosal in Vaccines Questions and Answers"]. US Food and Drug Administration. 07/10/2009 . {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_swine_flu_pandemic_vaccine&oldid=330133198"