Hey all you bloody sods from England.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 13:20
VIEWED: 3157
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:Work?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Better ?
And I was soooo tempted to use the W word too.
Bloody Yankees.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well first up it won't be "mandatory" no immunization is because even the most necessary ones can have bad side effects on young children. Parents always get an option of opting out.
Second the NHS has limited funding there will be studies done to assess costs, risks and benefits before it goes to wide spread adoption.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hope so, but be prepared to fight it regardless, look what happened in texas as an example.
Merck has a LOT of money, which can buy a great deal of political clout if used in the right places, so don't let your guard down till it blindsides you like it did those texans.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hopefully it won't come to that, there are a lot more testing levels done here then in a lot of the countries and i doubt the bigger ones like Glaxo will touch it without the right steps being taken but I'm definitely glad you warned us. I very much doubt the NHS will take it on either with limited funds and the newest cervical cancer vaccines taking up a lot of their studies, but it's possible other private ones will. One which are looking for a big name and big publicity.
Saying that though after the Parexel scare and publicity they might find themselves not having all that much luck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Related linkage
Reports from Feb, initial responses.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62176.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/63586.php
VAERS
http://www.vaers.hhs.gov/
Gullian-Barre Syndrome, the most common "side effect" of such, very traumatic and often resulting in permanent neurological damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain-Barr%C3%A9_syndrome
And I wouldn't count on it, annuette, GSK is already ramping up their own followup profitmaker by the name of Ceravix right behind Merck's Gardasil.
Neither of which has even been in existance long enough to have any evidence of the long-term effectiveness they cite, but the casualties stacked up so fast I am a bit appalled that it hasn't been yanked and blacklisted here.
At least you folk don't have to worry about Thimerosal on top of it, as THAT is banned, and wisely so, in every country but this one.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Update (Australia), not very informative and written from a pro-merck bias - but still further evidence of a serious reaction problem.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C22864043-2862%2C00.
html
I just don't get how that can say a vacc is gonna protect someone X amount of years down the road when it's not been in existance that long, and there's so many other factors in those years.
Also, concerns about longterm effects that folks will be unable to prove causation of, five, ten years down the road... if some reactions are so bad these kids collapse on the spot, who's to say there might not be other problems that will manifest later, when it's so much harder to prove causation ?
I dunno, but I sure as heck wouldn't risk the health of any of my own to find out.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, apparently a UK paper did touch on it, a Londoner I talk to on occasion sent this one in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,2042653,00.html
What drew my concern and attention in the first place was these heavy lobbying and strongarm tactics to get it sold to as many folks as possible as fast as possible, perhaps even with Government force behind it to make sure.
As if they want it done before before something happens..
As if they wanna get rid of it quick..
As if they wanna make their buck and wash their hands of it..
It just.. seems suspicious, for something that if it was so desired and effective, why the push against further testing, why the strongarm ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME