Friday, November 13, 2009

Kids over 3, no need for H1N1 seconds, despite lack of scientific evidence

The H1N1 vaccine reccomendation for children has changed.
It was initially being reported that children ages 3-9 would need 2 vaccinations against H1N1.
Now Public Health Canada is saying only one vaccination is necessary.
What has brought on this decision? How do they know that one vaccine is effective?
Read on, because this is interesting.

"The decision isn't based on the hardest of hard scientific evidence, but on some promising data and the reality that when vaccine supplies are still scarce, it probably makes sense to give more people one dose than to give children a second dose they may not need. It's a position advised by the World Health Organization"

Well, that is not a surprise, that the decision is not based on hard scientific evidence.

I don't know if anything about this entire scenario has been based on HARD scientific evidence.
From the changing of the defintion of pandemic to the lack of testing on the vaccines and now children over 3 do not need the second vaccination.

A number of questions come to my mind-
The decision to vaccinate young children twice, what was it based on? Was there really any "hard scientific evidence" behind that decision? Because, if there was hard scientific evidence behind the two shot policy, how could the evidence be dismissed?

As acknowledged this is no "hard scientific evidence" behind the move to a one vaccination policy. I would think if there had been any hard scientific date behind the initial decision, then the two shot policy would have remained in place, and yet it isn't.

There is talk of promising data? After just a couple of weeks?

"The limited data that exist suggest the vaccine Canada is using may even protect young children with a single dose because it contains an adjuvant, an additive that boosts the immune response. But the data are too limited for the experts advising Canada on H1N1 vaccine policy to feel confident that the youngest children would be protected by a single shot."

Despite the data being too limited for experts to feel confident that the youngest children will be protected, PHC is changing the policy. I can't help but wonder... Is the reality that the vaccine was ineffective anyway, so that one or two shots is irrelevant?

Political expediency is being acknowledged. A panic is created, there is alot of fear, and we are looking foolish. So were going to ration to score political points.

But, if the science was there to support the vaccinations in the first place, political expediency would be foolish. I scratch my head.


  1. Penn, you've done some sterling work on the H1N1 scare stories, well done.

    As a father to a seven year old boy, I can categorically say that he will NOT be receiving any kind of vaccination against this joke of a virus.

    Like the saying goes, "over my dead body".

  2. Thanks Edo

    I am just not sure what gives here with this whole scenario.
    It seems more fabrication then reality.

    I do realize some people are becoming ill and sadly some are dying.

    I also realize that happens every year with the seasonal flu, without all the hype and fear mongering.

    The case of evan frustaglio bothers me....

    I keep thinking if he did die of meningitis as opposed to h1n1, what kind of massive diservice is being engaged in.
    That in the zeal to push, what looks to be a political agenda other diseases are failing to be diagnosed and treated.
    I shudder at the fallout from this all

    a seven year old? god that is sweet.
    and yet it must be difficult to listen to the telly and stick to that sort of decision.

    I did ask my one and only to not get it, but, being as she is older, I cannot tell her what to do, as if you can ever really once they hit a certain age. lol.

    However she had decided on her own not to take it.

    Myself and the hubby had decided that we were not going to some time back.

  3. I think the scenario being played out here is stunningly obvious once you put your bullshit detectors into action...

    The beneficiaries of this scare are the World Health Organisation, who get honoured with more powers taken from sovereign nations; the pharmaceutical companies (aka Baxter) who fill their pockets by selling millions of doses of vaccine to governments; and last but not least, there's the potential that dark powers are using this whole exercise to either: fuck about with millions of people's immune systems, or worse still.

    I don't know about the latter, the first 2 are obvious enough. The latter could just be disinfo to discredit the first 2.

  4. Not sure but I think that I called BULLSHIT on this one right from the get go. Now I could be wrong on that but I DON"T THINK SO!!!!

  5. "and yet it must be difficult to listen to the telly and stick to that sort of decision."

    Exactly. I don't listen to the telly.