Doctorul, vaccinurile si dezinformarea

Am un prieten medic. El lucreaza intr-o zona de maxima activitate a epidemiei de rujeola, aparuta in Romania pe fondul reducerii vaccinarii; insa el este impotriva vaccinurilor, zice el doar occidentale. Nu comentez faptul ca geografic epidemia se suprapune peste noile centre de cultura si educatie din Ardeal, ca mi-e rusine. In sfarsit: asta e mesajul de trezire de azi dimineata.

Hai sa trec peste faptul ca mi se adreseaza cu Profesore, clar la bascau, sau ca imi creste tensiunea cand aud un medic anti-vaxxer. Dar noi am mai avut discutia asta o data, si mai bine o reiau pe blog, decat sa pierd minute intregi scriind replyuri la posturi pe Facebook, pentru ca apoi sa se stearga. Asa ca prefer sa spun o data ce am de spus despre vaccinuri, medici si dezinformare. Asadar…

Sa luam in primul rand linkul la care face referinta: Nu e chiar asa enervant linkul, cat sa va creasca tensiunea. 

Din start observam ca e un forum. Autorul este un tip ce se autointituleaza Destiny’s Soldier si are la profil poza lui Putin. Clar un varf al gandirii stiintifice mondiale. Dar ma rog: denunta in termeni clari si fara echivoc un raport intern si secret al GSK (GlaxxoSmithKline, unul din cei mai mari producatori mondiali de medicamente) care recunoaste ca au avut cazuri in care copii au murit dupa vaccinare! Mai mult, acest raport a fost desconspirat de catre European citizens’ initiative! (Nu conteaza ca incurca una cu alta si pune poza unei alte initiative cetatenesti, pana la urma omul e pe un forum, nu e ziarist sau nimic…). In fine.

Ce ma supara pe mine este mai putin admiratorul lui Putin. E dreptul lui sa se exprime. Dar atitudinea colegului ma deranjeaza din 2 motive:

1. E gresit ca medic si om de stiinta, care se presupune ca stie sa faca research, sa sharuiesti asa ceva, fara sa faci minimul de documentare.

2. Cand locuiesti in mijlocul focarului de epidemie, exprimarea ta ca medic este foarte semnificativa pentru oamenii normali. Chiar daca a zis-o in mesaj privat, oare nu asa discuta si cu prieteni?

Sa continuam atunci cu deconstructia. Google e prietenul nostru!

ECI este un mecanism european ce permite cetatenilor sa propuna Comisiei Europene legislatie. Deci o mare de oameni, care nu face anchete.

• The European citizens’ initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal. http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome

A existat o interpelare a Comisiei pe tema asta, intr-adevar. Un europarlamentar cred, si-a exprimat ingrijorarea pe tema mortalitatii vaccinurilor.

Question for written answer E-003985/13 to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(9 April 2013)

Subject: Infanrix vaccine

Following the leak from the Belgian division of the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) of a confidential document on the safety its Infanrix hexa vaccine (used to vaccinate against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b), it has come to light that 36 possible deaths of babies who were given the vaccine have been acknowledged in just a two-year period. Since the vaccine was launched in 2000, there may have been at least 73 deaths in total. In addition to these deaths, the GSK study reveals that 1 742 adverse reactions were reported during the vaccination period. Apparently, no health alert of any kind has been issued about the Infanrix vaccine.
Is the Commission aware of these possible reactions to the Infanrix hexa vaccine?
What are the criteria for health alerts? How many adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports, including deaths, are necessary? How many babies have to die before the authorities warn the public of the dangers of a drug?
Does the Commission believe that allergy and heavy metal testing should be performed prior to vaccinations in order to avoid adverse reactions in people sensitive to them?
Does the Commission not agree with the request made by researchers and science publishers for scientific information from tests on medicinal products to be transparent? Does the Commission not believe that researchers should have access to the data from tests on medicinal products, which pharmaceutical companies do not make public?
Will the Commission take any action in this regard?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.CE.2014.020.01.0001.01.ENG

Raportul secret nu e insa chiar secret. E vorba de raportarea uzuala de incidente pe care o fac companiile.

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2013)
Since 2000, Infanrix Hexa has been authorised as the benefit/risk balance has been considered positive. In the marketing authorisation dossier, the applicant had to show that patients developed immunity and had to report all adverse reactions. The clinical trials outcomes allowed identifying of the risk of allergy and reactions to heavy metals.
Since its authorisation, the safety of Infanrix Hexa is monitored to ensure that, in case of adverse reactions that present an unacceptable level of risk, appropriate action is taken. Until October 2011 nearly 73 million doses of Infanrix Hexa had been distributed. As part of the regular monitoring, GSK reported in 2011 information on adverse reactions. A total of 28 cases with a fatal outcome were received during the reporting period 2009 to 2011, compared to 23 and 19 cases reported in the previous two reporting periods. There was no clear evidence of a link between the administration of the vaccine and the reported fatalities. The European Medicines Agency assessed the reports and concluded that the benefit/risk profile of Infanrix Hexa remained positive. The benefit/risk profile continues to be routinely monitored.
Unfavourable effects of medicines are assessed in relation to their benefits. It is not possible to define general numerical criteria for the acceptability of adverse reactions.
With respect to information on clinical trials, the Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that increased transparency is necessary. Therefore the Commission has put forward a proposal for a regulation (200), which will greatly improve the current situation.

Aici dl. Borg (resistance is futile haha) explica faptul ca, din pacate, exista o anumita mortalitate asociata cu vaccinurile (ca si cu orice medicament). De asmenea explica faptul ca Comisia a evaluat profilul risc/beneficiu si a decis ca se mentine in continuare pozitiv.

Si cam atat. Asta a fost in 2013, si inca nu s-a auzit mai mult pana acum. Concluziile?

1. Nu a existat un leak, nu au fost reactii neprevazute, si nu merita in nici un caz o raspandire alarmista.
2. Ca medic, parerea mea e ca nu ai voie sa te exprimi nedocumentat pe un subiect oh, atat de sensibil. Nu vreau sa ma leg de coleg, de aceea nu il numesc. Dar sa trimiti asa un link unui coleg, eu, care te combate pe tema asta, inseamna numai sa te expui. Daca doresti sa lupti impotriva curentului, te rog fa-o, dar fi documentat, fii brici, convinge-ma cu argumente reale, nu pe care sa le pot demonta in 10 minute de Google.
3. Subiectul vaccinarii este unul sensibil. Reactii adverse, uneori fatale, exista. Balanta la care facea referire Borg, risc/beneficiu, se refera la faptul ca ar exista mult mai multe decese in urma bolii decat in urma vaccinului. Este un risc asumat, dar lumea noastra e plina de riscuri, si acesta e cel mai mic. Nu trebuie ignorata nici o cale, nici o intrebare care ar putea duce la scaderea riscului complicatiilor… dar nu asa.
4. Si in final, va las cu cuvintele dlui Romeva i Rueda, o intrebare pe care Comisia s-a ferit sa o abordeze, dat fiind ca nu poate legifera sau propune asa ceva:

Does the Commission believe that allergy and heavy metal testing should be performed prior to vaccinations in order to avoid adverse reactions in people sensitive to them?