Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Laurahw, No I thought it would be of interest to some people,

as bodsier says above.Regardless whether you may think I have "an axe to grind"

This is something beingg reported in the news based on facts not speculation,

making it irrelevant who the OP is,

Hi smiler, its a u-turn over the connection with glaxo, smith and klines swine flu vaccine with narcolepsy. If

you google the title of this thread adding narcolepsy, then telegraph, although lots of reporting of it. Sorry

i'd do a summary myself but probably best to read it yourself.

Totally agree that it's good to have all the information and make informed choices. So long as the information is accurate, up to date and unbiased. (on that basis I wish I hadn't bothered clicking on the second link)


To summarise the telegraph piece - 4 families claimed for compensation because they believed their child developed narcolepsy because of the swine flu jab. Their claim was turned down initially but new evidence suggests that the condition could have been caused by the jab so the government have contacted them about this (that's the u-turn). There could be about 100 other similar cases and it could cost a lot in compensation although there is an argument over if the condition is severe enough to fall under the government scheme.


So basically, all routine vaccinations carry a very small chance of side effects. The government didn't think narcolepsy was one of those side effects but it altered it's opinion when presented with good evidence.

The adjjuvant (a substance that enhances the bodys immune response to an antigen),

In the swine flu vaccine was Os03=oil based squalene, these vaccines are banned in US.

Hence the second link above.


CDC centers for disease control is currently sponsoring an an international study

on the association between adjuvanted monvalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine and

narcolepsy.The study is expected to be completed in 2014.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Saw this today about Southwark voting in support of a tourist tax in the borough  BBC News - Tourist tax visitor levy comes closer in Southwark https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypvw0qln7o Makes me wonder what else they can find to tax, maybe a fine for breaking wind, or breathing or even a tax on windows. Of course I am being facetious but it does feel like if it moves, they will tax it. 
    • Politicians particularly so....remember it's always party before people! I doubt McAsh will be in cabinet much longer...he might find even more attempts to kneecap his political career. I wonder if he might have to move to another area and restart - he obviously has political ambition but it seems Southwark is not going to be where it blossoms anymore - unless he can manage some sort of coup.  
    • You could attend the next edf drinks    https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/360548-ed-forum-drinks/page/3/#comments
    • Hi Sue, they were not local solicitors. Andrea’s was based in Wales and the other firms involved were large nationwide conveyancing companies (rather than conventional high street solicitors). I’m happy to advise clients and buyers privately on what I believe to be their shortcomings but I don’t think doing so in public on the forum would be appropriate, particularly as they are not locally based. My general advice would always be to steer clear of the big conveyancing companies as they are, in my experience, notoriously difficult to contact when the need arises and the case handler is often not a fully qualified solicitor and so issues have to be referred upwards to “technical teams” internally, which was part of the problem in Andrea’s chain. Tony
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...