|
|
They include instructions on usage, as well as information about the ingredients used. vaccine side effects, studies done, contraindications, vaccine effectiveness rate etc.
In the past, only doctors got to see these vaccine package inserts. So the public would not have known, for example, that a vaccine had not been tested on pregnant women. Or what its side effects might be.
With the Internet, these inserts have become freely accessible. For example, the inserts for all the H1N1 vaccines approved in the United States are available for download at these links:
As a result, our eyes have been opened. For these vaccine inserts contain a wealth of information. With regards the H1N1 vaccine, for example, we now know that:
Vaccine package inserts on side effects
As for vaccine side effects, government health authorities usually tell us that they are few and mostly mind, such as slight pain at the injection site, low grade fever, sore throat, etc. When one reads the vaccine package inserts, however, again one might be shocked. The Novartis H1N1 vaccine insert, for example, lists out 47 possible side effects, including:
Once again, we see a huge gap in the level of information normally given to the public and the information supplied to doctors and other medical professionals in the vaccine package inserts.
Yet these are only the accepted side effects. Other side effects, such as autism, are not accepted by the medical community and so they still do not get listed in the vaccine package inserts.
Vaccine package inserts on flu shot effectiveness
The information provided in vaccine package inserts about flu shot effectiveness is shrouded in medical jargon and some explanation is needed for ordinary folks to understand what it really means. But even without the additional explanation, the raw figures are not too impressive.
The vaccine package inserts (for H1N1 vaccines given via injections) usually state following:
|
Specific levels of HI antibody titers post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccine have not been correlated with protection from influenza virus. In some human studies, antibody titers of 1:40 or greater have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50 percent of subjects. |
Without fully understanding the medical jargon, this seems to imply that the flu shot effectiveness rate is only "up to 50 percent". Not very impressive is it? And if you have ever been attracted by "Sale" advertisements proclaiming discounts of "up to 50 percent" you will know that "up to" very often means "less than". The term "up too" defines the maximum, not the standard.
But let's look a little closer at the above statement from vaccine package inserts. The term "antibody titers" refers to the concentration of antibodies that develop following vaccination. It means if the vaccine is 100 percent effective, it will produce antibody titers of 1:40 or greater. And that would protect 50 percent of people against the flu.
BUT... no vaccine is 100 percent effective. The vaccine package insert from Australia vaccine manufacturer CSL, for example, states that their H1N1 vaccine produces the desired titer rates for only:
Putting together the two pieces of information, you will realise that the true flu shot effectiveness rate is only "up to" (meaning "less than") 50 percent of 48.7 percent for people age 18 to 65. In other words, it is less than 24.35 percent. For those 65 years and older, the actual flu shot effectiveness rate is only "up to" 50 percent of 34 percent, meaning "less than" 17 percent.
WHY then, are people being urged to get vaccinated? For such small potential benefits, they expose themselves to high risks of developing serious side effects - much higher, in fact, than the odds of winning a lottery!
Information about vaccine trials
Vaccine package inserts also reveal how the vaccines were studied and the results of those studies.
Prepare yourself for more shock... During the trials for the controversial Prevnar PCV-7 vaccine against pneumonia, 12 children actually died. Yet the vaccine was declared "safe". Why? Because the control vaccine used in the study caused even more deaths.
And here is another shocker... What was this control vaccine? It was another experimental vaccine!
This is outrageous! How can a vaccine be declared "safe" just because it caused fewer deaths than another, unproven, experimental vaccine? Yet the medical community somehow finds this acceptable. To doctors, it is simply standard practice. This is how things are usually done.
A matter of responsibility
The thing about vaccine package inserts is that they have to be responsible. Drugs and vaccines are serious products that could make a difference between life and death. If not administered properly, according to instructions, they could also lead to doctors being sued for vast sums of money. So these packages have to reveal as much as possible, without hiding anything. They have to be totally honest.
Government health authorities, on the other hand, somehow do not feel an equal need to be responsible - and honest - towards the public. Often, they simply assure that vaccines are safe and provide minimal information, if at all, about any possible harm.
In Singapore, for example, the Health Promotion Board recently produced a booklet to educate the public about the H1N1 flu and hundreds of thousands of copies, in all the four official languages, were distributed to every single household. The booklet did not even mention a single word about possible flu vaccine side effects!