UK docs get bonuses to meet vaccine targets

SLUSK

UK docs get bonuses to meet vaccine targets, so they have financial incentives to vaccinate as many as possible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1226704/GPs-bigger-bonuses-meet-swine-flu-jab-targets.html

What is the reason for them to get these bonuses is it because the help to increase the profits of big pharma? I personally don't believe for a second this is about depopulation, I think it is about huge profits for big pharma.

livvy

SLUSK wrote: »

UK docs get bonuses to meet vaccine targets, so they have financial incentives to vaccinate as many as possible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1226704/GPs-bigger-bonuses-meet-swine-flu-jab-targets.html

What is the reason for them to get these bonuses is it because the help to increase the profits of big pharma? I personally don't believe for a second this is about depopulation, I think it is about huge profits for big pharma.

I might sound naive but maybe the more vaccinated, the less sick therefore less financial strain on health service.

SLUSK

livvy wrote: »

I might sound naive but maybe the more vaccinated, the less sick therefore less financial strain on health service.

That sounds very naive, this strain of flu seems to be one of the mildest in years. The flu season is over in Australia and New Zealand and far less people have died than in a normal flu season.

Diogenes

SLUSK wrote: »

That sounds very naive, this strain of flu seems to be one of the mildest in years. The flu season is over in Australia and New Zealand and far less people have died than in a normal flu season.

Source for any of the above?

tallaght01

Very unlikely GPs will much, if any, of this money as profit.
'
They're getting paid to put on swine flu vaccine clinic. Trying to vaccinate 30% of the population is a HUGE undertaking, and they can't do it for free. They have to pay admin staff and nurses overtime, call in patients, shift through notes to find out who's high risk.

This is just a case of paying extra for extra work, and it's still unlikely govt-set targets will be reached.

But the daily mail has a penchant for sensationalism.

SLUSK

Diogenes wrote: »

Source for any of the above?

So far 212 deaths in Australia and the Pacific... This is way below the normal flu season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

If you read this link you will see they quote figures from the ECDC.

I don't know how many die over there in a normal season exactly but it is more than 1000 people at least.

tallaght01

SLUSK wrote: »

So far 212 deaths in Australia and the Pacific... This is way below the normal flu season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

If you read this link you will see they quote figures from the ECDC.

I don't know how many die over there in a normal season exactly but it is more than 1000 people at least.

Now look for the age-adjusted figures

Diogenes

SLUSK wrote: »

So far 212 deaths in Australia and the Pacific... This is way below the normal flu season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

If you read this link you will see they quote figures from the ECDC.

I don't know how many die over there in a normal season exactly but it is more than 1000 people at least.

Nothing there to support your assertion that te flu season is over i Australia.

SLUSK

Diogenes wrote: »

Nothing there to support your assertion that te flu season is over i Australia.

Flu season is generally in the winter months, summer is starting there in less than a month. You're telling me flu season is running into summer time?

Diogenes

SLUSK wrote: »

Flu season is generally in the winter months, summer is starting there in less than a month. You're telling me flu season is running into summer time?

So that'd be a a definitive "No" to support your claim re flu season ending in Australia.

I'd rather take Tallaght's opinion as to flu season's start and end in Australia. Speaking to a friend who moved there a couple of years ago, flu season starts around the time our Winter ends. She claimed the first wave of swine flu was over in Australia around May. I wouldn't mind your claims but she's a MD and GP.

So making a cyclical claim about swine flu seasons compared to the northern hemisphere is pointless and irrelevant.

Finally after spending half an hour in my UK GP today their surgery is littered with posters and literature informing me that if I feel I have swine flu, I should absolutely Not come into the practice and instead phone in, they will diagnosis me over the phone and if necessary send me to get tamiflu from elsewhere.

The practice was nigh on deserted btw. No clambering horde desperate for the vaccine.

tallaght01

It's fair enough to say that the flu season has ended in Oz.

But we're having a slight resurgence, which is odd, and is making us slightly worried about a 2nd wave. But we're just keeping an eye, and trying to get people vaccinated. There's less mentalness here about the vaccine, so our clinics are going well. But we're still having problems.

But the worrying age-adjusted figures are the ones that are important, rather than crude numbers, especially as we haven't had a 12 month period to watch this thing.

The problem is that people who call "conspiracy" at ever turn are almost always people who haven't had to work on this bug, or look after the babies who've been born prematurely after their pregnant mums gave birth in ICU.

This has been a horrible disease affecting youngsters like we've not seen a flu doing before. It's been turning their lungs into sponges.

I do get a giggle out of the conspiracy crowd shouting from the rooftops about those of us who are trying to kill off the population, when I worked 20+ days straight, 12 hours a day, during the H1n1 peak trying to stop it.

But the serious side is that vaccination rates are falling. I looked after a baby in ICU recently who was very lucky to make it out alive after her whooping cough. She hadn't been vaccinated because of the "scares". I looked after a high profile case recently (I won't go into the details for the sake of confidentiality.It wasn't whooping cough though) who died for want of a simple vaccine. The parents of that kid have told me they'll never forgive themselves for listening to the scaremongering.

That is literally the only reason that I post in this forum, as I hate even reading it.

It's sad. But at least there are people willing to fight those who will accept any fact thrown at them by youtube or any dodgy doctor.

But people should really be sure that they could look the parents of a dead kid in the eye if they die from a vaccine preventable illness after reading through a lot of the garbage on the net.

samson09

Whooping cough rates were decreasing well before vaccinations against it were introduced.

"Mortality from whooping cough dropped ten years prior to vaccination programme."
Dr Griffin's report is confirmed in the following graph from HM Stationery Office, Great Britain



Similarly the following graph taken from Health Reports (Appendices to Parliamentary Journals) and Official Year Book shows the same pattern in New Zealand... By 1962 whooping cough was wiped out prior to the introduction of vaccine.



The claim that the vaccine was responsible for the decrease in whooping cough just has no "reality" behind it.

I wonder if the "guilt ridden" parents of unvaccinated children know this?

Perhaps they didn't want their child to end up with irreversible brain damage.

"There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds, if not thousands, of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly, and that their lives and those of their parents have been wrecked in consequence."
(Gordon Stewart, Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow, 1980, commenting on the deadly effects of whooping cough vaccine.)

tallaght01

See, this is more nonsensical misinterpretation of the data.

I'm glad you posted agraph from an animal rights, ant-vaccine website, cleverly calling itself www.health.org.nz where they compare death rates in 1950 with those in 1900 before the invention of antibiotics!!!

Anyway, here's the actual figures about vaccine introduction.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/HPA/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/1191942148394/

health protection agency UK wrote:

Before the introduction of pertussis immunisation in the 1950s, the average annual number of notifications in England and Wales exceeded 100,000. In 1972, when vaccine acceptance was over 80%, there were only 2069 notifications of pertussis. Public anxiety about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, following a report published which suggested the vaccine was a common link between a group of children with brain damage, saw immunisation coverage drop to 30% in 1975 resulting in major epidemics in 1977/79 and 1981/83. As a result, there were more than 200,000 extra notifications and 100 deaths in 1970s and 1980s. Vaccine coverage steadily increased over the next decade as public and professional confidence in the vaccine was restored, reaching 94% in 1995, at which level it has remained. Correspondingly, notifications decreased dramatically during this period with 2000 being the lowest on record. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) initiated a programme of enhanced surveillance to monitor the number of cases of whooping cough and vaccine efficacy in 1994.

However, despite a high vaccination uptake, the burden of pertussis in England and Wales remained highest in children too young to be fully protected.

Following a detailed study of pertussis in infants on paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and mathematical modelling by the HPA, in November 2001, a pre-school booster dose of pertussis vaccine (given between 3-5 years of age) was added to the routine immunisation schedule with the aim of reducing illness in older age groups thereby reducing transmission of pertussis to babies too young to be fully protected.

There was certainly a drop in pertussis deaths before the vaccine, as antibiotics and ICU improved. BUt lots of those kids ended up with hypoxic brain damage from the disease, as well as taking up LOTS of ICU beds.

Luckily, I worked in paediatrics in new Zealand, and know that their vaccination programme resulted ina significant decline in both cases of pertussis (whooping cough) and deaths from it. The following research from NZ backs that claim up:

http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/3130

auckland university wrote:

Literature review Pertussis mortality and morbidity Mass immunisation was associated with a decrease in pertussis mortality and a profound reduction in pertussis incidence. Despite this pertussis remains prevalent. Infants account for the majority of pertussis deaths and hospitalisations. Immunisation Pertussis vaccines protect against disease rather than infection. Despite immunisation pertussis remains endemic. The efficacy of different whole cell and acellular pertussis vaccines varies considerably. There has only been a small increase in immunisation coverage in New Zealand over the past 25 years. Currently between 80% and 90% of New Zealand children receive the primary immunisation series. Other epidemiological features Bordetella pertussis is a highly infectious organism. Neither infection nor immunisation results in lifelong immunity. Pertussis affects all age groups. It is more severe in females than in males. The incidence has always been highest in infants and children but the reported incidence in adults is increasing. Pertussis epidemics occur at four yearly intervals. The epidemic periodicity has not been changed by immunisation. Risk factors for pertussis Contemporary case control studies from the United States have shown that exposure to someone outside of the home with pertussis increases the risk of introduction of pertussis into the home and that infants of adolescent mothers and of mothers with a preceding coughing illness are at increased risk of pertussis. Small sample size and imprecise measurement of immunisation status have compromised these studies. Other factors associated with an increased risk of pertussis in infants include younger age, low birth weight, the infant's immunisation status and household crowding. Prior to this current case control study there was no knowledge on the effect of infant characteristics, infant immunisation status, parental and household characteristics, or socioeconomic factors on the risk of pertussis in infants. Methods The pertussis mortality and hospital discharge statistics and notification data from 1872 to 2000 were reviewed. The characteristics of children hospitalised with pertussis during the 1995 to 1997 epidemic were described. Risk factors for pertussis in infants were determined using a case control study with two different control groups. A matched case-control design was used to compare infants with pertussis with well control infants from the community. An unmatched design was used to compare infants hospitalised with pertussis to infants hospitalised with other acute respiratory illnesses. Results Historical review of pertussis epidemiology Immunisation was associated with a significant decline in pertussis mortality rates in New Zealand. Pertussis incidence rates in New Zealand are five and 10 times higher than in the United Kingdom or the United States. New Zealand pertussis hospital discharge rates increased from 1920 to 1950, decreased from 1950 to 1970 and have been increasing since then. The severity of disease among those hospitalised in New Zealand is comparable to other developed countries. Case control study of risk factors for pertussis in infants In the community control sample factors associated with incomplete immunisation included poverty and household crowding, advice from a doctor that immunisations be delayed and the caregiver not having a record of the infant's immunisations. Primary and secondary pertussis in case households occurred in all age groups. Over half of the primary cases were infants. Factors associated with an increased risk of pertussis included incomplete immunisation of the infant, children five to nine years of age living in the household, household members with pertussis during the preceding two months and the family doctor advising that an immunisation be delayed. Preschool attendance by a household member was associated with a decreased risk of pertussis. Infants of low birth weight and infants with younger mothers were not at increased risk of pertussis. In a multivariate analysis, non-immunisation of other children in the household and the presence of someone in the household with clinical pertussis were associated with an increased risk of pertussis in infants. The associations between household members with cough and the risk of pertussis varied with the age of the household members and imply an age dependent disease modifying effect of immunisation. For many of the children in the study households it seems unlikely that any health professional knew whether or not they were fully immunised. Conclusions Immunisation reduced pertussis mortality in New Zealand. Pertussis hospitalisation rates are increasing despite improvements in the immunisation schedule. Sustained sub-optimal immunisation coverage appears to be the dominant reason for New Zealand’s excessive pertussis disease burden. Primary school aged children are important in household pertussis transmission.

As well as working in New Zealand, I happen to have worked briefly in the same public health dept as Prof Gordon. He had concerns (detailed int he health protection agency report above) about the pertussis vaccine. Fair enough. He was the Andrew Wakefield of his day. He was wrong EVERY SINGLE STUDY published since has shown him wrong.

It's very frustrating to have to constantly counter claims from animal rights websites etc, as I have to spend my working life fire fighting this kind of nonsense.

I put it to you sampson09, to show the parents who might be reading this ONE study that shows pertussis vaccine causes "irreversible brain damage". You used the phrase. Back it up.

tallaght01

Just to add (as it's very hard to let this type of stuff go unchallenged) our local whooping cough vaccine side effect profile, for the benefit of any worried parents reading this,as I've just grabbed my work folder (I'm on a local whooping cough working group, which is, I guess, my conflict of interest here):

20% get a fever

2% get swelling in the area where they've had the vaccine, which can be quite severe.

HHE (hypotonic-hyporesponsiveness episodes) where the pretty much has a faint, happened in about 2 per 200,000 kids vaccinated in Australia each year. They don't have any long term effects from it.

Some get pain in the arms lasting a few days, but it's hard to get exact numbers, as kids don't tell you.

I don't know the figures for allergic reactions off-hand, but they are very rare. I've not seen even one.


I'm not advising anyone to do anything other than talk to their GP or paediatrician. But I would plead with people not to take advice from quack websites.

samson09

I find it truly amazing that someone can look at a graph that clearly shows that rates were declining well before the introduction of vaccines (for a number of diseases) and still claim that vaccines were responsible for the decline. Science really is the new religion.

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

I find it truly amazing that someone can look at a graph that clearly shows that rates were declining well before the introduction of vaccines (for a number of diseases) and still claim that vaccines were responsible for the decline. Science really is the new religion.

You're just embarrassing yourself by failing to grasp the role of antibiotics and ICU, as well as having no clue about basic epidemiology.

What do you have to say about the uni of auckland research and the HPA numbers?

I'll talk about your graphs when they're not from quack websites, and when you make an effort to think about the epidemiology.

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

You're just embarrassing yourself by failing to grasp the role of antibiotics and ICU, as well as having no clue about basic epidemiology.

What do you have to say about the uni of auckland research and the HPA numbers?

I'll talk about your graphs when they're not from quack websites, and when you make an effort to think about the epidemiology.

So now you're implying that the graphs aren't credible, that the rate of whooping cough was not falling well before the introduction of vaccines?

You're clutching at straws here. Embarrassing myself? Thanks for the giggle. I'd be more embarrassed if I claimed to be a doctor and refused to acknowledge simple graphs that clearly show that the mortality rate for a disease was falling well before a vaccine was introduced.

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

So now you're implying that the graphs aren't credible, that the rate of whooping cough was not falling well before the introduction of vaccines?

You're clutching at straws here. Embarrassing myself? Thanks for the giggle. I'd be more embarrassed if I claimed to be a doctor and refused to acknowledge simple graphs that clearly show that the mortality rate for a disease was falling well before a vaccine was introduced.

You're embarrasing yourself by producing graphs that aren't age adjusted.

A) your graphs are not referenced. They're from a quack website

They're not age adjusted. The people we worry about getting whopping cough are those under 6 months, as they're the ones who die from it. Your graph is the only graph I have seen in donkeys years which makes no effort to show the effect of vaccines on infant death rates. Do you never question data? A graph showing death rates in under 15s is useless in the context of whooping cough. All it does is shows us that loads of teenagers don't die any more because of whooping cough. Your second graph even includes adults!!!!!

C) There is no mention of incidence in your graph. No representation of babies admitted to ICU. No representation of those left with brain damage who didn't die (a bigger number than deaths in some years). Where does your graph show the "rates" are falling?

D) Your graph show pertussis deaths from before the bug that causes it was discovered :P

You need to reference your graphs, and you need to question that data.

Now, let's move onto the data I've presented. I've loads more, too. Why don't you start with the health protection agency data.....

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

You're embarrasing yourself by producing graphs that aren't age adjusted.

A) your graphs are not referenced. They're from a quack website

They're not age adjusted. The people we worry about getting whopping cough are those under 6 months, as they're the ones who die from it. Your graph is the only graph I have seen in donkeys years which makes no effort to show the effect of vaccines on infant death rates. Do you never question data? A graph showing death rates in under 15s is useless in the context of whooping cough. All it does is shows us that loads of teenagers don't die any more because of whooping cough. Your second graph even includes adults!!!!!

C) There is no mention of incidence in your graph. No representation of babies admitted to ICU. No representation of those left with brain damage who didn't die (a bigger number than deaths in some years). Where does your graph show the "rates" are falling?

D) Your graph show pertussis deaths from before the bug that causes it was discovered :P

You need to reference your graphs, and you need to question that data.

Now, let's move onto the data I've presented. I've loads more, too. Why don't you start with the health protection agency data.....

"Quack website". No matter what's posted it's always met with either "quack website" or an attempt to discredit the source.

Simple yes or no answer is all that's required here.

Was the mortality rate of whooping cough decreasing before vaccines were introduced?

samson09

This graph includes infants

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/0707274WhoopingCough.jpg

tallaght01

double post

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

This graph includes infants

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/0707274WhoopingCough.jpg

I'll make this very simple for you sampson. Then you need to start refuting the HPA claims and the uni of auckland claims.

A) you havent said where the graph comes from

it's given data from when before we could test for whooping cough

C) It includes infants, but is diluted by hundreds of other people. If 1000 people die per year, and only 200 of those are infants, you have a start point for a graph. Now, with ICU, we can stick the older ones on a ventilator and breathe for them, and they will get better. We can give them antibiotics too. So, of the 800 older people who used to die, only 10 now die.
But when you stick infants on a ventilator, they run the risk of brain dmamage. They also don't tend to get better themselves. Antibiotics aren't very effective against pertussis in babies, if at all.
So, we've saved all the adults. We now have 205 deaths per year.
Draw that graph and see how effective it looks. It looks like deaths have reduced by 80% without a vaccine. But deaths in infants have stayed static.

D) Pertussis is not only about death. It's about brain damaged babies. It's about ICU adimissions. It's about huge amount of paeds intensive care beds being taken up.

Now, you can't just rock in here showing graphs that you've pulled from nowhere, and just expect this to be a one way street.

You have no right to scare parents by talking about "irreversible brain damage" using nothing more than a 30 year old quote.

You have a responsibility sampson. I've told you why your graph is not particularly useful. Your graphs are from the uk and new zealand supposedly.The HPA (UK) agrees with me, and so do the new zealand researchers.

Now YOU tell the parents of children who are reading this why they should believe you over the FIGURES I've given above.

I'm not replying to any more of your scaremongering until you deal with the sources I've provided, just like I've done for your "source".

Also, I don't understand your new graph. Is it showing all cause mortality or pertussis infant mortality???
I've had a good look at your new graph. It seems to be showing pertussis mortality for ALL AGES Vs infant mortality from ALL CAUSES. What does that prove? I'm in the middle of getting ready to go out, so I may have misread, but that's what it looks like to me.

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'll make this very simple for you sampson. Then you need to start refuting the HPA claims and the uni of auckland claims.

A) you havent said where the graph comes from

it's given data from when before we could test for whooping cough

C) It includes infants, but is diluted by hundreds of other people. If 1000 people die per year, and only 200 of those are infants. Now, with ICU, we can stick the older ones on a ventilator and breathe for them, and they will get better. We can give them antibiotics too. So, of the 800 lder people who used to die, only 10 now die.
But when you stick infants on a ventilator, they run the risk of brain dmamage. They also don't tend to get better themselves. Antibiotics aren't very effective against pertussis in babies, if at all.
So, we've saved all the adults. We now have 205 deaths per year.
Draw that graph and see how effective it looks. It looks like deaths have reduced by 80% without a vaccine. But deaths in infants have stayed static.

D) Pertussis is not only about death. It's about brain damaged babies. It's about ICU adimissions. It's about huge amount of paeds intensive care beds being taken up.

Now, you can't just rock in here showing graphs that you've pulled from nowhere, and just expect this to be a one way street.

You have no right to scare parents by talking about "irreversible brain damage" using nothing more than a 30 year old quote.

You have a responsibility sampson. I've told you why your graph is not particularly useful. Your graphs are from the uk and new zealand supposedly.The HPA (UK) agrees with me, and so do the new zealand researchers.

Now YOU tell the parents of children who are reading this why they should believe you over the FIGURES I've given above.

I'm not replying to any more of your scaremongering until you deal with the sources I've provided, just like I've done for your "source".

Just saw your new graph. It backs up my stance!!!! It shows no outbreaks of pertussis since the vaccines were brought in!!! Look at the peaks before vaccination, and after.

I won't ask anyone to believe anything, if they have half a brain and are interested enough I'm sure they'll go off and do their own due diligence.

The graph clearly illustrates that mortality from whooping cough before vaccinations were introduced was decreasing steadily, for both adults and infants.

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

I won't ask anyone to believe anything, if they have half a brain and are interested enough I'm sure they'll go off and do their own due diligence.

The graph clearly illustrates that mortality from whooping cough before vaccinations were introduced was decreasing steadily, for both adults and infants.

I do not see on any graph that mortality from whooping cough was decreasing in infants.

bonkey

This thread has apparently turned into exactly what I warned people was not acceptable on this forum....since post 3, as far as I can tell.

Locked.

To anyone who contributed after the first reply...consider yourselves lucky you're not banned....because next time you will be.