[i]So, as I understand it, the "untested" bit is a very slight risk that attenuated H1N1 in that medium doesn't perform the same as all the previous attenuated strains that are used every year? And the trial of 8,000 showed no indication of that?[/i]
Suppose there is but can't say for sure as never looked into too much.
Picking up on Grahams’s point about been able to trust drugs in common use of the last 30 – 40 years, over the last few years I’ve seen a number of clients who have cognitive impairment of unusual presentation and have taken psycho-active drugs over a long period of time. The implication been that the medication is a significant factor – as yet these are fairly rare cased and little research carried out (and due to the way research funding goes is unlikely) – so you never know
Essential all drugs have both positive and negative effect most of these are know, but you never know what else pop out of the blue – as all individuals are just that and therefore can & do react differently to chemicals introduced into the body. Unless you are detained under the mental health act or have been assessed as lacking capacity under the capacity act you basically have free choice as whether or not to accept medication, neither do you need to justify that decision nor can coercion be used to make you have it
DOH, TJ - of course it is likely you get mild flu symptoms after a flu jab, that is the idea of a vaccine. it is not a magic pill.
They introduce an inactive virus into your body, the bodies immune system fights it, this immune response can often cause the usual noticable affects (mucus, temperature, head ache etc) like a cold. BUT Because the virus is inactive it doesnt replicate and spread and block up and damage important bits of your body, but importantly your bodies Immune System remembers it and attacks it imediately should it meet an active Virus of the same or very similar strain in the future.
Hagi, Drac, you both agree that NHS staff should have a right to refuse the jab, you both agree that the jab is the best thing to do too...
I think that NHS staff should be given the choice too, have the jab or some education until you have the jab, or find another job.
I have still to see any evidence of complications of the swine flu jab (other than the "usual" list that Pharmaceutical companies use to cover their backs)
Furthermore until i see stats where i am more likely to get serious complications from the vaccine, than swine flu, it surely still makes sense to have the vaccine? anyone care to argue why fears of swine flu vaccine unbased in fact or experience, are more justified that fears of a little known Pandemic flu strain with the proven ability to kill healthy adults? Anyone? Anyone????
oh and btw the 1976 Guillon Barre "incident" doesnt count, as the vaccination process has moved on since, and there hasnt been a reoccurence.
Anyone? Free deore rear mech in it for you?
complications of the swine flu jab??? watch this space we start immunising tomorrow.!!
[img] 
[/img]
Tim Drayton - I do know how vaccines work thank you.
I also understand risk assessment and freedom of choice - unlike you. The bottom line remains - its my choice. I am far more likely to catch illness from a patient than they are to catch it from me.
Find one example of a healthcare worker transmitting swine flu.
Forcing NHS professionals to have an immunisation that carries its own risks is simply not on.
what risks? please elaborate TJ?
I am far more likely to catch illness from a patient than they are to catch it from me.
? please explain ? no really I am honestly interested in hearing you explain this one....
Find one example of a healthcare worker transmitting swine flu.
how would this be acomplished when Swine Flu cases are not being clinically tested anymore?
Are you saying that it is not possible for a healthcare worker to transmit swine flu?
So you dont think that any of the thousands of people currently with swine flu are health care workers? And you assume that every health care workers first priority is the people they come into contact with, rather than their wages?
This is precisely why health care workers should have the vaccine.
Because they meet at risk groups, because their level of knowledge of this Pandemic varies, and because some of them (as you have so excellently displayed) think they are better informed than the CDC.
calm down tim this isnt a particularly virulent strain of flu.
Yes is he seen it on John Craven's Newsround.
All immunisations carry risk. You can say this risk is high or low but none are risk free. Simple fact. The risks vary in likelihood and sseverity
The risk of me in my [i]particular circumstance[/i]s being a vector for swime flu transmission are low. If I was working in the medical admissions unit of a busy district general hospital it would be rather different
Why should a very small risk of me being a vector for swine flu mean that my rights to self determination should be restricted?
Of course I am not saying healthcare workers can't transmit swine flu.
Its a simple argument about self determination. You seem satisfied to remove a basic right from me for not quantifiable benefit and its questionable there will be any.
Its clear the main thrust of vaccination for healthcare workers is to reduce sick leave. This is not a particularly dangerous disease.
Notice its the healthcare professional that are doubtfull about this and understand the issues.
[i]Notice its the healthcare professional that are doubtfull about this and understand the issues. [/i]
but are seemingly unwilling to actually discuss them !!
from Drac's earlier post "...Still I won't and can't force my staff to have it only encourage them...." it doesn't sound like he's much in doubt about the benefits of being vaccinated.
No-one is really denying any individuals right to refuse medication, but are interested in the reasons why they may refuse, other than a stubborn 'won't have it because you're telling me to'.....
[i]it doesn't sound like he's much in doubt about the benefits of being vaccinated.[/i]
I hope not I'm a manager too so have to sound convincing.
doctornickriviera - I am pretty calm, just got sucked into an emotive subject for me, I really should know better than arguing on an internet forum....
TJ - Regarding the sick leave thing, agreed, but I have specific reasons for wanting healthcare workers swine flu free. As i have already said my wife has no immune system and is particularly susceptible to pneumonia bugs. Pretty much the only people she meets are healthcare workers, so I think she has the right to not be given swine flu by them. I accept that this doesnt rule out the possibility that I will go to Asda, be coughed over and give it to her, but my point is that they (healthcare workers) could reduce the odds by doing the sensible thing.
And we never mentioned all nhs workers, obviously there is a scale of risk dependant on your exposure to the public, my assumption was we were talking about front line healthcare workers....
I'll be having mine - maybe tomorrow, dunno
Mostly to avoid giving it to my parents (& maybe kids, though if pandemic kicks off proper they'll be passing it round the schools like nobody's business)
couple of thoughts generally:
I'm a bit unsure of the assertion that vaccination won't stop transmission. Immunity (if achieved) should prevent rapid, large increases in viral load in an exposed individual and also coughing etc and I'd agree with those who suggested it "must" reduce transmission.
Also (though I think the argument was a bit of a red-herring anyway) I'm not aware of a (human) carrier state for flu - has this been reported? (I believe cariers generally tend to be non-immune but luckily for them also non-susceptible). It's the non-immune bit that would allow transmission isn't it (?), and vaccines would mostly sort that out
It's a condition of my employment (and pretty typical within NHS) that I must be immune to rubella (G measles) purely because of the risk I might pose to patients, specifically pregnant women. If I hadn't already been immune I'd have been obliged to have the vaccine or look elsewhere for work.
the several H1N1 vaccines aren't licensed in the typical way and don't all correspond to seasonal flu in terms of manufacture. They are however compliant with the WHO's spec for pandemic vaccines and were licensed largely on the basis of prior work using the same methods but for H5N1 a few years ago. They have, of course, had some human testing - including a recent trial for the 2 currently available ones on UK kids
I've no axe to grind, I [i]think[/i] I support others' right to decline but I'm disappointed that your (drac, TJ) reasons are either so nebulous that they can't be articulated or else pretty unconvincing to me based on a "for the greater good" starting premise.
Tim - my point is I don't meet your wife or people like her. If I worked with immuno suppressed people then I would have it.
I am neither in circumstance where I am more likely to catch it than the general population, nor are the people I look after at much greater risk of serious complications of swine flu than the general population. I don't go into the big general hospitals.
There are far more serious risks out there including other health care acquired infections.
There is really little point in me having it
Following this with interest... I am not trying to be a conspriacy starter but there are some issues that don't add up to me and these issues worry me and lead me to not jump on the bandwagon.
Why have they only planned to vaccinate at risk groups? Given as mentioned above that it "can kill a healthy person" seems weird, surely you would jab everyone? **( I know in the BMJ article linked above that it says everyone, i have been told otherwise)
The way the anti-virals have been dished out seems to generate questions, handing them out so willingly with a simple website/phone based test that is easy to fool, with the problem that officially only one antiviral per person should be issued. The WHO advised that Tamiflu (the antiviral) is not administered Tamiflu to children, yet it is currently being done so, and with such disregard, I have heard of all the people given tamiflu, the actual occurence of swine flu is below 20%, that is risking harm without reason.
You question the individuals here who have admited they wouldn't like to take the vaccine... but http://www.****/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html shows nearly half of GP's are concerned and would decline, now either theres a massive lack of information OR they know something me and you don't! I personally have reason to think misinformation is an issue here.
Given the issues above i am not seeing the vaccine as a holy grail and so am not rushing to have it. I think it is an individuals decision.
hmmmm, just re-read the thread & think drac's just arguing against coercion & isn't saying he aint having it, hence no reasons cited - fair enough
Precisely I'm happy to have but only as I choose to and not because some says I have to.
**** going to be late for work. bye!
Why have they only planned to vaccinate at risk groups?
I believe that given the well publicised issues with getting enough of the vaccine made available in time, the priority is for at-risk groups and people in close contact with at-risk groups.
The way the anti-virals have been dished out seems to generate questions,
Indeed, it is experiences like this which probably make so many people question the ability of the govenrment to correctly handle a mass vaccination program.
shows nearly half of GP's are concerned and would decline, now either theres a massive lack of information
You've hit the nail on the head there, several studies have been published that prove higher uptake of vaccines in healthcare workers when they properly understand the risks vs the benefits.
Unfortunately the percieved view is that [b]everybody[/b] who works in the healthcare profession is capable of making an informed judgement on the safety and efficacy of vaccination. Better education is the key here, not allowing people to make judgements based on what they've read in the tabloids.
As I've said all along, nobody should be forced to take the vaccine, but all of those who choose not to should have a genuine reason (as TJ does) that they can explain to their colleagues and managers because the current body of evidence suggests that not taking it could cost lives.
dr_adams my understanding is that Vaccine stocks are currently limited, so they are starting with the most vulnerable first, and then will roll it out in greater numbers when stocks allow.
The widespread Tamiflu prescribing seems to have been a mixture of panic reaction, public placation, (and if you believe it) a means to reduce over stocking of shortly out of date antivirals.
It is widely thought to be less effective once a patient is symptomatic, and even then to only reduce the period of illness by 24 hours.
TJ - you are still yet to provide any reason or proof to not have the vaccine? the fact that you are not likely to meet my wife, aside from this in itself being at least some comfort to her, does not stop you passing it on to people around you and doesnt add to herd immunity does it?
and its a bit selfish really?
everyone should have it, otherwise we run the risk of just being left with intelligent people able to differentiate fact and sense from unbased fear and distrust? .......... oh wait a minute
moving aside from the question of whether (because i will as soon as I'm offered it, with a recent history of asthma rapidly becoming chest infections / pneumonia) - but does anyone know any details of when / how?
All i can see on the flu websites is that we will be contacted by our GP's and invited to be vaccinated, but with postal strikes and the like, anyone know how this will be done. And also any idea how long to roll out vaccination to the at risk groups (sure this will vary from practice to practice but surely there's a basic plan?)
And lastly - assuming I'm in an at risk group, are my family supposed to be vaccinated too, to reduce their chances of getting it and passing it on to me (although if I'm vaccinated and it works, what benefit does this bring?)
theotherjonv - Not a cop out but probably best to ring your Drs and speak to them they will have someone appointed for the doing the programme in your area. Other areas may have a different format of walk in clinics some may give individual appointments.
Tim with the highest repect you sound panicy and over the top, I understand your concerns but there is no need for everyone to be vaccinated. It is a flu virus a new strain but still a flu virus, flu kills 100s very year anyway, it's the fact that it's a new strain that means it has spread, in a year or so time when it has been around for awhile there will be no offer of a vaccince but the riks will still be there.
Dr_dams does have a point about the diagnoses of it, they originally confirmed it was Swine Flu blood test and cases were low bet there. Then it became so a person in a call centre could diagnose it and the cases rockted, it was published hugely in the media that the pandemic had started don't you think there was a reason for this?
Then it became so a person in a call centre could diagnose it and the cases rockted, it was published hugely in the media that the pandemic had started don't you think there was a reason for this?
Drac, given your arguements earlier, you are the last person I would have suspected to be making things up without any evidence!
[url= http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1176062 ]Transmissibility is therefore substantially higher than that of seasonal flu, and comparable with lower estimates of R0 obtained from previous influenza pandemics. [/url]
My wife is an Orthopeadic surgeon, and currently pregnant.
She got a very bad chst infection last week, which scared us both a bit, ok she didn't have a temperature, but she ended up taking it every few hours just to be sure.
Added to this, apparently if the poo hits the fan, medical doctors will continue looking after medical patients, and surgeons will be tasked with looking after the flu cases on surgical wards.
In terms of research, I know she said the research is poor/non existent, however pregnant women have been using the drug in Australia over their winter with no (known) side affects.
Yes she's worried, and me probably more than her, not about what the drug might do to her, but any long term side affects for our baby...
Yep we're in a very similar situation FunkyDunc.
But we're pretty persuaded that the safest action is to go for the vaccine. Our midwife told us she is seeing one pregnant lady a week with swine flu.
As has been said already the only really novel part of this drug is that it has attenuated H1N1 virus in it instead of the regular flu strains.
Seems to me that this means the only novel bit is basically the same bit you would get if you caught swine flu for real. No?
[i]Transmissibility is therefore substantially higher than that of seasonal flu, and comparable with lower estimates of R0 obtained from previous influenza pandemics. [/i]
Yeah it is spread quicker as I say it's a new strain so will spread quicker, same happens with any new virus. Funny how the huge estimates they were giving earlier in the year for deaths has dropped dramatically though. It's a real threat but the media is hugely responsilbe for causing panic about swine flu and panic over vaccines.
moving aside from the question of whether (because i will as soon as I'm offered it, with a recent history of asthma rapidly becoming chest infections / pneumonia) - but does anyone know any details of when / how?
I believe that vaccines are being given to GP's within the next 3 weeks. Healthcare staff are being done separately in different clinics but Gp's will receive stocks and then send for people in the normal way that they would with seasonal flu...
As has been said already the only really novel part of this drug is that it has attenuated H1N1 virus in it instead of the regular flu strains.
I am not so sure, the impression i got from the WHO website is that there are different cases as regards emergency approval of medication in emergency circumstances (which this has been classed as) and one of them is altered medication but this not the class that the vaccines have been treated as, they have been treated as new medication... This might be a lack of understanding on my behalf but obviously shows there is concern, and if you look at other sources they do speak about the contents of the medication and list certain compounds that cause concern. I am not a pharmacist so i can't truely form my own opinion on that but there is no official responce and so that does raise questions.
You've hit the nail on the head there, several studies have been published that prove higher uptake of vaccines in healthcare workers when they properly understand the risks vs the benefits.
My concern with the above is that these studies are conducted by parties with an interest in the success of the trials. Normal medication takes years to go through the system and yet these vaccines have been rushed through. The source of this "better education" would be of interest to me, i am willing to learn but i see lack of independant verification. [You state that the risks are very low compared to the benefit but the general feeling amongst people i speak to is that the true risk is unknown, Yes there are the risks as per any vaccination but there has been little testing time to see if there is anything long term, as far as i am aware the trials have been for only one month] ( [ through ] represents what i have as my understanding, there is no impartial evidence and normally that wouldn't bother me, i don't read clinical trials of asprin before i take it but i do feel that this is a knee jerk reaction and the lack of an instant confident responce from those in power makes me question more).
I am not looking for an arugement or trolling, just curious...
Unfortunately the percieved view is that everybody who works in the healthcare profession is capable of making an informed judgement on the safety and efficacy of vaccination.
I am sorry but i found that quote a bit mean, you agree there might be a lack of evidence and so how can someone make an informed decision without that information? if that information is not present then you have to decline until the required data is there and so there is a possibility that anyone who declines are the people who are wanting to make an informed decision and not blindly follow the advice of a government who mentioned before have handled this whole situation badly.
Yeah it is spread quicker as I say it's a new strain so will spread quicker, same happens with any new virus.
I think what you are referring to is the epidemic curve.
Luckily although H1N1 can spread reasonably fast it fortunately doesn't result in a high death rate. Now if the H5N1 outbreak from a couple of years ago had the same or similar R0 value as this strain we wouldn't be having this argument.
It's a real threat but the media is hugely responsilbe for causing panic about swine flu and panic over vaccines.
Couldn't agree more, it has been overhyped (as usual) by the media, and its this sort of nonsense which causes issues when it comes to serious discussion of any medical issue.
dr_adams
My concern with the above is that these studies are conducted by parties with an interest in the success of the trials.
Really? There are plenty published in peer reviewed journals also quoting their sources of funding. Obviously there is no guarantee they are 100% unbiased, but then the same applies to any published work.
I am sorry but i found that quote a bit mean
I stand by it as [url= http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/pandemrix/Pandemrix-PU-17-en.pdf ]the information is there[/url] but I wouldn't expect a receptionist or a junior nurse to be able to fully understand and interpret it.
To be honest there are a number of GPs who I also wouldn't trust to be able to understand and interpret a lot of the information out there. This brings me back to my point that we need better education - I don't know what literature is being distributed internally or whether or not it is suitable, but if there isn't somebody with an in-depth understanding of immunology and vaccination campaigns to answer and reassure people, then its never going to work is it?
Hmmmm..........
While you are having this lovely informed debate about the pros and cons, people are actually dying of H1N1 infections.
Intensive care units are currently pretty full; with bed occupancy rates running at over 100%. Not all H1N1, but the additional load is beginning to cause problems.
I don't think people realise how quickly this could move from a few poorly people to a complete Hollywood style nightmare.
We are coping at the moment, and there are robust plans in place should the worst case scenario develop, but I'm in the 'front line', and I'm somewhat concerned....
a complete Hollywood style nightmare.
That sounds a little far-fetched, crikey.
It just isn't proving to be [i]that[/i] lethal.
so far it doesn't really seem to be any more lethal than 'standard' flu.
Granted if it mutated and suddenly became hyper-lethal then we'd be pretty much screwed. But that goes for any easily spread virus in the population.
It's less about the overall lethality, more about the impact that even a small number of extra cases that require Intensive Care will have.
Consider too that it seems to affect pregnant women severely; nurses are still largely women of child bearing age, and the impact there could be a problem.
Add in the usual rise in respiratory illness seen at this time of year, and suddenly you have a situation where you have a number of extra people requiring intensive care, no beds to put them in, and a threat to the work force required to look after them.
Your right the extra work load is going to be a problem but far from a Hollywood nightmare. HDUs tend to run on a few spare beds do they not so often fill up quickly and as you say this time of you they get buisier with silver heads suffering from seasonal flu. Interesting enough I have a friend who works in an respiratory ward in a hospital specilising in resperatory medcine, last time I seen him he had not seen a single patient with suspected swine flu. His regular patients being very likely the ones to catch it.
It's less about the overall lethality,
Agreed, but that's not what you implied when you said [i]"While you are having this lovely informed debate about the pros and cons, people are actually dying of H1N1 infections. "[/i]
People are dying of it.
..and no, actually, HDUs and ITUs don't run on a few spare beds; they are usually full, and therein lies the problem.
H1N1 cases that need critical care need to be accomodated, taking whatever spare capacity may be available.
For example, earlier this week in the North West region, there was one ITU bed available when I phoned.
I'm not scare-mongering, just saying that the line between coping and not coping is a thin one.
...and 'silver heads'? Three of our swine flu cases have been in their 20s...
hagi
I stand by it as the information is there but I wouldn't expect a receptionist or a junior nurse to be able to fully understand and interpret it.
Sorry, I maybe be a humble receptionist but i must be lower than even your expectations as i am missing something from the link you provided? it merely is the authorisation for the medication and shows the conditions of its such and provision. It highlights a clinical trial that ran for one month upto the 15th of October, and highlights further plans for follow up work but it doesn't discuss the trial results, it doesn't provide any information from which to make a useful conclusion. It is basically the application for the drug to gain status as a useable med.
I agree with you completely about the lack of education and information, however i am just unable to share your strong stance when i have yet to see such information that would allow people to make an informed decision.
[i]..and no, actually, HDUs and ITUs don't run on a few spare beds; they are usually full, and therein lies the problem.[/i]
I was wanting to say they're usually full but thought I may cause an argument, seems you would have just said yes.
Sorry, I maybe be a humble receptionist but i must be lower than even your expectations as i am missing something from the link you provided?
Sorry it wasn't meant to be the answers to everything, but rather a starting point, but it kind of illustrates my point anyway.
it merely is the authorisation for the medication and shows the conditions of its such and provision
To you maybe, but to me:
1. It tells me that they've gone for EMEA regulation rather than the less strict MHRA approval
2. Its basis is the H5N1 vaccine trialled in 2007, using the same building blocks just with a different viral protein composition - I can't find any evidence of that causing any serious complications
3. It tells me what the adjuvant is in case you are concerned about that (you do know what an adjuvant is don't you?) - in this case squalane (implicated in gulf war syndrome prompting a number of studies all of which conclusively proved no link to any known health issues)
4. They have scheduled a load more follow up tests to ensure that their product isn't harming people
Again, all of this is possibly not relevant as I doubt most people would take the time and effort to read it.
The fact is people who are experts in their field have certified this vaccine. I've yet to hear a credible reason for frontline workers to not take it (assuming they don't suffer allergies etc). Its their choice, but I'd hope they had a justifiable reason as it could cost lives.
Again, all of this is possibly not relevant as I doubt most people would take the time and effort to read it.The fact is people who are experts in their field have certified this vaccine. I've yet to hear a credible reason for frontline workers to not take it (assuming they don't suffer allergies etc). Its their choice, but I'd hope they had a justifiable reason as it could cost lives.
So where is this information in a handy location that is easy to disseminate?
To you maybe, but to me:
1. It tells me that they've gone for EMEA regulation rather than the less strict MHRA approval
But the point is it a rushed process, it is not the standard long trialed process that is normally used. I know the circumstances do not allow such long testing but that does not mean that just because it is the most stringent available that it is suitable.
2. Its basis is the H5N1 vaccine trialled in 2007, using the same building blocks just with a different viral protein composition - I can't find any evidence of that causing any serious complications
Ok, was this vaccine given en mass?
3. It tells me what the adjuvant is in case you are concerned about that (you do know what an adjuvant is don't you?) - in this case squalane (implicated in gulf war syndrome prompting a number of studies all of which conclusively proved no link to any known health issues)
Theres a lot of debate about that but i fear it is more the people still discussing 9/11 causes that are talking of that...
4. They have scheduled a load more follow up tests to ensure that their product isn't harming people
Thats the point! What if in the next test result they realise that it is harming people and that there is a delay before the symptoms show?? My concern is that there isn't any evidence that one month is a justified test length. Given if it wasn't a pandemic and a new medication was to be introduced the pathway is years upon years, how come a pandemic can slash this time? are corners being cut? Now call me cynical but i have heard rumors that the government do sometimes do deals with companies... and that some contracts are not dealt fairly... Now i haven't read any tabloid hysteria on this, i have just experience to cause me to question. I still see no source of answers! People will have it as its the right thing to do. I am not qualified enough (as you have previously assumed) to make the decision myself and i don't believe the information that is coming in such dribs and drabs from a very unorganised direction and so look to more learned colleagues who also are unsure.
My concern is that there isn't any evidence that one month is a justified test length. Given if it wasn't a pandemic and a new medication was to be introduced the pathway is years upon years, how come a pandemic can slash this time? are corners being cut?
Its a valid question:
1. The manufacturing process of the vaccine is tried and tested
2. It is identical to the H5N1 vaccine except for viral load - while I can't comment on how many people have actually been vaccinated with it, it began clinical trials in April 2005
3. Pandemrix (the H5N1 version) was signed off by the EMEA in 2008 having undergone the standard approval process.
thank you. strange that they put this information so easy at hand....
timdrayton - MemberTJ - you are still yet to provide any reason or proof to not have the vaccine? the fact that you are not likely to meet my wife, aside from this in itself being at least some comfort to her, does not stop you passing it on to people around you and doesnt add to herd immunity does it?
and its a bit selfish really?
Don't you think its a bit paranoid and selfish that you seem to think you have the right to compulsorily medicate me?
its not for me to justify not having it. Its for you to find some justification for your paranoid and hysterical point of view.
I am no more at risk than the general public. Why should I take this medication for something I am unlikely to come into contact with? There is absolutely no advantage to the community at large to me taking it - many other folk would be better in the queue for inoculation.
Your failure to grasp the realities of the situation and your descent into childish name calling show how impoverished your argument is.
Been watching this thread for a while.
If mental health nurses were american ww2 bombers, I would have about 500 syringes stencilled down one side of me, and 500 packs of steri-strips down the other. And probably a little dog with a neckerchief as a mascot or something.
[b][i]Yet[/i][/b], still I found that the biggest factor in my decision to have it (and yes I will for the first time have a 'non-compulsory' vaccine from work) is that I am really rather scared of [s]having[/s] receiving injections.... 😳 😳 😥
Good point dr_Adams But Just look what the first rush jab of swine flue
done to more than some of the American people.
And to be honest we dont have a good track record at the moment
regarding vaccine and taking resposibility for the faliure.
Just look at the classic example of the Jab they gave to our own Army!
And not forgeting the kids vaccine.
This could be YOU!!!
But Just look what the first rush jab of swine flue
done to more than some of the American people.
?? Why what happened in the US?
Just look at the classic example of the Jab they gave to our own Army!
what jab?
And not forgeting the kids vaccine.
Wait, you mean you can be vaccinated against kids? Why did no one tell me? 😀
Seriously, what kids vaccine am I not forgetting?
This could be YOU!!!
Dunno if there's supposed to be a picture there or not, but if there is then it hasn't worked.
I'm confused! 😕
