Really dont know what to do about having the vaccine...

[laurawantsababy]

Im 16 weeks pg, dd is only 14 months old and dp has asthma.

I really dont know whether to have it or let dd have it.

Do you think you could refuse the 1st invite and then go a month or so later??

I thought about asking my GP if it really is safe but I guess he will have been brainwashed into advising people its best.

Any thoughts? Anyone on here been part of the trial?

That is very interesting Musukebba, thankyou. I wonder why the Baxter vaccine does not contain an adjuvant? How have they managed to create a vaccine that provokes an adequate immune response without it?

Adjuvants not licensed for flu vaccine in the US.

Have adjuvants been tested fully on pregnant women and young children?

Thanks pofaced; hoped it was helpful I am not sure why the Baxter vaccine doesn't need an adjuvant; I'll have a look around and see if I can find out. My guess would be that as it's a human cell-culture based vaccine, which makes the process much more easily scaled up compared to egg culture, that there was enough virus produced to give a sufficiently immunogenic vaccine on its own. Another difference is that it is a whole virion preparation (ie inactivated but not broken up into its component parts like the GSK one), but I couldn't tell you whether this is likely to make it more immunogenic.

Musukebba - why is it going to be a two dose vaccine, do you know?

Normal flu vax is usually given as two dose the first time but then single after that.

thanks again Musukebba. Does that mean the Baxter vaccine contains a human blood component and the GSK one doesn't? I know a human blood/protein component occurs in some vaccines [MMR] but didn't know if it occurred in seasonal flu vaccine.

Personally I wouldn't take it if I were 16 weeks pregnant.

Here's why:
www.express.co.uk/posts/view/122228/Gulf-War-toxins-in-swine-flu-vaccine

Have adjuvants been fully tested on pregnant women and young children? Why aren't they licensed for regular flu vaccine in the US?

There is no way that I would take it if pregnant.

pleasedeleteme: Two doses are required to get the protective levels up in >90% of people. Otherwise only something like 30% respond after first dose. It's a bit of a pain to have two doses but the trials show you get protected for several years and also against drifted strains.

pofaced: There may well be traces in the Baxter vaccine, just as there are traces of egg protein in seasonal flu (and thus contra-indicated in people having a severe egg allergy). I haven't seen any specific data on this though.

vanillakitten: do you always get your medical advice from newspapers, and believe that Express journalists can fully report the range of evidence of all that in one page? The balance of evidence is against squalene as a cause of GWS and much further in favour of organophosphate insecticides which troops were injected with to prevent vector-borne diseases. Re mercury: have you ever considered how stable compounds can be, relative to elements? Think: "salt"...

mmrsceptic: you don't licence the adjuvants. It's the vaccine containing them that is. I said a few posts below this one that MF59 - an adjuvant with squalene in it - is used in Novartis seasonal flu vaccine which is licenced in the US. I imagine in over ten years' use that there would be a large number of pregnant women and young children that received this vaccine.

I think you know what I meant Musukebba.

It is not a Novartis vaccine in the UK, it is GSK, and it is a different adjuvant.

Not quite sure what you mean by "I would imagine", as if the vaccine isn't licensed for use by pregnant women then they would not receive the vaccine.

I've linked earlier on threads about the lack of testing of adjuvants on pregnant women and young children.

A World Health Organization committee has concluded that the effects of adjuvants on young children and women in the early stages of pregnancy required further study. It also noted that there were no clinical experiences that made it possible to assess the risks and benefits of adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccines.

I will try to find the link to the original committee report.

also could you clarify a couple of things

"The efficacy of both swine flu vaccines for the UK is more than 90% (that's a lot better than the seasonal flu vaccine (70-80%)."

You wrote this a couple of weeks ago when they were just starting tests. How did you know this?

"Protection very likely to last several years (compare with seasonal flu vaccine protection of 1 year max)."

And how did you know this?

vanillakitten: do you always get your medical advice from newspapers, and believe that Express journalists can fully report the range of evidence of all that in one page? Re mercury: have you ever considered how stable compounds can be, relative to elements? Think: "salt"...

Are these rhetorical questions?

They are unfair. Anybody who wants to be more informed should not be called down like that, it just puts people's backs up.. I would resent anyone who was that rude. Perhaps she/he had a bad day Vanilla. Keep reading! There are good links on here.

Incidentally another poster gave some very interesting information and links a couple of weeks ago to research indicating that one particular study, giving a very strong pointer to squalene as the culprit in GWS, was in fact quite seriously flawed.

In response to an earlier post a media briefing took place with Dr Marie-Paule Kieny of the WHO on 6th August which addressed the issue of potential adverse affects of the swine flu vaccine on pregnant women.

Crucially, the swine flu vaccine trials underway do NOT include the swine flu vaccine combined with adjuvants which is what we will be given. In fact, adjuvants are not being included in any of the trials.

The WHO spokesperson confirmed in the press conference that "there is no experience with using adjuvanted vaccines on pregnant women." She then goes on to say that in countries where there is no availability of un-adjuvanted vaccines that governments should "use what is available" according to SAGE

www.who.int/mediacentre/pandemic_h1n1_presstranscript_2009_08_06.pdf

In layman's terms I interpret this as follows. We have not got a clue about the possible impact that the different adjuvants in the vaccines may have on pregnant women as this has never been tested.

Specifically, no tests have been done to show what squalene (widely believed to have resulted in gulf war syndrome and banned in the USA) or thermasol (contains mercury)or any of the other ingredients in the adjuvants may have on a growing fetus and until the babies are born we cannot be sure that the vaccine is safe. Furthermore, We (WHO, governments, Phara companies) won't be liable if it does all go wrong and you won't be able to sue us for birth defects.

Not exactly re-assuring and this is straight from the WHO. Personally, I'm not willing to be a guinea pig. My husband thinks I'm obsessed but after a miscarriage back in June I'm just not going to take any risks no matter what the authorities say and however much fearmongering goes on in the weeks to come ....

Musukebba you mentioned pyrexia following vaccination, how long does that last for - obviously if you are pregnant, pyrexia is less than ideal?

Not Musu, but until she appears....I had ordinary seasonal flu vaccines for a few years (during which I had other health problems) and always had slight fever the evening of the vaccine. Never very high, and never by the following morning. dh, who has flu jabs due to asthma, has never had the same reaction - no raised temp at all, just a sore arm.

So maybe it depends on the individual, but in any case shouldn't be very high or go on for very long is my guess.

Am sure Musu will know more though

A piece of information in my earlier post needs correcting. The UK government has taken liability according to a piece in Scotland on Sunday for the safety of the swine flu vaccine as the pharma companies refused to produce it unles legally protected from being sued.

"THE UK government has been forced to accept legal liability for the swine flu vaccine amid concerns it could trigger life-threatening side-effects among the population at large.

"Ministers have taken on all the risk for the 60 million doses they have ordered from GlaxoSmithKline and the Baxter group, after both firms said they would refuse to produce it unless legally protected."

Sundayscotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Drug-firms-dodge-swine-flu.5494 255.jp

Elibean - I know an 18 hour fever period after vax is common. But there's pyrexia and there's very extreme pyrexia isn't there? A low grade fever is nothing even if pregnant, but a raging 39.8 degree fever for twelve hours which can't be reduced with paracetamol is a whole different kettle of fish isn't it?

And for little ones (should they ever reach the front of the queue) who have a history of febrile convulsions (my DS falls into this category) it would be deeply worrying to induce a high fever that lasted longer than a few hours. (and yes I know febrile convulsions are rarely dangerous but if someone is going to take this decision on behalf of their child they ought to at least be given the facts).

Very different. Is there talk of this one inducing high level pyrexia, then?