What it says on the official vaccine insert:

[tinalouiseuk]

I don't understand how the manufacturers can say this vaccine's safety is asserted based on the safety of the seasonal flu vaccine - it may be made the same way but it is made with different ingredients! That is like saying one cake is like any other because they are baked the same way - and they aren't.

I read the package insert for this vaccine (copy here: tinyurl.com/les32r ) and it actually says:

?Safety & effectiveness of A (H1N1) vaccine have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children less than 4 years of age.?

For me, that is a gamble just not worth taking. How dare the manufacturer insist that children and pregnant women need the vaccine and yet make it perfectly clear on the packet ,that they have NOT established its safety!

We will all wrestle with our choices and can only research as thoroughly as possible, gathering all the information available and go from there.

I wish us all good health.

This is so bloody confusing, TTC and have a 17 month old, my instincts are saying no to it, ds is currently ill with a bad cold so wouldnt be allowed it yet anyway. I have only heard horror stories about the vaccine and the swine flu, no good stories so far about either

(not meaning to diss anyone on this thread, btw, just thinking of some of the MMR threads in the past where Jimjams was brilliant.)

I read that it contains Octoxynol 10 (a spermicide), potassium chloride (used in the lethal injection to paralyse the respiratory system), Squalene (linked to Gulf War Syndrome) and thierosal (a 50 % mercury compund that is linked to autism and learning disorders).

It's very difficult though because the effects of SF (which I believe is entirely man-made using bird,human and animal flu virus) can be really awful. If the government weren't so generally dodgy about lying about expenses etc, I reckon more of the population would feel more at ease with whatever info they give us.

Poppy, if I were ttc, I'd have the vaccine asap.

In what way is swine flu man-made, for heaven's sake?

Sounds like one of those AIDS denial conspiracies where it was all cooked up in a lab in some James Bond style fantasy.

When you have the SF vaccine you are given a card with a website address on it where you can report any side effects that you don't feel you need to see a dr about. If you're pregnant they ask you to wait for 10 mins in reception too, to make sure you don't have an adverse reaction.

edam i dont believe iam entitled to it as till im pg im not in any at risk groups, although im very aware i may be wrong.

I am having the vaccine simply because as a single parent I couldn't cope with caring for DS if I were to contract swine flu. Both my parents have had the vaccine with no problems so I am hoping I'll escape just as easily.

As an NHS employee it's being advised - dome of my colleagues are not having it done, some decided not to and changed their minds after the death of the 5 year old (particularly those with young children).

Those of us still to be vaccinated have now all had letters advising the vaccine though with a message from the chief exec. extolling the virtues of it which I found quite patronising to be honest. Mine's being done on Tuesday - am not sure what I'd do if pregnant but having seen a new Mum who nearly died from swine flu in the last weeks of pregnancy (very very lucky to be alive apparently)I think I'd be erring on the side of having the vaccine. Difficult though.

Edam:
I am selective in my reading and broad as well. I started with the official manufacturer's insert and all the rest of the research just followed.

I have read and listened to many in the medical profession who are uncertain about this vaccine or even opposed to it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZesZe33cw (patience required with the nice Polish politician and the translation!) www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ (even more patience and time for this 6-part discussion from Spanish nun and health professional!)

Another or the articles I read early on in my research was about contaminated vaccine - this is a documented event beyond argument:
news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/18/content_10838633.htm

This tells me that the medical establishment is far from flawless and I will no more take their word as fact - I will do additional research every time.

A letter from the HPA leaked to the Daily Mail said:

"The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.
One senior neurologist said last night: ?I would not have the swine
flu jab because of the GBS risk.?

Have a read up about GBS (Guillain Barre Syndrome - sp?).

I'm not saying people should or shouldn't have it and although it is my belief that it's a all dodgy man-made virus (yes, made in a James Bond/Spooks kind of way), I just believe that the WHO and HPA etc are being as skimpy on the truth about the whole thing as they can be.

I have vaccinated my children for MMR so I'm not against vaccine programmes but I am against governments confusing the population about what is or isn't safe.

It is a good thing to do some research. It is not a good thing to give credence to scaremongering. Especially if that frightens other people and may push them towards making an unwise decision. I'm not saying either accepting or refusing the vax is unwise, btw, depends on each individual's circumstances and choices etc. etc. etc. But irresponsible scaremongering does not help.

You have to look critically at your sources - are they reputable? Do they have a clue what they are talking about? Do they understand logic or treat 'science' as some sort of monstrous conspiracy dreamt up by the scriptwriters of Spooks?

There's an accreditation scheme for websites offering health advice, btw, called something like 'Health on the Net'. If you see a Health on the Net button on a site, it suggests it is more reputable than a headline screaming 'Shocking H1N1 swine flu vaccine miscarriage stories'.

That story is typical Mail hysteria. They've got a seed of doubt and have planted a flaming great forest. Who is this unnamed neurologist, exactly?

The story is also months old. I think someone would have noticed by now if there was a dramatic explosion in ill-health amongst people who had had the swine flu vaccine.

And even the Mail admits: "It is not known exactly what causes GBS and research on the subject has been inconclusive.

However, it is thought that one in a million people who have a seasonal flu vaccination could be at risk and it has also been linked to people recovering from a bout of flu of any sort." (My emphasis.)

There may be good reasons for either accepting or rejecting the vaccine, but neither the Mail story nor selective reporting of internet posts about miscarriages (at six weeks of pregnancy) count.

Edam - I wasn't trying to scaremonger; merely illustrate that so many differing sources of unknown information (regardless of what I think)are the reason why so many people (pregnant women especially) are so confused as whether or not to have the vaccine.
It's never irresponsible to research anything (as OP has done) even if you realise along the way that much is untrue or distorted.

It is downright irresponsible to pass on information that is scaremongering, though. Like those awful chain emails that are designed to frighten women and make us think all men are axe-wielding maniacs out to trick us into letting them into our cars at petrol stations.

Edam:
I think we all need to respect each others' views
-I find the lack of appropriate testing of this vaccine makes me nervous and unsure of its safety
-I find the fact that the official manufacturer's vaccine insert clearly states that the safety of this vaccine when used in pregnant women or children under 4 has NOT been established, extremely disturbing

...and I am NOT scaremongering - I am discussing, enquiring, delving for more information and simply trying to do the very best for my family; as I am sure we all are.

How can they 'establish the safety' in that way for a vaccine that has essentially been produced as an emergency vaccine for use in the middle of a pandemic?

That's where we are, that's what's going on, a new flu is here now - given that, how can they possibly give us a vaccine that's had years of testing? It's just not possible.

Yes we're all gambling when we take it but sometimes it can still be a good bet even if in an ideal world and given years of warning it would be better to have a vaccine that had had lots of trials.

Not that they could ever test in pregnant women anyway because that's unethical - when you're pregnant one of the difficulties is that sometimes you need treatment without being sure they're risk free, and you have to gamble - but there's no way round that.

iheartruffles:
I entirely understand your fear of this flu strain, I worry too. I also clearly understand your acceptance that the vaccine, although not thoroughly tested, is a better option than illness.

It is just that I don't want to gamble and this is what it feels like. I want to get as much information as possible so that the decision I make will be as informed as possible.

At the moment, for me, it seems as if the least gamble is to do nothing - hope I don't get flu and that if I do, my healthy self copes well. Because as I see it, if I take the vaccine I am certain of some risk - which we all acknowledge because the new vaccine has been rushed and insufficiently tested.

If I don't take it, there is of course some risk of flu which I might cope with or not - so which is the better choice? I don't have enough information yet to be sure.

It's rather hard to respect views garnered from a site titled 'Shocking swine flu [bollocks]'. A poor man's pathetic attempt at a Sun headline, not medical evidence.

Or the idea that swine flu was cooked up in a lab by evil scientists (no doubt employed by Dr Evil the meglomaniac multi-billioniare Bond villain).

Apart from that, yeah, fine.

Riven:
That worries me too - how can they care for our health if they are basing diagnosis on assumptions rather than thorough appraisal? The CBS news station in the US recently asked the relevant authorities, what the statistics were for diagnosed (swabbed) swine flu cases BEFORE the elimination of swabbing - they got no response and decided it would be just as easy to find the statistics themselves.

Local CBS news teams obtained the statistics from their local health authorities and the investigating team pulled all the statistics together - it is terrifying. NOT because there are a lot, but because there are so FEW and yet - the media and governments continue to inflate the fear and make us believe we are in more danger than we likely are. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

I want facts, I want open honesty and I want to be able to trust that one piece of information won't be contradicted by another every few days.

I realise other posters here are insisting that those who question the safety and efficacy of vaccines are 'conspiracy theorists' - but I have found all the information that makes me worry, from mainstream news stations, vaccine manufacturers and government reports.

To query the safety of an injection before inserting it into someone I am responsible for is surely the best practice? I find it more worrying to blindly trust and not thoroughly investigate and hold off if there is doubt.

There IS doubt, more than enough of it.

Indeed Riven, "Funny how deaths during flu must be down to the flu but deaths after a vaccine must be co-incidence or underlying health issue"

I am also concerned that when a death occurs after a vaccine, they put it down to other underlying conditions - but we are mainly vaccinating those WITH underlying conditions so it is NEVER going to seem necessary to health authorities to check the vaccine. Policies based on assumptions are dangerous and irresponsible.

Another concern is the Flu Mist that contains 'live' vaccine and reports say it stays live in the recipient for 3 weeks and that the recipient should NOT go near immuno-compromised individuals during that time. There is so much wrong with that.

As an aside, you don't need to go to your GP to report side effects from any drug, you can self-report:

Yellow Card Scheme

However, they do as that for tamiflu, relenza, or either of the swine flu vaccines that you report on a separate site here (parallel similar scheme): Pandemic Flu Portal