This is why the SWINE FLU jab is different from the SEASONAL FLU jab...

[kathmandu88]

I am fed up with hearing the line from health official and doctors "the swine flu jab is just a variant of the seasonal flu jab that is made in the same short time every year".

NO IT IS NOTBecause the Pandrenix swine flu vaccine has an adjuvant added - namely "squalene" that the seasonal flu vaccine does not have. After a lot of research and wading through a lot of tripe, I am not convinced that the risk of using "squalene" has been ruled out.

Yes, Italy has been using "squalene" in its seasonal flu jabs for 10 years, but that was predominantly for over 65's and and the side effects of squalene do not nescessarily appear for many years - all the auto immune diseases such as lupus / ms etc..arthritis, many of which are probably put down to old age anyway.

So IT IS NOT JUST A VARIANT OF the seasonal flu jab.

I am not going to put any links here, everyone must do their own research, but you do have to wade through a lot of bunkum and concentrate on the more respected work to come to any conclusion.

Actually, having seen that there is a more severe strain cropping up now in different countries I am jolly glad that dd and dh have had the adjuvanted vaccine. It should hopefully help provide more protection against drifted strains.

Yes that is definitely worth remembering, OYBBK.

BTW I found some more info on the Ukrainian situation which I'll try and summarise for your thread... unless you have seen it already!

@kathmandu88: what is the evidence that you have read that shows squalene causes "lupus/MS... arthritis"? These medical conditions are associated with older age groups without having had a squalene adjuvanted vaccine.

cool Musukebba, will go and have a look

Musukebba:
Excuse my ignorance as I am new - but there is no profile attached to your name and I was wondering what your role is in medicine? You seem thoroughly informed and very helpful here

Stuff here abour squalene and health "risks" Look to be largely discredited?

Surely, surely, the risk of getting swine flu (where the incidence of death and hospitalisation is far more prevalent in healthy 25-45s and pregnant women than with seasonal flu) is far far greater than that of the jab.

Please can anyone summarise why any pregnant woman or anyone in the at risk groups would not leap at the chance of getting the jab?

Seriously, I really don't know.

Angelene:
I think we all have to research this ourselves in order to know we have done the best we can when we make this very important decision.

These boards are rich with experience and research links that are worthwhile reading - but it will take some time!! lol

I started with the vaccine insert that explains a lot and it led me on to further questions that I am still seaking answers to.

Best of luck

I'm not pregnant Tina, but I'm doing a lot of work on swine flu in my job (not medical).

I see all the news, all the stats, and it just seems obvious to me.

But then I don't understand the suspiciousness around vaccinations in general.

Angelene:
I guess it is all a matter of where we research and who we choose to listen to. In the end though - we all have the highest motives at heart - we ALL only want the best and safest way forward for our loved ones

I have a friend in the USA who is an obstetrician - I asked him about the jab and Pandemrix in particular. Here is what he said (and it is a very balanced view considering they don't give adjuvants to pregnant women in the US):

"Pandemrix has the proteins from the H1N1 virus that all of the current immunizations have. It also has three compounds that are used as an adjuvant. Two of the compounds are ubiquitous in nature and inconsequential in the dose provided with the vaccine. They are vitamin E, and squalene ( a substance that your body makes in small concentrations). The polysorbate 80 that is third adjuvant compound has been incorporated for two reasons . . . the first given that all of the current vaccines use the same H1N1 proteins there is nothing potentially 'proprietary' about their use . . . therefore drug companies need to differentiate their product by some other means. The second reason is scientifically reasonable, but unproven, and that is that this compound acts like a surfactant and helps keep proteins emulsified for a longer time duration. The antigenic compounds in H1N1 are proteins. If your body digests those proteins too quickly the immunological response will be diminished. By emulsifying the protein it stays around longer. Importantly . . . this same compound is in many of the things we eat every day. In that since it also is ubiquitous and for that reason something that you and your child have already been exposed.

Now what to do with this information. . . go with your gut. If you feel that the risk associated with one choice is more 'scary' than the other go with avoiding the more scary choice. I know that H1N1 is scary in an of itself, but that mostly is the media hype. It is flu. . . it can be bad. . . but it is not the 1918 pandemic. . . not even for pregnant ladies. As for the vaccine. . . the flu vaccine has been around for a long time. All that is changed is the composition of the proteins included. This is roughly analogous to switching the color of LEGO blocks in a model house. The process is tested the vaccine is safe and it works most of the time. The adjuvant is corporate silliness and in my opinion relatively inconsequential.

Finally . . . my opinion I would get the vaccine. . . whatever vaccine is available. . . and not worry about it. I personally have not yet had it, but only because it is reserved for the 'most at risk'. If my wife were pregnant I would encourage her to get the vaccine. But that is mostly due to the three otherwise healthy women here in Austin that spent a great deal of time in the Intensive Care Unit due to H1N1 associated with pregnancy. That is what scares me. . . But that is me, and my perspective is biased."

Like I said, a pretty balanced view of the situation.

Hi
Thanks for that about your obstetrician friend's comments, every nugget is interesting.

Why is "squalene" not licensed for use in the U.S. then? I know that our bodies have a natural supply of squalene and imbibing it in capsule form (sharks oil) is fine, but injecting it is another matter completely as it kickstarts our bodies into fighting our own supply of squalene resulting in auto immune illnesses in some people.

I must re-iterate again.......these are my thoughts only, and everyone must do their own research. It just worries me that the U.S. do not license this adjuvant, and even the W.H.O site states that when used as an adjuvant in any age groups other than over 65's then it should be monitored..........

All licensed drugs/vaccines have to have (by law) a document called Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC or SmPC).

These documents have to contain all relevant data concerning efficacy (effectiveness) and safety, both from animal and human studies (the exact content is mandated by the governing body responsible for licensing in each region, so FDA in the US, EMEA in Europe).

They are also obligated, again legally, to disclose any information relating to experience or lack of experience in special populations, of which pregnant women are one.

This is what it says regarding use in pregnant women in the SPC for Celvapan (the unadjuvanted vaccine):

"There are currently no data available on the use of Celvapan in pregnancy. Data from pregnant women vaccinated with different inactivated non-adjuvanted seasonal vaccines do not suggest malformations or fetal or neonatal toxicity.

Animal studies with Celvapan do not indicate reproductive toxicity.

The use of Celvapan may be considered during pregnancy if this is thought to be necessary, taking into account official recommendations.

Celvapan may be used in lactating women."

Essentially, there are no officially reported data with Celvapan in pregnant women, but data with similar unadjuvanted vaccines don't suggest any toxicity to the baby.

Now here is the equivalent text from the Pandemrix (adjuvanted) SPC:

"There are currently no data available on the use of Pandemrix in pregnancy. Data from pregnant women vaccinated with different inactivated non-adjuvanted seasonal vaccines do not suggest malformations or fetal or neonatal toxicity.

Animal studies with Pandemrix do not indicate reproductive toxicity.

The use of Pandemrix may be considered during pregnancy if this is thought to be necessary, taking into account official recommendations.

Pandemrix may be used in lactacting women."

It is exactly the same. The fact that the SPC of an adjuvanted vaccine can only refer to similar data with unadjuvanted vaccines proves that there is little/no relevant experience with adjuvanted vaccines in pregnant women, otherwise it would be cited here. Interestingly, the Pandemrix one says it was updated 20th Nov 09, so if there were any data in pregnant women, it would have been added then (and it wasn't).

This information alone is what has convinced me to push for Celvapan, since this (i.e. the unadjuvanted vaccine) is the closest they have to what has already been used with no ill effects in pregnant women.

Hope that makes sense. There is so much data flying around, but IMO, these documents are the definitive sources of what data are/are not available to support the use of these vaccines during pregnancy.

www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/celvapan/spc/emea-spc-h982pu06en.pdf

emc.medicines.org.uk/medicine/22352/SPC/Pandemrix+suspension+and+emulsion+for+emulsion+for+injection /#PREGNANCY