Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Would anybody on here let their DCs be part of the swine flu trials??

64 replies

BLEEPyouYOUbleepingBLEEP · 03/10/2009 21:11

I'm not sure how you could square it in your head.

Children can't give informed consent, so the responsibility would be yours if anything happened, but it could be a really important inocculation.

By the looks of it, most people don't want to be first to get the jab, and are waiting to see if there are any bad side effects from other people.

They need a 1000 children, anyone offering??

OP posts:

whomovedmychocolate · 03/10/2009 21:17

I enrolled DD but then pulled her out before the first round of jabs. DH is not very chuffed with me because he thinks we're putting her at risk by not getting the jab now.

I do know a lot about the trial and the reason I pulled her out is the adjutant they use in one of the vaccines and also because they have already approved one of the vaccines for use in the UK so half of the kids who get it, get the Baxter vax which is unlikely to ever be used so what's the point in experimenting with it (esp as that's the one with the mercury in it).

Both my children participated in a wave of meningitis B trials (a vaccine used in Europe but not here yet because they needed UK data) - and on the positive side you get a doctor there watching them post vax to see any reactions rather than just having a nurse at a GP surgery with no access to emergency care etc.

In terms of side effects, there are to most vaccines, however there is a specific one to this vaccine which showed up in adult trials. At this point swine flu is not that bad - I think we'll be taking our chances with the rest of the population.

louii · 03/10/2009 21:19

Not a hope in hell.

greensnail · 03/10/2009 21:21

hmm, thinking about it. Will discuss with DH tomorrow.

whomovedmychocolate · 03/10/2009 21:23

More from me again: I spoke to half an hour to a trial doctor. What they do is give a jab and a blood test first time, then a week later another jab and then the following week a blood test. In hospital (they are worried about reactions). But what worries me is, the first jab is given before they know your antibody status, so it could all be for nought if you have been subclinically infected before the first jab and not know. They don't analyse the bloods till after the trial is over (in case it influences them). Seems barking to me.

dilemma456 · 04/10/2009 14:44

Message withdrawn

UnquietDad · 04/10/2009 14:47

Not after watching Torchwood!!

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 14:49

not on your nelly

if something happens to your child, and the numbers aren't big enough that that particular thing happens to, they won't even recognise it as a reaction

whomovedmychocolate · 04/10/2009 15:03

Actually the trial is not on the actual vaccine so much as the protocol (ie do they need one or two doses, and how should they be spaced). But there is a reason we don't give regular flu vax to children in this country.

FlamingoBingo · 04/10/2009 15:08

Abso-bloody-lutely not!

violethill · 04/10/2009 15:18

Yes, why not

IWantToLiveOnAFarm · 04/10/2009 15:19

Never.

ElectricElephant · 04/10/2009 15:20

They're offering money aren't they?

violethill · 04/10/2009 15:22

This is how vaccination programmes come about. If you have had your child vaccinated against anything, it will be because at some point there were trials.

Don't understand the hoo hah to be honest. They do all sorts of other trials before it gets anywhere near a human.

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 15:27

Thirteen babies died in a trial in Mexico, but they were down as "background deaths" as the numbers weren't great enough. Background deaths being an average, there's actually no guarantee the deaths weren't caused by the vaccine. But it was decided they weren't, because not enough babies died. So what's the point.

violethill · 04/10/2009 15:33

Can you link to the source for that stuffit.

Would be interesting to know how they conduct their trials

edam · 04/10/2009 15:34

nope.

I was part of a team that broke the seroxat story - Glaxo had been covering up data that showed high numbers of people developing suicidal symptoms, especially amongst teenagers. This emerged once it was licensed, btw. But given it's impossible to know what the side effect profile of a drug is until you get post-marketing data, I won't be risking my child.

Plenty of respect to those who do, without them we wouldn't get new drugs, obv. but not a choice I'll be making, personally. Especially because a child's body and brain is very different from an adults, so a drug that may appear fine for grown-ups could actually act quite differently in kids.

Of course, you have to guess which would be the worst thing that could happen to your child - bad reaction to the jab v. bad reaction to swine flu.

dilemma456 · 04/10/2009 16:29

Message withdrawn

whomovedmychocolate · 04/10/2009 16:31

ElectricElephant no money - they give you £10 towards travel expenses for each trip to the hospital. Which frankly won't cover the parking at our hospital if we are there more than four hours

Dumbledoresgirl · 04/10/2009 16:32

Is this any different to the annual flu jabs which, by their nature, cannot be trialed for any length of time? Asthmatic ds2 has those every year.

I genuinely don't understand the difference.

whomovedmychocolate · 04/10/2009 16:35

Dumbledoresgirl - yes there is a difference. Basically the flu jabs are a combination of elements of several virii added to an adjutant which makes the immune system react against the (killed) virii and create antibodies. This is just one virus - or part of the virus, plus adjutant to make the body react.

The virus would have to change massively for the vax to no longer work. However there is nothing to say that putting part of a virus in a person will definitely cause them to create antibodies. Vax are flawed in this respect and hence several goes are sometimes attempted to ensure coverage.

Dumbledoresgirl · 04/10/2009 16:38

Hmm, still not sure I understand why the swine flu jab is considered so risky when thousands of people have seasonal flu jabs every year.

Let's put it this way: I don't want my children being guinea pigs for any drug, but I would sooner ds2 had the swine flu vaccination than dd had the cervical cancer vaccination in a couple of years' time.

TAFKAtheUrbanDryad · 04/10/2009 16:45

Hell no.

We have all had it anyway.

TitsalinaBumsquash · 04/10/2009 17:21

Well idon't full understand the who vaccnine thing, DS will be one of the first to have it in our area, he is a CF patient and its really important he gets it apparently.

I said to his specialist a man who i trust with my childrens life and a man that had saved ds1's many times, he says that the technology (if thats the right term) that is in this vaccine is not new and is udes in most vaccines now and is proven to be safe but oviously like the flu jab every year it has dfferent things in it, he assures me that he is 100% happy for DS1 to have it so thats enough for me.

whomovedmychocolate · 04/10/2009 17:22

Dumbledoresgirl - well the reason it's considered risky is it's unknown what will happen when it's given to people under 7 who have underdeveloped immune systems. We don't give them regular flu jabs either for similar reasons.

However I would say you are more likely to die from cervical cancer than swine flu so I'm not quite sure I follow your argument. Of course your DS won't die from cervical cancer (not having a cervix is fairly good as a preventative measure )

whomovedmychocolate · 04/10/2009 17:23

Incidentally if anyone actually wants to wade through the trial info it's here

Flip

1 2 3