Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
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:
Flossytops · 04/10/2009 17:33

I would, yes. It's based on vaccine methods that have been used for seasonal flu for years, and the risk of Guillain-Barre is not only very small, but it's also not known if GBS is caused by the virus/illness itself and not the vaccine. Given also that children are one of the most at risk groups, and that children provide a very effective mode of transmission via schools and other children to other people in turn (esp parents) this is good reason to try and protect our children and stop transmission as much as possible.

2shoes · 04/10/2009 17:34

no way
if anything happened to her, they would just wheel out the "underlying health issues" crap....she has cp and epilepsy

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 17:47

sorry violet, believe it or don't, it's true

no link

violethill · 04/10/2009 17:48

Well those are underlying health issues aren't they?

I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't put their children forward for trials - it's an individual decision, but it's hardly fair to suggest that underlying health issues are some sort of cover up.

One of my dcs has epilepsy - realistically, if she were to have a reaction to any medical procedure, the epilepsy would have to be considered as part of her profile.

violethill · 04/10/2009 17:49

Where did you source that information from though stuffit?

AngryFromManchester · 04/10/2009 17:50

i think i would tbh
dd has epilepsy and other conditions but even as a worried parent i may consider it
soz

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 17:51

a very impressive place, so I don't expect anyone to take it seriously because it's not on tinternet

whomovedmychocolate · 04/10/2009 17:53

stuffit llama - I have read the paper you discuss (it's on the BMJ site somewhere I believe but no I can't bloody well find it now either). I've also read the ones that say GB syndrome may be caused by the flu and not the vaccines but what I would say is it's probably caused by neither, but a predisposition towards it which is triggered by either the virus or the vaccine. In which case you are buggered either way aren't you?

Kids with underlying health issues (including kids with asthma) are excluded from such trials.

One good reason to take part in this trial is you would receive compensation if it all went wrong. As I understand it the govt not the pharmas are underwriting the indemnity for the SF vax recently licensed. Usually the drug company would underwrite but I guess they think it's too big a risk!

violethill · 04/10/2009 17:55

No need to play games - you mentioned that 13 babies died in Mexican trials, so I wondered where you sourced that information from. You said you can't provide a link so it's clearly not on the news or internet, but you must have heard it from somewhere!

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 04/10/2009 17:58

At least having it during a trial would hopefully mean any concerns are taken more seriously.

Bottom line is that the real guinea pigs are those that can least cope with adverse effects ie the ones most susceptible to flu. They'll be getting it first and as parents with children with underlying conditions are unlikely to put their children through the trial it's as good as untested on that group isn't it?

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 18:04

Violet, you probably can find it on the internet somewhere. I'll ahve aquick look.

lilolilmanchester · 04/10/2009 18:06

without reading the other posts... assume those who wouldn't let their family members take part in the trial also wouldn't have the jabs after other people had taken the risks on their behalf????????

Original poster
BLEEPyouYOUbleepingBLEEP · 04/10/2009 18:09

TAFKAtheUrbanDryad said they'd all had it so thinks they'd all be OK, is that true?

Doesn't the virus have to mutate for it to be as deadly as they fear, or is this vaccine based on the bad end of the spectrum symptom-wise and so it has mutated? So it wouldn't matter whether you'd had it or not because the virus would be a different strain which you wouldn't be immune against.

OP posts:
stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 18:10

Ok, my mistake, it was in Argentina, and the number of deaths reported ranges from twelve to fourteen. I was discussing it when it happened so my memory served me wrong, sorry. I can understand if you don't believe the rest of it because I remembered the country wrong.

this is a link to a bald report

I'm looking for something that reports Glaxo's comment that the number of deaths was no greater than the expected infant mortality rate.

mumhadenough · 04/10/2009 18:14

Def not from me as he is absolutely terrified of needles so I haven't had to think it through anyway, has been since his mmr booster. Hopefully he'll grow out of it by the time he needs his BCG

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 18:17

I can't find the Glaxo comment online. I have had it from elsewhere.

It was a pneumonia vaccine.

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 18:19

Lilo, no I wouldn't.

violethill · 04/10/2009 18:19

Ok - the report talks about investigating a possible link. It's not really a question of whether anyone 'believes it or not ' - there is nothing to believe or disbelieve as far as I can see from that report.

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 18:26

No, that's just the report of the deaths. They didn't actually stop the trial straight away, they just stopped recruiting new babies. The reason GSK gave for the deaths was that the rate of death was no greater than regular infant mortality in Argentina.

Violet, off to bed, but if you are interested you can look further. I did find a report of Glaxo's infant mortality comment but it was from a natural health site so you probably wouldn't be interested.

LeonieBooCreepy · 04/10/2009 18:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 18:43

found something

stuffitllllama · 04/10/2009 18:44

i just couldn't go to bed without finding it, after all that.

Scroll down to the comments about 3/4 way through.

MinnieMummy · 04/10/2009 18:52

WMMC my dcs were also in the Men B trials so DS has been invited to participate. I'm finding what you say v helpful actually, my concern was about the untested vax and when I called up to discuss it (my experience of the vax team to date being that they are v v helpful) the woman just said 'Are we trialling it on children??' and then just told me to go to the website if I had any more questions .
So I think on balance it's a no from us.

violethill · 04/10/2009 18:55

You make an awful lot of assumptions in your posts about what other people are going to believe/be interested in stuffit.

My view of the trials is that I would investigate further if I were seriously thinking about it - I wouldn't automatically say no or yes.

Trials are absolutely necessary for any drug, and as people mostly benefit from some vaccinations or medicines, it needs to be taken as a serious issue.

So personally I would investigate further, about the trials in this country

violethill · 04/10/2009 18:57

Ah looked at the link now.

Good old Daily Mail

'14 deaths could be linked to the drug'.

Precisely. They could. Doesn't mean they are - though it sells papers doesnt it