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

[BLEEPyouYOUbleepingBLEEP]

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??

I'd consider it.
Several friends work in the medical profession so I'd ask them to check out current data and take it from there, as I did with all the vaccines ds had.
I am very pro-vaccination and have no family history of any contra-indicatory factors though so probably biased.

MinnieMummy - oh I had an hour's chat to their doctors twice and had to have the second one because I still had questions

Were yours in the OMV+ or the next stage of the Men B trials - my DD was in the OMV+ group and DS has been in both the OMV stage 3 and the follow on protocol (actually he's still in that one - they have one blood draw left).

I'm of the opinion that while trials are necessary, mine have done their bit for medical science. And actually it's someone else's go!

Mind you I've been reading up on swine flu deaths and apparently mine aren't actually in a risk group. Fat pregnant diabetics should be very worried though.

In case anyone wants to query the issue of legal indemnity being waived

WMMC, the reason I would prefer ds2 to have the swine flu jab than I would prefer dd (I never said ds2 - not sure if you misread that?) to have the cervical cancer jab is because I feel it is statistically more likely ds2 will get swine flu and possibly have complications as he is asthmatic and on daily inhalers than dd will get cervical cancer in her teens. (I was reading today that the cervical cancer jab is only supposed to last 10 years and to tide girls over until they are about 22/23 by which time they are usually less sexually promiscuous. So it is not a lifelong vac and would seem to mainly benefit girls having several sexual partners in their teens which I would hope dd will not have, though I know I cannot guarantee that obviously.)

Ds2 has the annual flu jab every year. You say that is not safe to give to all children. Well, in ds2's case the risk of him getting flu and being seriously ill seems less than the risk of having an annual flu jab.

I think you've misunderstood me Dumbledoresgirl - or maybe I've misunderstood - anyway apologies for any unintended offence caused

Actually I said we don't generally give it to children (the annual flu jab) and that's because it's untested for children in the UK - but I can understand why you give it to him, and there is some evidence that having the flu jab (general flu jab) gives some protection against swine flu.

I'm not sure about cervarix myself for my DD either for many reasons. Personally I did my promiscuous bit a bit later than 22

I think you do whatever you think is right for your kids and if there is an underlying health condition you give them anything you think is going to save their lives - end of story.

No offence taken!

I am interested in both sides of this argument but I genuinely can't find a reason not to give ds2 the swine flu jab when I happily have given him seasonal flu jabs for years without a qualm. But note, I have 3 other children and I have no intention of giving them the swine flu jab as I don't think it is necessary so I am on both sides of the argument really.

As for cervical cancer jabs, I am just glad I have 2/3 years in which to make up my mind about that one but I really don't think dd would be a strong candidate for cervical cancer.

Actually I agree with you - if you have a child with a condition which affects their ability to cope with a disease you take all steps to prevent them getting it (which technically would mean you vax all your kids as then he has less chance of being infected if the vax doesn't take in his case/).

WMMC I'm not 100% sure , I'd have to go and check the filing, I think DS was stage 2 (he's almost 3) and is likely to be in a follow-up study soon, and DD is in the 'nothing actually happens' stage of hers (follow-up study??), she's due a blood test at 24mths (July next yr) but that's it. A cousin of mine died from meningitis age 4 over 20 yrs ago so it was important for me to have mine protected/ help with the vax development. Swine flu though, hmm, I'm not feeling quite so motivated.

Ditto MinnieMummy - I've had meningitis myself - still recovering 12 years later! So was very motivated to protect mine from it!

No, Violet, you have completely missed the point.

The point is, this was a vaccine trial (mentioned because we are talking about trials) These babies died during the trial. Glaxo said the numbers involved are not great enough to be investigated as an adverse reaction.

The infant mortality rate over three countries is plainly an average, and there is no way of determining, by the law of averages, if the babies would have died anyway.

Sorry to quote myself (or am I ) but my point was "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". Truth is, they won't even investigate it as a possible reaction.

So what's the point in taking part in the study.

That's how seriously an adverse reaction up to and including death will be taken during a trial.

Do you understand now, Violet? You were saying you wanted to know how they carried out their trials -- well this is how. Did you read up further? You can find a lot more eg about the recruitment protocol and methods but I suspect you're not that interested.

It may be the DM but I don't think it's quoted the Argentine government or Glaxo inaccurately.

You really did miss the point quite spectacularly there! So much so I think it must have been deliberate!

The infant mortality rate over three countries is plainly an average, and "there is no way of determining, by the law of averages, if the babies would have died anyway." That's a bit blithery.

I mean: you cannot determine by the law of averages that the babies were not killed by the vaccine. You need to investigate the deaths individually to establish that.

Actually stuffit - you are also missing a vital fact which is probably not aiding Violet's understanding. In most cases (ie unless someone actually dies as they are having the immunisation) results are not analysed until after the study is finished so if one baby died or six, it may not have been picked up till six months later if at all. Most studies don't look at a year later and actually if the reaction is something like heart disease or liver damage it may not show up till then.

Then it's even worse. Glaxo didn't even have the perspective of the study to make the analysis that the babies' deaths were normal infant mortality. They just decided, and didn't investigate.

Twelve or fourteen deaths of babies during a vaccine trial was enough to make the news and was a big shock to Glaxo. Without investigating the individual circumstances Glaxo decided those deaths were not caused by the vaccine.

My point is not: babies died during a trial. My point is: babies died during a trial and Glaxo didn't investigate.

So to all those who want to take part for the greater good: it isn't even worth it.

From WMMC's link:

?Smith-Kline?French, the pharmaceutical company who became Smith-Kline-Beecham and were involved in UK manufacture at that time, were concerned about these safety issues and were reluctant to obtain a UK license for their Urabe-containing vaccines. As a result of their ?concern? that children might be seriously damaged by one of their products, they requested that the UK government indemnify them against possible legal action that might be taken as a result of ?losses? associated with the vaccine, which by then was known to carry significant risk to health. The UK government, advised by Professor Salisbury and representatives from the Department of Health, in it?s enthusiasm to get a cheap MMR onto the market, agreed to this request.?

I'm horrified by this. Can it be true?

In fact the whole article is really rather chilling.