anybody else in 2 minds about swine flu jab?

[jlo1234]

i asked my doctor if he recommends me getting the swine flu jab, and he wasnt very convincing. he said its reccomended by the government but he doesnt know much about it himself so he would leave it up to the patient.

a friend said that she had had hers, shes a nurse who works in intensive care unit and said she thinks i should definatly have it because there has been a few pregnant women in there with swine flu and they are really ill with it.

the only thing that is holding me back is the fact that the vaccine is so new and hasnt been round for long enough for us to know if and what the long term side affects might be.

i feel like a guinnee pig and its putting me off, but then again i dont know what is the lesser of 2 evils, risk getting swine flu and putting both me and baby in danger or have the jab and risk side affects that havent been found yet.

i feel like im far enough along in my pregnancy for it to not cause much harm to the baby, (im nearly 33 weeks) but im just not sure what to do! it also confuses me that pregnant women cant have the seasonal flu vaccine but we can have the swine flu one?

has anybody actually had it, if so what made u decide u wanted it and did u regret it?
or has anybody else heard something to make them definatly not want it?

I am not claiming to be a scientist. I am only quoting from an official document that I have been sent attached to my invitation for SF vaccine, regarding Pandemrix and its side effects. Have you read my posts at all?

This document says one of its very rare side effects is GBS. Tee here seems to be disputing that, referring to "every single piece of literature" she has read. After that comment, it is normal to wonder just what kind of literature she may have read and in which context, that she is challenging government's official information.

The reason I discounted the development of GBS as being likely to be caused by the H1N1v flu vaccination in the American case, is because of the definition of GBS itself (which indeed from that report seems quite secure from the clinicians). The antibodies and CTL responses necessary to damage the myelin sheath of the nerves cannot possibly form and do the damage in a few hours as a result of the vaccination. If that timing is correct as reported than it just isn't biologically possible in any definition of GBS.

You have to go with what's more likely; and I would say a different infection at least several days preceding the H1N1 vaccination. However there may never be a cause found - like the 60% of all GBS cases investigated.

@CoteDAzur: the only time GBS has been associated with swine flu vaccination is from the 1976 scenario (estimated 1 per 100,000). No clear conclusion can be drawn from summarising studies on seasonal flu vaccination since then, but the background figure is accepted as 1 per 1,000,000. However there are far more frequently documented cases of GBS following seasonal influenza infection: as there are also from other infections such as cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and the most frequent culprit of campylobacter.

Finally: it is true that senior neurologists have been asked by the UK government to look out for cases of neurological disease in connection with swine influenza. This is because of the knowledge that mild or asymptomatic influenza infection can still cause GBS, and the government are rightly anxious to capture as many cases of H1N1v as possible to build on knowledge of this new pandemic. Such mild or asymptomatic influenza infections would quite rightly never reach the attentions of the DoH, but the post-infectious consequences would be more likely to present at a neurological specialty (who are not really used to dealing with infections generally). It should also serve as an enhanced surveillance for GBS following vaccination: and what I grow increasingly tired of is people who complain that there isn't enough post-vaccination surveillance, yet when there is a system capable of capturing it; use it as evidence that the government 'secretly know the link exists' and use it as 'proof' that they're being two-faced about the risks.

Thanks Cote.

Musukebba the US government makes no secret of their knowledge of the link between GBS and swine flu vaccination. They clearly state their position on the Institute of Medicine's website.

"The Immunization Safety Review committee reviewed the data on influenza vaccine and neurological conditions and concluded that the evidence favored acceptance of a causal relationship between the 1976 Swine Influenza vaccine and GBS in adults."

I don't know what the UK government's official position is.

This link about the case in France mentions that there are currently 5 cases of GBS following H1N1 vaccination being investigated in the US. It also states that the Jordan McFarland developed headaches and muscle weakness 24 hours after vaccination and was unable to walk one week later.

Cote ? I started off with the Mayo Clinic?s website, the Guillain?Barré Syndrome Support Group (UK and Ireland), the GBS/CIDP Foundation International Website, and several article extracts on PubMed. None of them have stated a direct proven association.

Instead of being insulting you could have simply asked me for my references. I'm certainly not challenging the French government nor claiming to be an expert -- I am simply stating what I have read.

Perhaps the ?line of thinking? in reference may seem dumb (in your opinion) but it is a theory which specialists are considering after the following 2007 study:

www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000344

I am also adding two further articles which mention this idea:

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/6038460/Doctors-told-to-watch-for-Guillain-Barre-syn drome-during-Swine-flu-vaccination-programme.html

www.newscientist.com/article/dn18014-swi ne-flu-myth-the-vaccine-isnt-safe--it-has-been-rushed-through-tests-and-the-last-time-there-was-a-sw ine-flu-scare-the-vaccine-hurt-people-why-take-the-risk-to-prevent-mild-flu.html

Interstingly enough, under Vaccination Guidelines on the GBS Foundation website, the first line states: ?Anyone who has a history of GBS and is in higher risk groups, including the elderly and those with other serious illnesses, should consider getting vaccinated.?

Teletubby that isn't all they say though. They do advise caution in recent cases because the end of that section is as follows;

"Anyone who has a history of GBS and is in higher risk groups, including the elderly and those with other serious illnesses, should consider getting vaccinated. If a patient's GBS episode was associated with the influenza vaccine be aware that there may be a risk of a repeat episode. Patients who have recently had GBS within 3-6 months should be cautious when considering any vaccine. In all cases, the decision as to whether or not GBS patients should be vaccinated is always a joint decision between patient and physician."

The Novartis package insert which includes GBS as an adverse effect associated with vaccination states that "If Guillain-Barré syndrome has occurred within 6 weeks of receipt of prior influenza vaccine, the decision to give Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks." Seems like a sensible precaution although I don't know where that leaves GBS susceptible people as they would seem to be vulnerable to both the disease and the vaccine.

Beachcomber -- again they say associated not "caused". And if you go to the "cause" section there is no mention of vaccine. And I do find it intersting that they advise people with a high risk of GBS to be vaccinated!

You also missed out the second half of the quotation from the IMO webiste which confirms what Musekebbe was saying:

The Immunization Safety Review committee reviewed the data on influenza vaccine and neurological conditions and concluded that the evidence favored acceptance of a causal relationship between the 1976 Swine Influenza vaccine and GBS in adults. The evidence about GBS for influenza vaccines of other years is not clear one way or the other (that is, the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship).

The point is we just don't know!

And by the way, I am not saying that in certain cases vaccines are absolutely NOT the cause of GBS. I am simply stating that the scientific community has not yet come to a conclusion and that we cannot state the association between the two as "fact".

Teletubby I linked to the IoM website and I kind of assumed that people would follow the link and read the whole statement.

The IoM clearly states that the evidence favours acceptation of causal relationship between the 1976 swine flu vaccine and GBS. It does as you say also clearly state that the jury is out on the relationship with seasonal flu vacccines. As this thread is about swine flu vaccines I thought that was kind of relevant.

Nowhere have I contradicted what Musukebba said about the lack of clear conclusion about GBS and seasonal flu vaccines.

I very clearly state in my post that the package insert states that GBS is 'associated' and nowhere do I imply otherwise.

I agree with you there seem to be a lot of unknowns which is only normal with such a hugely complex issue with so many factors.

I did however think that we had kinda established that the official line is that there is enough evidence to favour a casual relationship between GBS and swine flu vacccines so I'm not too sure why we (general) seem to be having a groundhog day type discussion about that.

Bit ironic that I'm the one being accused of conspiracy theories when I'm quoting the IOM!

I genuinely had not realised that within the space of a few weeks we had established that there was a "causal relationship" between GBS and this particular swine flu vaccine.

Does that not seem to be a very rushed conclusion considering the vaccine has been out for such a short period?

I also hadn't realised that there was a significant difference (virus aside) between influenza vaccines and swine flu vaccines other than that the latter are differentiated by a less attractive name. Joking aside, that is something I will look into.

Teletubby the casual relationship I'm talking about is with the previous 1976 swine flu vaccine, the one that is mentioned on the IoM website.

It is of course far too early to know if the same will be established about the current one which is why it is important to closely monitor cases of GBS following vaccnation with the current vaccines. That is why I find it concerning if there is to be a tendancy to assume any GBS cases are coincidences.

It is of course importnat to also monitor cases of GBS in nonvaccinated populations and in people who test postive for H1N1 in order to be able to draw any robust conclsions at a later date.

If you like the position at the moment is that a causal relationship between the previous swine flu vaccine has been favoured by the IoM.

The current swine flu vaccine is considered associated with GBS and is being monitored on this issue.

teletubby - You can quote Mayo Clinic or another website to your heart's desire, but the fact remains that the formal information sheet that I have been sent by the French government clearly states that GBS is a very rare side effect of flu vaccines, including this swine flu vaccine Pandemrix.

Here is GlaxoSmithKline's patient information leaflet on Pandemrix, which says GBS is a "very rare" side effect of seasonal flu vaccines in general and "may occur with Pandemrix". If those sentences look familiar, that is because the French quotes I have posted on this thread are exact translations. In fact, this is the exact document that I have been sent, in French.

So, would you please now accept that GBS is a recognized rare side effect of flu vaccines including those against SF?

That GSK lists GBS as a very rare side effect in its own information leaflet suggests to me that they consider the vaccine and the disease a bit more than "associated".

And here's my first ever.

Hi Beachcomber, I'm back but for only a moment to ask you a question. ( BTW you and CoteDAzur are on fire! ) I was lurking there reading up a bit and well done the two of you lol.

Anyway, my question is....I've been offered the Celvapan on Friday and since you seem to know a lot about vaccines, how do you feel about that one? I know we've been against the pandemrix for numerous reasons, and I felt the Celvapan was safer of the two. I was at first really against having anything but my nurse pushed for me to receive the Celvapan b/c of how strongly I felt about the Pandemrix. I'm 32wks pregnant btw. Just wondering how you felt on it. Would be nice to have another opinion. Like I said, we seem to be on the same wavelength. Thanks chic.

Meg

Oh and btw, all others can refrain from opinions....only conspiracy theorists

Gosh mommymeggie that's a very serious question. It does seem logical to think that Celvapen is a safer bet for the reasons we've touched on here. But I know I would personaly be wary of being vaccinated during pregnancy.

I don't know much about Celvapen, I haven't taken the time yet to find out much about it so it would be wrong of me to state any kind of opinion here.

If I come across anything I think would be of interest to you I will post a link to it.

Sorry not much help!

Are you allowed to have the jag if you have a cold? Since going on mat leave last week, i've had a blimmin cold! I will be 35 weeks on friday.

Cote: I think you need to relax and have a glass of wine.

Beachcomber: thank you for the clarification -- it was helpful.

Beachcomber-

Yea I thought the same! I am still weary of the whole thing and still haven't decided. I've been so against the pandemrix but Im sure their both not that great. At least the Celvapan doesn't have the two nasties in them that i know isn't safe at all for being pregnant! I appreciate your honesty. I am still looking into it. I know its my decision and was just wondering if you knew anything about it. I found this one website which I thought was interesting if you wanted to take a look. Its from Germany and its about the government and armed forces getting special treatment with Celvapan over the population.

www.thelocal.de/national/20091018-22649.html

Thanks again. Take care.

Here, teletubby, have a

You learned something on this thread. That is a good thing and there is no need to be bitter about it.

Have to agree with Cote that the GSK Pandemrix package insert does clearly state GBS as being a possible (very rare) side effect of the vaccine and that the listed effects 'may' happen with this vaccine.

They are certainly more upfront with it that Novartis with their long phrases about 'associations'.

Mommymeggie I have come across that info about Germany before which is a bit .

Have you seen the stuff about the Polish PM refusing to buy poorly tested vaccines and rejecting the liability conditions the manufacturer's demand?

BexieID if you check the insert Cote posted it says that having a cold is not a contraindication but says a highish (can't remember actual temp they give) temperature is. Personaly I'd check that out with my GP though.

Hi, I'm 29 weeks and had the jab a couple of weeks ago. I've nothing adverse to report so far, except a sore arm. I did a lot of soul-searching beforehand but, given the lack of research on pregnant women, it comes down to a balance of risk. I'm just relieved that my decision is over and that I will be better able to look after my 2 year old should she contract swine flu. Good luck everyone.

GBS is a recognised complication of the flu vaccine - however, it is also a recognised side effect of flu (and is more likely to occur after the flu than after vaccination, though research differs on whether it is 5 or 20 times more likely, or somewhere in between). So I wouldn't worry about that.

Comparing flu vaccine to Thalidomide is pointless - that was given in early pregnancy and interfered with foetal development. This is a vaccine made from dead virus that promotes an immune response - if you caught flu you'd have an immune response. Normal flu vaccine is given to pregnant women with few side effects (everything has side effects, even paracetamol and iron tablets), this is just a different strain but is made in exactly the same way. Sorry, but I would rather have it than risk taking my place in the queue for a ventilator.

Cote: might I suggest you lighten up and come to terms with the fact that not everyone on this thread is going to agree with you?

And yes I do get the picture that this is what your face looks like:

Silliness aside this is a terribly difficult choice for most women and I would hope that each individual make a thoughtful and informed decision through their own research and the help of a qualified professional(s) not by coming on mumsnet and being swayed either way.

Beachcomber-

I know, its getting crazy out there now. I can understand what the polish are doing b/c after the US had to do a massive payout in the 70's over the vaccines not being tested properly, now they have passed a law stating that the drug companies are not reliable for any problems. Thats just ludacris! I've also read that WHO may be slapped with a lawsuit b/c legally they have to properly test all vaccines to a certain standard but apparently had gotten a waiver to distribute the vaccines quickly by the high demand. I will try to find that article again for you if your interested. I thought I saved it but didn't.

I've read some ingredients in the Celvapan. It contains formaldehyde (a colorless, toxic, potentially carcinogenic, water-soluble gas) and Polysorbate 80, which can cause severe nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions. Just more to add to the pot! I've talked to my family about it and we've decided that Celvapan would be the better (not best) option and since its being offered to me, maybe it would wise to receive it while it is available. Such a decision I wish I didn't have to make. What a time to be pregnant!