Saturday, July 18, 2009

UK: Questions Over Swine Flu Shot Safety

 


# 3508

 

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to be at least a little uncomfortable with the UK’s plan to roll out swine flu shots to the public before testing data is in.

 

Especially since it will be school-aged children first in line to get the shot.

 

The good news is, with the notable exception of the swine flu shots of 1976 (which for reasons still unexplained caused about 500 serious adverse side effects and about 25 deaths in the US), flu vaccines have an excellent history of safety.

 

And based on that history, the odds are that the vaccine being manufactured today will be `safe.  I put the word `safe’ in quotes because there is no such thing as a completely safe drug. 

 

All vaccines are capable of producing rare, but serious side effects. And when we start vaccinating millions of people (many of whom have never received a flu shot before), we will probably see some adverse reactions. 

 

In fact, you can probably count on that.

 

Of concern to many is the apparent decision to use adjuvants, or chemicals designed to boost the immune response, in order to reduce the amount of antigen needed in each shot.  

 

While this technique has been used in shots for the elderly for a number of years in the EU, it has not been widely used on children before.  There are questions regarding the long-term health effects of such additives on the immune system.

 

And while the US is purchasing adjuvants, we appear less inclined to use them in our vaccines – at least until we see if they are really needed, and are safe.

 

 

Unlike many of the commenters to the following article, I don’t subscribe to the theory that the UK government, or any other government (or pharmaceutical company), would knowingly expose the children of their nation or of the world to a flu shot they believed to be dangerous.

 

There is simply nothing to be gained by it. Of course, good intentions don’t preclude bad outcomes. 

 

Anytime you accept an emergency vaccination there are risks involved.  Small risks, perhaps.  But risks none-the-less.

 

There are risks involved in not getting the shot, as well.  And usually, those risks run quite a bit higher than the risks from any vaccine. 

 

Short of some major vaccine blunder, I expect the same will hold true with this jab.  But that doesn’t mean I’m not at least a little concerned about the fast-tracking of this vaccine.

 

Life is about balancing risks and rewards.  During a pandemic, the decision to take a vaccine involves calculating those risks.

 

Most of the time, the odds favor taking the vaccine by a wide margin.

 

 

This article from The Independent (hat tip SusanC on the Flu Wiki ).

 

While filled with a great deal of speculation and misinformation, the comment section is illuminating – if for no other reason than to illustrate how fervent the resistance to this vaccine may be.

 

 

Safety questions over swine flu jab

Vaccine will be rushed out before results of health checks are known

 

By Jeremy Laurance, Health editor

Saturday, 18 July 2009

The first doses of swine flu vaccine will be given to the public before full data on its safety and effectiveness become available, doctors confirmed yesterday.

 

The aim is to provide maximum protection against the pandemic in the shortest possible time.

 

But, unlike seasonal flu vaccine, the pandemic version will be spread over two doses in a higher quantity, and one brand is expected to contain a chemical additive to make it go further, potentially increasing the risk of side-effects.

 

Children, who are most vulnerable to swine flu and are likely to be among those first in line for the jab, may get the vaccine more than a month before trial results are received.

 

Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol and an expert on vaccination who will be testing the pandemic vaccine, said: "There will be a period where a risk judgement will have to be made. It will depend if there is an increase in the number of cases and deaths. Children are potent spreaders [of the virus] – they are now seen as the engine of the epidemic. We are dealing with information as it comes in – we could be dealing with a far worse epidemic, and we need to act sooner rather than later."

(Continue . . .)