New ?overload? fears as swine flu jab is added to routine childhood vaccines

[Pathfinder]

New ‘overload’ fears as swine flu jab is added to routine childhood vaccines

<SCRIPT src="http://scripts.dailymail.co.uk/js/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
By Beezy Marsh
Last updated at 12:17 AM on 18th October 2009

Jab: The Government has said that all vaccinations can be given with the swine flu vaccine


The swine flu vaccine will be given to children at the same time as routine jabs – despite the fact there is no evidence the combination is safe.
There are fears that children will be at risk of unknown side effects because safety trials into using the jabs together have yet to be carried out.

The plan has also added to concerns about ‘overloading’ young immune systems with multiple inoculations.
Government experts have ruled that all vaccinations – including those against measles, mumps, rubella, meningitis C, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, Hib disease and pneumococcal infection – can be given with the swine flu vaccine to children over six months old.

The Government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) decided that because the swine flu vaccine does not contain a ‘live’ virus, it can safely be given with other jabs.

The first wave of a national vaccination scheme against swine flu is set to begin next week, with children who have underlying health problems such as asthma and diabetes among the first to be treated.

The JCVI ruling means these ‘high-risk’ youngsters who are also due for routine jabs could now receive them along with their swine flu vaccine.

Campaigners have already voiced concerns that the recommended programme of more than 20 inoculations, including two doses of the MMR injection, by the age of four puts too much strain on children’s immune systems.

GP Dr Richard Halvorsen, medical director of the Babyjabs clinic in Central London, said last night: ‘There is not a shred of evidence about the potential effects of combining all these childhood jabs with the swine flu vaccine. They simply have not had time to carry out tests.’

The swine flu vaccine has been fast-tracked through normal licensing procedures and the first volunteer children in a UK study received their shots last week.

Neurologists have been warned by the Health Protection Agency to look out for Guillain-Barr&#233; Syndrome (GBS) – where paralysis of the breathing muscles can cause death by suffocation.

A mass vaccination programme against swine flu in the US in 1976 saw hundreds of GBS cases and 25 deaths, although a direct link to the vaccine, which is different from the current jab, was never proved.

Jackie Fletcher, of the campaign group Justice Awareness and Basic Support, believes the move to combine vaccines is ‘reckless’.

She said: ‘If there is a bad reaction for a child, how will doctors be able to identify which vaccine component is to blame?’

At a meeting in August, the JCVI stated that giving the swine flu jab with other vaccines is safe because it contains a ‘dead’ virus.

But it advised that the flu injection be given in a different limb from other jabs to minimise localised reactions such as swelling.

The Department of Health said last night: ‘It is irresponsible to suggest the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues.

‘The swine flu vaccine will not interfere with other vaccines, whether they are administered at the same time or not. Vaccines would not be licensed if they were considered unsafe – they go through a rigorous licensing process and are carefully assessed for safety.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221153/New-overload-fears-swine-flu-jab-added-routine-childhood-vaccines.html

[Vibrant62]

Re: New ?overload? fears as swine flu jab is added to routine childhood vaccines

This is outrageous. In every other single area of medicine and health the 'Precautionary Principle' is applied, rigorously.

Here in the UK we have two swine flu vaccines ordered, but supplies of the Baxter vaccine are not coming through. This means that at the moment, these priority groups, including very young children, will receive the adjuvant vaccine by GSK. I still dont see why it would not be possible to just give an antigen componenet, but I am not a regulatory expert, so for the time being, let us accept that this wont be possible.

We have thoroughly documented concerns over the use of adjuvants in the very young, and safety tests are being conducted. On the balance of risks, I would not argue that high risk young children shouldn't receive the GSK vaccine or that they should wait, in present circumstances. But to give them these vaccines at the same time as their other childhood vaccines? We dont even know the risks of the adjuvant vaccine alone in the very young in these circumstances (remember that their immune systems are still immature and developing) - let alone the potential for cross adjuvancy, nor any complications that could arise from this possibility.

The only reasons I can think of behind this move and direction, and not providing these vaccines seperately are either a) a complete lack of regard for the safety of these very young children in return for a small administrative time saving to surgeries giving the vaccines or b) a deliberate move to obscure ADRs as it will be impossible to determine which vaccine component is responsible for any problems.

Either way, this is not acceptable, at least until the necessary trial work has been completed.

They go on to state ‘The swine flu vaccine will not interfere with other vaccines, whether they are administered at the same time or not. Vaccines would not be licensed if they were considered unsafe – they go through a rigorous licensing process and are carefully assessed for safety.’

These vaccines were (rightly) authorised under emergency use provisions - and part of these provisions are an acceptance that there may not be full safety and efficacy testing for all patient groups, with a cosequence that real time monitoring and a heightened level of ADR reporting is required to identify problems, as a condition of the EUA. We already know that groups in which there is inadequate data on the safety and efficacy of adjuvant vaccines includes pregnancy and very young children. proceding in this manner will actively prevent adherence to this EUA requirement.

Additionally, we cannot know whether the statement that an adjuvant vaccine will not interfere is true or not. It may result in the immune system being fully occupied in an immune response to the influenza challenge, resulting in suboptimal coverage for the other antigenic challenges - we just dont know. AS03 in young children is unknown territory, for everyone - there is no data.

[tropical]

Re: New ?overload? fears as swine flu jab is added to routine childhood vaccines

#1:
"The plan has also added to concerns about ‘overloading’ young immune systems with multiple inoculations.
Government experts have ruled that all vaccinations – including those against measles, mumps, rubella, meningitis C, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, Hib disease and pneumococcal infection – can be given with the swine flu vaccine to children over six months old."


If there is a vital rush to got pandemic vaccine, coincidently when childs must be vaccinated to the other cited illnesses, than it will be an emergency mandatory act.


But without emergency, to mix another vaccination with the pandemic one purposedly, or even multiple in one shot vacc. with the pandemic one, out of an emergency event, is probable unneccessary from the patient point.

Aknowledging additionaly the fear of the greather part of the senior health workforce to be vaccinated even with the pandemic flu vaccine alone,
such multiple insistance on childrens seems out.

Without the many studies, it can be enaugh reasonable to suppo that the human body (and other organisms bodies),
don't feel more well if naturaly exposed to many various illnesses at once, instead to one alone subsequently at the time.

If we include the sci. apeared doubts about the needed period for the immunity mounting break, it seems enaugh reasonable to guess that the same logic apply maybe to the multiple vaccines exposure at once.

As said in #2, why a body must be constricted to got multiple vaccines at once, when it could receive them with a break between ...

So, give it to the body on various times to be vaccinated onto various illnesses.

Maybe the "multiple" proposers wants themselfs to be vaccinated onto 4-5 infectious illnesses at once ...