Would you trust the h1n1 shot after this...

[KandyKinz]

I believe the recommendation was changed to the adjuvanted one (Pandemrix) for pregnant women as it offered faster and stronger immunity? (the adjuvant used is squalene). Or it was when the outbreak was rife. It perhaps is not as urgent as it was so the recommendation may again be the adjuvant free version (Celvapan over here). It is available in the UK if you have an egg allergy but you can also request it. I did but changed my mind upon further research. Thiomersal is not in the celvapan over here.

Here in Canada the recommendations is now that everyone should receive the unadjuvanted vaccine primarily by default because the adjuvanted version is no longer availale. It's bounced back and forth though... Originally at the onset of the flu outbreak last year Health Canada put out a statement that advised that pregnant women should only receive the unadjuvanted vaccine as the were no adequate studies conducted on the use of the adjuvanted vaccine in pregnancy. Then there was a delay in the production and distribution of the unadjuvanted vaccine so Health Canada put out another statement saying pregnant women over 20 weeks (because they are the ones at greatest risk) should go ahead and get the adjuvanted vaccine as even though there were no studies specifically looking at that vaccine it was assumed to be safe as it was not a live vaccine and the risk of H1N1 were greater... they then went on to say women under 20 weeks should hold off until the unadjuvanted was available... There were further delays and all of a sudden women under 20 weeks should consider getting the H1N1 vaccine and that they should discuss this choice with their care provider.... Unfortunately, the only info given to the care providers was that there were no adequate studies yet conducted on pregnant woman and the adjuvanted vaccine but it was assumed to likely be safe... And the risks of H1N1 were greater.... Then the unadjuvanted vaccine comes then all of a sudden they said Okay now pregnant women under 20 weeks should only get the unadjuvanted vaccine and women over 20 weeks should continue to get the adjuvanted vaccine because they are at increased risk even though there has yet to be be any completed studies analyzing it's safety. And now as I said anyone who wants it HAS to get the unadjuvanted as that's all we have now and here the unadjuvanted has 10 times the amount of thimerosol as the adjuvanted...

And I can't seem to understand why the UK and States have deemed it inappropriate to inject such an amount of thimerosol into their bodies while here in Canada they don't seem to give a damn......

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

It does seem strange. I know the UK does a lot fo reasearch. Maybe Canada dosn't see it as bad. I don't know. Might be a question to ask your doctor
x

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I believe the recommendation was changed to the adjuvanted one (Pandemrix) for pregnant women as it offered faster and stronger immunity? (the adjuvant used is squalene). Or it was when the outbreak was rife. It perhaps is not as urgent as it was so the recommendation may again be the adjuvant free version (Celvapan over here). It is available in the UK if you have an egg allergy but you can also request it. I did but changed my mind upon further research. Thiomersal is not in the celvapan over here.

Here in Canada the recommendations is now that everyone should receive the unadjuvanted vaccine primarily by default because the adjuvanted version is no longer availale. It's bounced back and forth though... Originally at the onset of the flu outbreak last year Health Canada put out a statement that advised that pregnant women should only receive the unadjuvanted vaccine as the were no adequate studies conducted on the use of the adjuvanted vaccine in pregnancy. Then there was a delay in the production and distribution of the unadjuvanted vaccine so Health Canada put out another statement saying pregnant women over 20 weeks (because they are the ones at greatest risk) should go ahead and get the adjuvanted vaccine as even though there were no studies specifically looking at that vaccine it was assumed to be safe as it was not a live vaccine and the risk of H1N1 were greater... they then went on to say women under 20 weeks should hold off until the unadjuvanted was available... There were further delays and all of a sudden women under 20 weeks should consider getting the H1N1 vaccine and that they should discuss this choice with their care provider.... Unfortunately, the only info given to the care providers was that there were no adequate studies yet conducted on pregnant woman and the adjuvanted vaccine but it was assumed to likely be safe... And the risks of H1N1 were greater.... Then the unadjuvanted vaccine comes then all of a sudden they said Okay now pregnant women under 20 weeks should only get the unadjuvanted vaccine and women over 20 weeks should continue to get the adjuvanted vaccine because they are at increased risk even though there has yet to be be any completed studies analyzing it's safety. And now as I said anyone who wants it HAS to get the unadjuvanted as that's all we have now and here the unadjuvanted has 10 times the amount of thimerosol as the adjuvanted...

And I can't seem to understand why the UK and States have deemed it inappropriate to inject such an amount of thimerosol into their bodies while here in Canada they don't seem to give a damn......

That is very strange. I assumed the worry with the adjuvanted one was the thiomersal and that was why the non adjuvanted one was advised in pregnancy over here at first so why they would recommend the non adjuvanted in the first place over there when it has 10 times the thiomersal of the adjuvanted has stumped me

Is it something you've spoken about to your doctor? To be fair my doctor knew less than me about the vaccines so he wasn't much help. I did speak to a doctor whose pregnant colleague had had the adjuvanted vaccine and that reassured me slightly but when our doctors dont know much about them how can we be expected to make informed decisions?

Takes me back to my point that there should be more info available beforehand. people are being left to their own devices and sometimes, especially with the www that isnt a great thing.

 

[KandyKinz]

I wish it was so easy as to just ask your doctor……

Last year during the initial onset of the H1N1 outbreak, I was still a midwifery student and was during clinical placements and things were not as clear cut as one would want them to be as to what pregnant women should actually be doing.

I remember attending an infectious disease seminar specific to H1N1 at the hospital. (It was a teaching hospital adjacent to the medical school so they did try to keep very up to date with current situations and studies so it wasn’t like I was in small rural community of old school physicians who believed everything Health Canada tells them)… Anyways, the main speaker was some immunologist who I believe was a representative for Health Canada and she was very clear initially that ALL pregnant women should receive the unadjuvant version because the adjuvant version had yet to be tested among pregnant women.

The adjuvant version is a combination of DL-a-tocopherol, squalene and polysorbate 80. What those are I have no clue…. But they boost your immune response making the vaccine more effective.

Anyways, the woman then went on to say that yes there is thimerosal in both the adjuvant and unadjuvant vaccines (but failed to disclose the amounts). She then stated that the thimerosal is a “good” mercury…. I specifically remember her use the word good and then she said there have been several studies on it and so far none have demonstrated harm…. Key point is she was quite adamant that the main concern was that the adjuvant version had not been tested yet in pregnant women and the fact that there was thimerosal in it was not an issue at all.

BUT there must have been a reason it was eradicated from most immunization in Canada (eg the MMR), and there must be a reason why other countries have completely abandoned it as an ingredient Originally, I assumed it was based on theoretical risks…. But if you looks at the references I included somewhere on page 55 there is some scientific evidence of harm…..

Anyways, so then in clinic… Every day women would come in freaking out about H1N1... Cause well you no how pregnant women can be so we’d give them the info we knew along with the current recommendations eg pregnant women should wait till the unadjuvant comes along… But then they changed the recommendations and the pregnant women came in freaking out again about whether or not they should be getting adjuvant vaccine even though just days before it was recommended to them not to and now they’re being told that if they're over 20 weeks they definitely should get it and if they’re under they should discuss getting it with their care providers. Then they’d go on about how their friend is 13 weeks and thier doctor said to definitely get it so she got the adjuvant one… then her other friend is 10 weeks and her doctor (in the SAME community) told her not to get it (just proof that personal opinions tend to play a role in medical opinions ). And as a midwifery practice we were all about informed choice meaning we’d give them the info about the H1N1 vaccine, what the studies or lack of studies were saying, the recommendations... the change in recommendations, and the risks to both getting immunized against H1N1 and the risks of getting H1N1.… Some woman loved being empowered to make their own decisions and others frankly DID NOT! I think the lack in clarity in what they should actually be doing was very very stressful for some…. But the reality of it was there was no good answer. And every single week H1N1 would consume the discussions of the OB rounds… There would be a group of doctors slamming their fists on the table that all pregnant women should be immunized right then and there and that the risks of H1N1 was far too high to give a damn about the theoretical risks of a unstudied vaccine…. Then there would be another group saying WOAH WOAH WOAH there could be major long term effects of this, there could be risks of the thimerosal content, there could be risks of the adjuvant and women should be made aware of the fact that these potential risks are there…. Then there would be a group shrugging in the corner.

So, based on experiences like that…. I’m not entirely pro just go ask your doctor… Frankly, because I believe there are very few things in medicine that are strictly black and white. I’m definitely pro informed choice and I have found that some doctors are quite good at engaging with their patients in such a model…. But others simply do not and have a do what I say because I know best attitude…. For instance, though slightly very off topic…. I have a rare eye condition called pars planitis… It’s autoimmune and I have episodes where it flares up and causes quite a disturbance in my vision though I can by just fine… it’s more annoying then anything else.. But when I was diagnosed the doctor simply told me what it was and told me I needed to take steroid eye drops to ease the symptoms…. It wouldn’t cure me but it would reduce the visual disturbances and that was it. I went home and researched it further and the drops I was given caused glaucoma and or cataracts in approximately 70% of individuals who were on the drops for more then a year… Being that I could still get by that was not a risk I was willing to take but it was something that my ophthalmologist failed to discuss with me. On the flip side, my daughter was born with strabismus, but her ophthalmologist has been very helpful in adequately discussing the risks and benefits and the whole nine yards of when and how much we should patch her eye, when we should incorporate the atropine eye drops into her treatment, when she should undergo strabismus surgery and he’s been very good at directing to credible sources and studies regarding her strabismus and treatment. I certainly haven’t had any issues with how he’s been managing her care but I do feel at greater ease being apart of the decision making process and doing my own research. Doctors can be a great resource but I don’t think for me at least that they should be the only resource.

And then when it comes to things like vaccines…. The knowledge of care providers can be fairly limited. Obstetricians tend to only subscribe to OB/Gyne journals, midwives only tend to subscribe to midwifery journals and OB/Gyne journals and GP’s tend to subscribe the to family medicine journals or things that specifically interest them. Yes, continuing education is a very important and large part of the medical profession but for the most part the individual chooses which topics they will further explore and skip over things they have no interest in….. If a doctor has little interest in immunology (and frankly I have very little interest in immunology) chances are they’re going to have a very limited knowledge base of the subject other then the statements sent to them by Health Canada every time a scare occurs. Sometimes it can be easier to just accept what Health Canada says and just go by their recommendations leaving it at that…. But it can make you look very unprofessional when those recommendations change every two weeks. And those recommendations may not actually be the best choice for all women…..

Sorry for blabbing on and on and on … I tried to make it short but failed miserably….

 

[PeanutBean]

Lol kandykinz I confess I skimmed your post! But I agree with much of what I read. GPs are hugely overpaid and largely do very little to keep their knowledge up to date. If there is too much for one person to know then there really should be easily accessible public sources of information written in language everyday people will understand but without glossing over the data. There are ways to make this accessible if people will only try.

Also I am not at all surprised that there are women who don't want to do the research and make their own choices. If we as citizens in general had to research everything we'd never get anything done! It's like our new politics in the UK, our ridiculous government are all about asking us to choose which services to lose. Putting aside the kiklihood of this not just being a farce, we elect politicians to make these decisions for us. It's not enough for me but I can certainly see why it is for most people.

Intetesting about the mercury issue. I suspect it's gone in some countries and not others largely down to pressure from the anti-vaccination lobby, perhaps yours is not as powerful as ours? Maybe Canada needs a Daily Mail! Lol

Lisaf, interesting reading. I totally agree that this spectrum is really one end of a personality spectrum and in mental health classification I really do think we are danger of trying to classify all personalities. I mentioned my nephew is autistic quite strongly and has shown signs from being only a few hours old. The food thing is very significant I think. My nephew has a ketotic metabolic disorder. He has been hospitalised so many times from having small amounts of sugar. My mum jokes how he has the best teeth of any child his age! In their research my mum and sister have often come across associations with metabolic disorders. It certainly seems plausible that autism like my nephew's is probably a genetic condition which has a variety if symptoms. I should think that like most mental illnesses that are defined symptomatically there are in reality probably a wide variety of causes manifesting in similar ways. I think there was a post previously (I forget who by) that talked of the stigma, and therein lies the real issue. As a society we need to learn to be much more forgiving of all differences. I wish I could remember the exact figure but something like 75% of computer scientists are on the autistic spectrum.

 

[lisaf]

I wish I could remember the exact figure but something like 75% of computer scientists are on the autistic spectrum.

My mom is a computer engineer... And yes, the interpersonal skills in engineers of all kinds do hint at an ASD of some kind in many of them.

This scientific study was just released on monday.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2010-0309v1

Objective: Exposure to thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative that is used in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations, has been hypothesized to be associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study was designed to examine relationships between prenatal and infant ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or immunoglobulin preparations and ASD and 2 ASD subcategories: autistic disorder (AD) and ASD with regression.

Methods: A case-control study was conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with ASD and 752 controls matched by birth year, gender, and MCO. ASD diagnoses were validated through standardized in-person evaluations. Exposure to thimerosal in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was determined from electronic immunization registries, medical charts, and parent interviews. Information on potential confounding factors was obtained from the interviews and medical charts. We used conditional logistic regression to assess associations between ASD, AD, and ASD with regression and exposure to ethylmercury during prenatal, birth-to-1 month, birth-to-7-month, and birth-to-20-month periods.

Results: There were no findings of increased risk for any of the 3 ASD outcomes. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for ASD associated with a 2-SD increase in ethylmercury exposure were 1.12 (0.83–1.51) for prenatal exposure, 0.88 (0.62–1.26) for exposure from birth to 1 month, 0.60 (0.36–0.99) for exposure from birth to 7 months, and 0.60 (0.32–0.97) for exposure from birth to 20 months.

Conclusions: In our study of MCO members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs.

 

[KandyKinz]

I wish I could remember the exact figure but something like 75% of computer scientists are on the autistic spectrum.

My mom is a computer engineer... And yes, the interpersonal skills in engineers of all kinds do hint at an ASD of some kind in many of them.

This scientific study was just released on monday.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2010-0309v1

Objective: Exposure to thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative that is used in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations, has been hypothesized to be associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study was designed to examine relationships between prenatal and infant ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or immunoglobulin preparations and ASD and 2 ASD subcategories: autistic disorder (AD) and ASD with regression.

Methods: A case-control study was conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with ASD and 752 controls matched by birth year, gender, and MCO. ASD diagnoses were validated through standardized in-person evaluations. Exposure to thimerosal in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was determined from electronic immunization registries, medical charts, and parent interviews. Information on potential confounding factors was obtained from the interviews and medical charts. We used conditional logistic regression to assess associations between ASD, AD, and ASD with regression and exposure to ethylmercury during prenatal, birth-to-1 month, birth-to-7-month, and birth-to-20-month periods.

Results: There were no findings of increased risk for any of the 3 ASD outcomes. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for ASD associated with a 2-SD increase in ethylmercury exposure were 1.12 (0.83–1.51) for prenatal exposure, 0.88 (0.62–1.26) for exposure from birth to 1 month, 0.60 (0.36–0.99) for exposure from birth to 7 months, and 0.60 (0.32–0.97) for exposure from birth to 20 months.

Conclusions: In our study of MCO members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs.

So does that study mean we have to completely disregard these ones???

A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders * Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, 1087-2620, Volume 70, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 837 – 851. Authors: David A. Geiera; Mark R. Geierb --- "Results: Impairments in social relatedness and communication, repetitive behaviors, and stereotypic abnormal movement patterns characterize autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). It is clear that while genetic factors are important to the pathogenesis of ASDs, mercury exposure can induce immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs)...the study looked at children's exposure to vaccines with thimerosal in it as well as fetal exposure to Rhogam which also contains thimerosal.

An Evaluation of the Effects of Thimerosal on Neurodevelopmental Disorders Reported Following DTP and Hib Vaccines in Comparison to DTPH Vaccine in the United States
David A. Geier; Mark R. Geier
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, 1087-2620, Volume 69, Issue 15, 2006, Pages 1481 – 1495
"Significantly increased odds ratios for autism, speech disorders, mental ******ation, infantile spasms, and thinking abnormalities reported to VAERS were found following DTP vaccines in comparison to DTPH vaccines with minimal bias or systematic error." The DTP consisted of 50 μg mercury and the DTPH vaccine had only 25 μg mercury.

Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1–9 years
Carolyn Gallagher; Melody Goodman
Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 1029-0486, Volume 90, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 997 – 1008 "This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys."


And I thought that was very interesting about computer scientists and the autism stat..... I think I'd be much better suited to a career that doesn't involve interacting with people... but the only thing I'm really interested in is pregnancy, lactation and babies So I try to be normal Sometimes though I think life would be easier if I'd just give in to my social awkwardness....... But I suppose if every couple of years I can completely isolate myself from real people for a year or so I can get by.....

 

[lisaf]

I don't know about disregarding the other studies. But this study had some exclusions and controls put in place that excluded people with known risk factors for ASDs... not sure if the other studies did that? And if there IS any causal link, could it be tied to those risk factors?
Those studies were in 2006, 2007, and 2008... so this is just the LATEST study to be released.
Did you put up the links to those studies or are they not free to view?

 

[KandyKinz]

they're not free, I accessed them through my university library account

 

[KandyKinz]

Just read the children of parents in the high tech field (eg computer scientists) have an increased chance of having children with a ASD.... Makes sense from a genetic point of view if 75% of computer engineers have ASD themselves!

 

[lisaf]

There is also that link to income/class and ASD... computer scientists tend to be upper/middle class so that could also explain the socioeconomic links they've found.

 

[KandyKinz]

There is also that link to income/class and ASD... computer scientists tend to be upper/middle class so that could also explain the socioeconomic links they've found.

Hmmmm never saw that association before..... But that certainly doesn't account for my family.... As we're all poor!!!!!!

 

[lisaf]

There is also that link to income/class and ASD... computer scientists tend to be upper/middle class so that could also explain the socioeconomic links they've found.

Hmmmm never saw that association before..... But that certainly doesn't account for my family.... As we're all poor!!!!!!

LOL!! Well its not exclusive to upper/middle class... its just more likely in those cases... one of the hypothesis about that has been that smarter/richer people have higher expectations of their kids and are more likely to notice/think something is wrong and get their kids tested. That hypothesis has not really been proven to be true by any study.... but if there is a link to certain careers, then that could in turn, link it to socioeconomic status too if the careers pay well.
I just think of all the jokes out there about how bad engineers are at interpersonal relations.. its not true 100% of the time, but its true enough that there is a whole series of jokes about it. Heck, some companies hire people to be go-betweens for the engineers and other folks.

 

[PeanutBean]

Don't quote me on the 75% though! Lol. Definitely interesting about the offspring thing. I also hadn't heard about the socioeconomic link but I can see that as a plausible theory, also I think upper-middle class would be more likely/enabled to seek a diagnosis and specialist treatment. We should look at the causation in these associations. It makes sense that certain jobs are attractive to people of certain abilities abs that the genetic traits of those people will pass on. We see it other lines of work too and whilst it can certainly include an element of exposure and perhaps parental pressure to follow in a similar line of work I am sure that amazing minds or hands are more likely to beget amazing minds or hands.

On the issue of the studies, we would need to examine all the methods to see if one study is more valid that another but it is always helpful to consider the latest research, though in academic terms 2008 is still very recent.

 

[lisaf]

The 2010 study has also just been released and has not had as much peer review as the other studies, so the validity or relevance of the data they found may not hold up to scrutiny by the entire scientific community.
It just came out though and was very relevant to our discussions, lol.. so still worth sharing as a point of interest.

 

[PeanutBean]

Lisaf not quite right, the peer review process happens before publication and only research that passes will be accepted into the journal. There is a panel of experienced scientists selected to review each paper. They will consider the quality of the methodology and analysis of data and whether the results justify the conclusions drawn. I think what you mean is citations which is how many times other papers refer to the research. Citations are important but the quality of the work has already passed muster. As you say a new paper will have no citations and as the work is replicated and further explored it will be cited more. Of course a bad paper could also be cited! I bet Wakefield's work has millions of citations because of a decade replicating without success. The peer review process of course has a flaw or two. Cleverly fabricated data might not be apparent. Also when a paper is on something exceptionally novel it can occasionally be difficult to find experienced enough scientists close enough to the field to review it.

 

[KandyKinz]

Does it make me a bad or lazy person to not want to go back and critically analyze those other articles as well as the newest one??? Did I mention I have very little interest in immunology.... and I took a year of uni for a reason..... So there's a job for you PeanutBean.... you seem like a highly motivated and scholarly person. Let me know what you conclude!

 

[PeanutBean]

Lol sorry kandykinz I can only access journals at work and these days I'm working from home loads because of ms. When I am in I'll be mad busy doing actual work! I miss not having access at home. The uni I work at changed their login system to save money so I need to set up a whole virtual network for my uni account and the account is a bit wrong anyway since I was last on leave. Too much trouble! Maybe when I'm done growing babies I'll be up to the task again!

 

[lisaf]

Sorry peanut lol.. I know there is a peer review process before something is published.. I guess I meant more of the replication and the critical view of the entire scientific community. You're right that there shouldn't be any flaws to their methodology.
I just know that a panel of people can still make mistakes or overlook something and that one of the reasons we push for publication of scientific studies is to get the data out to everyone for it to be critically scrutinized by more people and for people to try and reproduce the data.

I'm not sure I understand completely what the methodology was in the study, and my brain gets a little fried trying to make sense of it all.
I agree Kandy that you should not have to go back to those others and review the methodology... but it would sure be nice for a scientific brained person familiar with this topic to review and compare the studies to see what the main differences are in their methods that could explain their different conclusions.

 

[KandyKinz]

And I'm still not completely buying into the socio-economic link or more so I can't seem to understand why there would be a relation? I don't see there being an issue with children from a lower socio-economic background going undiagnosed as atleast here in Canada resources tend to be equalized amongst the different groups.... So a poor child has the same medical access and likely even the same doctor as a rich child and they attend the same schools etc etc. Perhaps that would be a bigger problem in say big US cities where there tends to be more segregation????? And I guess the thought that autistic people are drawn to high paying jobs like engineering can be plausable... But many individuals with autism are so badly affected that they cannot maintain any employment at all.... perhaps the degree of the autism worsens with each generation???? I don't know just putting it out there.....