Quote:
Originally Posted by Neurochic
It is exceptionally risky for any pharma co to carry out any clinical trials of any drug in pregnant women. The ability to obtain insurance against the liabilities that arise if something affects unborn foetuses is minimal/nil. Post-thalidomide, drug companies just won't take the risk of carrying out clinical trials in pregnant women. The liabilities can be massive when you add up the lifetime costs of care for a large number of affected individuals with reasonable life expectancy. Because nobody is prepared to risk financial and reputation all suicide carrying out trials in pregnant women, however minuscule the perceived risk is, such medications are never licensed or approved for use in pregnant women. That isn't the case with some older medications or some injectable vaccinations which are manufactured from deal viruses. It is a commercial issue rather than one relating to the vaccine. I have some experience with clinical trials regulation.
As far as transfer of the virus is concerned, need to understand the difference between virus shedding/transfer and actually infecting someone else with flu. These are worlds apart and what the document you referred to explains is that whilst evidence of attenuated virus shedding and subsequent transfer to another person has been recorded, they have not seen any evidence of a vaccinated individual "infecting" another person with the flu virus and than person becoming symptomatic as a result. Essentially what they are able to pick up is evidence that the attenuated virus cells are detectable by lab testing in the body of another person.
Further down in that same document you referred to it does explain that you cannot get flu from the attenuated nasal vaccine and it also explains why. I appreciate that you have very firm views about vaccines and I am merely answering the questions that you asked in (what seems to be a slightly confrontational way) but I am not trying to influence your opinion.
|
I respect your opinion and the opinion of others. The best way to get opinions is to hear from many. In regards to the article..that is not how I interpreted it. It is also not how it was explained to my MIL just days ago, when I took her to get a checkup and discuss the possibility of a flu vaccine. They won't even give you the choice if you are over 49 or have had a serious illness in the past year. And they asked about the age and health of others in the household specifically regarding young children. The way it was explained was that no deaths have been reported due to the vaccine being transmitted to an un-vaccinated individual but it has been transmitted..just no serious illness was reported. That same could be said for someone contracting the flu.. not everyone dies from it or has serious complications like pneumonia from it.
Regarding pregnant women - this is incorrect pregnant women are encouraged to get the flu
shot by the CDC. The flu
shot does NOT contain the live virus (unlike the nasal vaccine) and so you cannot get the influenza virus from it.
Yes, my views are somewhat firm as are the views of others and that is respected. Confrontational wasn't my intention but my writing style is generally to the point and often lacks fluff. If I am judged harshly by one post then that is sad because I've offered many posts both publicly and privately that was more than encouraging. So if I offended someone with my opinion I am sorry. I am not sorry for sharing my thoughts and understandings as I think it is important just as others views/thoughts are. I don't expect anyone to agree but I hope it would provoke thought and personal research. Just like most everything posted in this forum.. if we relied upon only one view or story we would all be lost.