AP Poll: Third of parents oppose swine flu vaccine
Photo 
Duncan Barnes, 1, being held by his mother Jennifer Barnes, reacts after receiving vaccine for swine flu from Dr. Susan Henderson, left, and at the same time a vaccine for seasonal flu from a nurse at right, during a swine flu vaccination clinical trial for children at Emory Children's Center Sept., 2, 2009, in Atlanta.
ATLANTA — As the first wave of swine flu vaccine crosses the country, more than a third of parents don't want their kids vaccinated, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.
Some parents say they are concerned about side effects from the new vaccine — even though nothing serious has turned up in tests so far — while others say swine flu doesn't amount to any greater health threat than seasonal flu.
Jackie Shea of Newtown, Conn., the mother of a 5-year-old boy named Emmett, says the vaccine is too new and too untested.
"I will not be first in line in October to get him vaccinated," she said in an interview last month. "We're talking about putting an unknown into him. I can't do that."
The AP poll found that 38 percent of parents said they were unlikely to give permission for their kids to be vaccinated at school.
The belief that the new vaccine could be risky is one federal health officials have been fighting from the start, and they plan an unprecedented system of monitoring for side effects.
They note that swine flu vaccine is made the same way as seasonal flu vaccines that have been used for years. And no scary side effects have turned up in tests on volunteers, including children.
On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appealed for widespread inoculation against swine flu, vouching unconditionally for the vaccine: "We know it's safe and secure."
The AP poll, conducted Oct. 1-5, found 72 percent of those surveyed are worried about side effects, although more than half say that wouldn't stop them from getting the vaccine to protect their kids from the new flu.
Giving flu shots to schoolchildren is also an idea many parents are still getting used to. It was only last year that the government recommendation kicked in for virtually all children to get it. Seasonal flu vaccination rates for children last year ranged from about 48 percent for toddlers to about 9 percent for teens.
It traditionally takes a while for parents to learn about and accept a new vaccine and years for immunization rates to grow, said Dr. Matthew Davis, a University of Michigan Medical School associate professor who has overseen polling on flu issues.
Special swine flu vaccination clinics at schools are being planned in many states. Children are the main spreaders of infectious disease, and if large numbers are coming down with swine flu, there are ripple effects for everyone else.
The AP poll found 59 percent are likely to let their kids be vaccinated at school. But the kind of concerns voiced by parents could put a dent in public health efforts.
A survey Davis directed for C.S. Mott Children's Hospital in Michigan suggested one reason for rejecting the vaccine is that about half of parents said they did not consider swine flu any worse than the seasonal bug.
"Basically, the swine flu is the flu. I'm not overly excited about it," said Julie Uehlein, a Tullahoma, Tenn., mother who is against swine flu vaccinations for her 8-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter.
"My concerns about the vaccine are what are the long-term effects," she added.
Some, like Shea, recall the 1976 swine flu immunization campaign that vaccinated 40 million Americans against an epidemic that never materialized. Worse, many who got the shots back then filed injury claims blaming health problems on the vaccine, with some reporting a paralyzing condition called Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Health officials did not find evidence the vaccine caused the condition, noting it occurs naturally anyway and would be bound to show up in such a large group. Many people were unjustifiably blaming all sorts of health problems on the vaccine, some health experts believe.
That's why the government is already trying to educate people about how common many health problems are, and why it's handing out cards telling people how to report any side effects.
For some parents, fears are compounded by worries about thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that will be in roughly 60 percent of the 225 million swine flu doses ordered for Americans.
The preservative is not in the FluMist nasal spray, which can be given to healthy kids age 2 and older. But it's in many injectable doses, which are packaged in multi-dose vials that require thimerosal to prevent bacterial contamination.
Fears that the preservative or something in vaccines themselves can lead to autism remain entrenched in some quarters — despite no evidence from the most rigorous scientific studies.
Some autism advocacy groups echo parents' concerns about swine flu vaccine, and also argue it's a bad idea to spend so much time and money on the new flu.
"We're flipping out over swine flu, but it's only affected a few thousand people. Why isn't somebody freaking out about the autism epidemic?" said Wendy Fournier, president of the National Autism Association.
Vaccine makers are sensitive to demand for preservative-free shots. Parents can ask their doctors to order preservative-free, single-dose vaccine for their kids, said Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.
As for his own two school-age children, Frieden said in a recent interview: "I would have no hesitation about getting my kids vaccinated by thimerosal-containing vaccines."
Health officials and many parents are strong believers in the vaccine, and warn about the potential dangers of a virus that has caused at least 9,000 U.S. hospitalizations and at least 600 deaths, including 60 children.
Jennifer Barnes enrolled herself and her two children in one of the government studies of the new vaccine, seizing an opportunity to get them all immunized before the illness became widespread.
"I thought, 'This is an opportunity to get the kids vaccinated, and I better jump on it,'" said Barnes, 32, a speech language pathologist who lives in Decatur, Ga.
Barnes said she gets her kids vaccinated against flu each year not only for their own health but to protect others. "My kids hang around kids who might have lowered immune systems. I would hate for them to get something and pass it on," she said.
Shea said she appreciates those arguments, but she's hesitated to talk about swine flu vaccine with other parents, who seem polarized on the topic. "There's the crunchy granola group" against flu vaccinations, she said, "and the very staunch, follow everything group" who extol them.
She also worries that swine flu could become more widespread and dangerous than it is now. If that happens, she said, she would probably try to get her son vaccinated, though she's aware there are risks in waiting, too.
"It's one of those things where you're almost damned if you do, damned if you don't," she said.
The AP-GfK poll was based on a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults age 18 or older, contacted by telephone on land lines and cell phones. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for all adults, 5.2 percentage points for parents.
Oct 9, 2009 at 3:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
lol
Oct 9, 2009 at 3:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think anyone who gets this vaccine is out of their mind. This vaccine was rushed to market in the matter of a few months. Almost any drug requires years of testing and research before it can hit the market. People seem to forget that it was in the mid 70's that the swine flu VACCINE killed way more people then the flu ever did. Of yeah, that was 30 some years ago, and today we have so much better technology, and that would never happen again, blah blah...
.
No way in hell anyone should be forced to get this vaccine. Remember the famous words: "Those who sacrifice liberty in the name of safety, deserve neither, and will loose both". They would have to come shoot me dead before injecting that crap in me, and I'd take out a whole lot of them if it comes to that!
Oct 9, 2009 at 12:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
(don't know how the double post happened)
Oct 9, 2009 at 12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
> The FDA will keep us safe ?
Never claimed such; the politicians and bureaucrats will and have often overruled the findings of the staff scientists. Morbid, no doubt about it.
That said, we are better off with the (admittedly broken) FDA than otherwise; see also Upton Sinclair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/His...
> Vioxx, Phen fen, Celebrex - thousands of deaths over the years.
Yes. And don't get me started on aspartame (NutraSweet).
> The problem is a revolving door between FDA officials/lobbyists and big pharma. And the revolving door continues.
Yup.
> Do you know if the FDA has regulators with financial ties to the vaccine makers ? It's common practice.
Yes.
I merely stated that her wish for "proof" is ___scientifically___ impossible. I stand by that statement.
Oct 9, 2009 at 12:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
> The FDA will keep us safe ?
Never claimed such; the politicians and bureaucrats will and have often overruled the findings of the staff scientists. Morbid, no doubt about it.
> Vioxx, Phen fen, Celebrex - thousands of deaths over the years.
Yes. And don't get me started on aspartame (NutraSweet).
> The problem is a revolving door between FDA officials/lobbyists and big pharma. And the revolving door continues.
Yup.
> Do you know if the FDA has regulators with financial ties to the vaccine makers ? It's common practice.
Yes.
I merely stated that her wish for "proof" is ___scientifically___ impossible. I stand by that statement.
Oct 8, 2009 at 8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
The FDA will keep us safe ? Vioxx, Phen fen, Celebrex - thousands of deaths over the years. The problem is a revolving door between FDA officials/lobbyists and big pharma. And the revolving door continues. Do you know if the FDA has regulators with financial ties to the vaccine makers ? It's common practice.
Oct 8, 2009 at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
> You want implicit proof that it is dangerous. We want implicit proof that it's NOT dangerous.
That is ___scientifically___ impossible.
Scientific method:
Make repeated observations.
Form a conjecture (hypothesis).
Make a prediction based on that conjecture.
Test your prediction (go to step one).
I could make a million observations of something, e.g. that light travels in a straight line or that a particular drug or vaccine is safe. However, it only takes one (testable, repeatable) counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
For instance, light does indeed travel in straight lines like a particle, except when an experiment tests the wave nature of light, e.g. the dual slit experiment.
Further, even one death directly caused by a drug that has saved millions would render that drug "unsafe" -- at least in certain quarters.
Scientists would try to determine why that particular death had occurred -- was there an underlying condition, a drug interaction, something else?
If continued deaths were observed and a pattern could be determined, only then can one scientifically state that a particular drug is unsafe. Science DEMANDS testable and repeatable observations.
This is in fact the jobs of the CDC and FDA, among others.
Also, I think you meant "explicit proof that it's not dangerous." There is plenty of implicit proof already.
Oct 8, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Untrue, DiGriz. We're simply the kind of people who take the time to educate ourselves. Try it, you might like it. Have a nice day.
Oct 8, 2009 at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks, raystone, for the links. I agree with you all, except Don Diego........to whom I will offer this. No, absence of proof on one side of an argument does not necessarily imply proof for the opposing side. BUT - that works both ways. You want implicit proof that it is dangerous. We want implicit proof that it's NOT dangerous. And so far nobody can provide that - therefore we are not willing to inject a relatively untested substance with unknown side effects into the bodies of ourselves or our children.
Oct 8, 2009 at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The HPV vaccine is saving the lives of countless women." Are they countless because there is no way to quantify the data and the vaccine is too new to have actually made a difference yet?
As for safety, Thalidomide was also considered safe at first...look how that turned out.
Oct 8, 2009 at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Read up on the history of H1N1. It's been around for a couple of decades. As with any flu virus there will be deaths from H1N1 and any other strain out there. I want to make it my choice whether to get any vaccine. Between the Formaldehyde,Mercury,thimerosal,polysorbate, and various other chemicals commonly in vaccines, a person needs to weigh the risks.
Oct 8, 2009 at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
so far there has been no scientific evidence that this is true. Read the asrticles. Here are some quotes from raystone's posts:
"She says the H1N1 vaccine could prove more dangerous than the disease itself."
There simple is no evidence that this vaccine is bad. For those that believe that absence of proof constitues proof I have to question your logic. For those that believe that this is a conspiracy on the part of the drug companies to make millions I ask you how other vaccines have worked in the past. Yes, the 1976 vaccine was bad, but in a nutshell vaccines have helped eliminate many issues like polio. The HPV vaccine is saving the lives of countless women. With the statistical hiccup in 1976, can anyone show how the evil vaccines have hurt us? And I would like proof in the form of a viable study.
Oct 8, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
I for one will not be in line, nor have my children in line for this vacine. As for ordering a preservative free vacine, it is much more difficult than made out to be. BTW even though mercury is not in vaccines, thermosal is not much better. People should really research vaccines before just getting in line, you would be surprised at what you discover.
Oct 8, 2009 at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
We definitely won't be getting one, either. For all of the reasons that those links go into, there is NO WAY it is worth the risk for myself and my 4 children. There is a reason that mercury (a toxin) has been restricted from vaccinations. The "cure" is far scarier than the illness, and, for us, we will take our chances. I hope the American people wake up and do their research before putting this into their bodies.
Oct 8, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
I would NEVER let them photograph a pic of my child getting a shot while holding them down.
Oct 8, 2009 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
good links raystone, thanx
Oct 8, 2009 at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
N.Y. health care workers protest mandatory H1N1 flu shots
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009...
-
from Australia...H1N1 vaccine could prove more dangerous than the disease itself.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/...
-
Mercury limits suspended for H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine
http://www.klewtv.com/news/local/6128691...
-
CBS 60 Minutes: 300 death claims from 1976 swine flu vaccine, only one death from flu
http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intell...
-
Doctor Admits Vaccine Is More Deadly Than Swine Flu Itself & Will Not Give It To His Kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1z7KSEny...
Oct 8, 2009 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is extremely unfortunate and will lead to more deaths.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.