Exclusive: While risk of H5N1 pandemic in humans is low, ‘it’s really important to think about vulnerable populations’, Melbourne researcher says

Summary

A study reviewing 1,500 research papers found that 90% of pregnant women who contract bird flu (H5N1) die, with 87% of their unborn babies also dying.

Most surviving babies are born prematurely.

While human cases are rare and usually result from direct contact with infected birds, the findings highlight the vulnerability of pregnant women, who often face exclusion from vaccine trials and public health programs.

Experts stress the need for pandemic preparedness and ethical studies on vaccine safety in pregnant women as H5N1 continues to spread globally.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    543·
    15 hours ago

    Wow, so clearly the party who values the unborn will take strict and swift measures against H5N1 and advocate nation-wide for vaccination once it’s out…

    … right?

    • Zip2@feddit.ukEnglish
      9·
      14 hours ago

      Steady on there with your blasé attitude to vaccines. We don’t need no herd immunity, and they cause 5g. /s

    • Hestkuk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1110·
      14 hours ago

      Australian doctor conducts review study, tangentially related to current global disease outbreak, in order to advocate for her desire to conduct medical experiments on pregnant women

      This is clearly about American politics, and a strong indictment of the Republican Party.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        191·
        14 hours ago

        Ah, shit, dude, you’re right, I forgot that talking about one of the most traveled-to and traveled-from countries with 330 million people whose government is going to be an anti-vaxx disinformation superspreader, is likely to restrict vaccinations, and is therefore liable to make an H5N1 pandemic substantially worse globally is off-limits for discussion as long as the study in the article was performed by an Australian doctor. Me and my US-centrism, grr.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.netEnglish
        4·
        11 hours ago

        Do you count blood samples and vaccination as some kind of sinister “medical experiments”?

        • Revan343@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          8 hours ago

          Vaccine trials are in fact medical experiments. Not sure where you’re getting ‘sinister’ from

        • Hestkuk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          10 hours ago

          Despite being a high-risk population, pregnant women are often excluded from vaccine trials, from priority access to therapeutics, and experience delayed entry into public health vaccination programs.”

          There are no specific vaccines for avian influenza in humans, though trial vaccines have been developed for pandemic preparedness in some countries. But these vaccines are not recommended for pregnant women because of a lack of safety data.

          “That’s one of the challenges we often have with vaccines, as it is considered unsafe to test them in pregnant women,” Purcell said. “I think as we move forward, what we need to do is think about how we get data on pregnant women.

          “If women are enrolled in vaccine safety studies, sometimes those women will inadvertently become pregnant, and there’s an opportunity to ethically study what happens to those women.”

          This is the point of the study, the point of the article, the interest being advocated here by Dr Rachael Purcell. Conducting vaccine trials on pregnant women.

          There are very good reasons why this is not done. Firstly, the fetus could be harmed or killed. Secondly, the data from pregnant women is useless for assessing safety and efficacy in anyone other than a pregnant woman. As the vast majority of the population are not pregnant women, it is unnecessarily hazardous and a waste of limited resources to test a vaccine on pregnant women first. That can come later, once you’ve developed a useful vaccine and deployed it widely, reducing the risk of infection of everyone in a society, including pregnant women.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.netEnglish
            3·
            5 hours ago

            Vaccines are very well understood, the reason for those exceptions is the very high complexity and sensitivity of pregnancies, there’s no significant indicators of danger but they aren’t willing to risk missing some unknown.

            women are enrolled in vaccine safety studies, sometimes those women will inadvertently become pregnant, and there’s an opportunity to ethically study what happens to those women.”

            This is the point of the study, the point of the article, the interest being advocated here by Dr Rachael Purcell. Conducting vaccine trials on pregnant women.

            This is essentially the exact opposite of what you’re saying. This is just collecting data on a group of women who only incidentally end up fitting the criteria. Nobody’s selecting pregnant women to expose them to anything.

          • lad@programming.devEnglish
            1·
            5 hours ago

            As the vast majority of the population are not pregnant women

            …there is no reason to try to change whatever bad is expected to happen to them. I can understand your point, but it doesn’t sound humane to me