or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Utter madness: UK to give pregnant women whooping cough vaccine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Utter madness: UK to give pregnant women whooping cough vaccine

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The Department of Health announced a new £10m vaccination programme for 650,000 pregnant women to protect their infants once they are born, while they are too young to be immunised themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9570457/Pregnant-women-to-be-given-whooping-cough-vaccine-to-protect-unborn-child.html

post #2 of 55
I don't agree. The vaccination while not as good as we might like, demonstrably reduces the odds of a person having a serious bout of whooping cough. The most at risk people are new borns, so making sure they and there mothers have a booster in immunity during that at risk stage makes sense.

In any case it'll be a voluntary programme, with leaflets and if information which will be made available to help mothers make an educated decision about if to get it or not. Sounds good to me.
post #3 of 55
Thread Starter 

The vaccine is pretty much useless because it does not create the correct immune response. The vaccine is also not without risks.

 

So, the UK will have health visitor drones handing out leaflets with fear-based propaganda without the full facts so that pregnant women cannot possible make a true informed choice.

 

Doesn't sound good to me at all.

 

 

Quote:
Professor David Salisbury, Director of Immunisation said: “Over the last year we have seen a large rise in the number of whooping cough cases with the most serious cases being in children too young to be protected by routine vaccinations.

 

- because the vaccine is fatally flawed and efficacy reduces by 42% per year after three years which puts these infants at risk.

 

This says it all, 

 

 

Quote:

No safety concerns have been raised about he vaccine in pregnancy although the information leaflet contained with the jab says it is not recommended for pregnant women.

 

 

 

- because it has never been tested on pregnant women. 

 
post #4 of 55

But this vaccine hasn't been tested on pregnant women, so it is safe because there is no evidence to suggest it isn't safe...because no one has tested it.   I highly doubt the medical practitioners who will be administering the vaccine will tell the women that though.  All we need to know is, "it's safe" .  Do it.

 

Also, they give the vax to pregnant women in the US right?  Has that been tested?  Or is it just that they haven't noticed anything.

post #5 of 55

THat's what i thought too...in the USA they already give this one to pregnant women..i know of women who had it while preggo..it was purported to deliver antibodies across the placenta to give the baby some protection after birth. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magali View Post

But this vaccine hasn't been tested on pregnant women, so it is safe because there is no evidence to suggest it isn't safe...because no one has tested it.   I highly doubt the medical practitioners who will be administering the vaccine will tell the women that though.  All we need to know is, "it's safe" .  Do it.

 

Also, they give the vax to pregnant women in the US right?  Has that been tested?  Or is it just that they haven't noticed anything.

post #6 of 55

This is a massive "clinical trial" to see if this will be safe and effective for the developing fetus and the results won't become known for years.  It can therefore be construed as utter madness.  It is a study of the elements of the vaccine in the fetus.  Dead germs, mercury and aluminum in the mother causing whatever immune and inflammatory response.  Keep in mind the mother is in a state of low immunity during pregnancy.  What are the effects of that?

 

Keep in mind that in the USA we cannot sue the Pharmaceutical companies for this brazen act nor the doctors.   Armed with no liability, does it not make sense that  the marketers are running wild creating fear?

 

Your Professor Salisbury, what are his conflicts of interest I ask?  I see his quote:

Professor David Salisbury, Director of Immunisation said: “Over the last year we have seen a large rise in the number of whooping cough cases with the most serious cases being in children too young to be protected by routine vaccinations.

The perfect expert to opine and sway public opinion.  Let's never forget that top Harvard psychiatrists promoted anti-psychotics for children and received 2M dollars for it.  

 

And, what about Australia and cocooning.  The big idea was that vaccinating all people who come into contact with a newborn MUST get inoculated to "protect" the newborn because pertussis is a problem in Australia.  The same is being promoted in the USA.  Well guess what, the Australians looked at this, having done inoculations of adults since 2009 and they found it did NOTHING, so they stopped it. 

 

Medicine is full of faulty logic.  Let's not forget that the OBGYN doctors, supported by Pharma, were the same group that brought us hormone replacement therapy which, thanks to Progestin, caused breast cancer and stroke.  The French showed that was also madness when natural progesterone was available and lowered the risk of breast cancer.  As a result 80 million baby boomer lost the great value of progesterone and estrogens.   

 

Please be careful being a subject in this massive clinical trial to "protect" your baby.  I prey the mercury, dead bacteria and aluminum do not damage your fetus.  

Where is that discussion?  

Where is discussion regarding mercury in the fetus?

Where are the animal studies?    

How much mercury is in the vaccine?  

http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/methylmercury.pdf shows that the fetus brain is sensitive to mercury. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195143  

What about aluminum in the fetus brain?  

Go to PubMed and do your homework people before you buy into something that 'sounds good'.

More Opinions:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035624_Russell_Blaylock_interview_vaccines.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/should-parents-be-concerned-about-the-whooping-cough-vaccine

http://www.safbaby.com/an-alternative-vaccination-schedule-from-dr-donald-miller

Why do I care? Because I am a future grandparent and it angers me off that my future grandchild is part of this experiment.

Show me COPIOUS science that screams safety Dr Salisbury.

post #7 of 55

People who have been vaccinated against pertussis are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis. That hardly seems worthless to me.  

 

This is currently the advice in the US, also  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/pregnancy-whooping-cough-shot/1654369/

 

I agree that there isn't enough evidence of vaccine safety in pregnancy to make it mandatory.  However, I think there's enough to recommend it to women and let them make their own decision, especially when the risk of pertussis to newborns too young to be vaccinated is very real and not at all theoretical.  Very very few of the medicines that are generally regarded as safe during pregnancy have actually been tested on pregnant women.

post #8 of 55

Here's some more detailed information about what information the US committee considered before making their recommendation.

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/35546

 

ETA: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/tdap-pregnancy-hcp.htm

 

 

Quote:
In 2010, 27,550 cases of pertussis were reported in the United States; 3,350 of those cases were in infants younger than 6 months of age — 25 of those infants died. Studies have shown that when the source of pertussis was identified, mothers were responsible for 30–40% of infant infections.

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6041a4.htm?s_cid=mm6041a4_e%0d%0a

 

 

Quote:
ACIP reviewed published and unpublished data from VAERS, Sanofi Pasteur (Adacel) and GlaxoSmithKline (Boostrix) pregnancy registries, and small studies (7,8). ACIP concluded that available data from these studies did not suggest any elevated frequency or unusual patterns of adverse events in pregnant women who received Tdap and that the few serious adverse events reported were unlikely to have been caused by the vaccine. 
post #9 of 55

It look like it only takes about 1-2 weeks for tdap to work.http://www.shotsforschool.org/parent-faq/#requirements-and-documentation-11    To me, it makes more sense for a woman to get it (should she so choose) after delivery.  Then there is  no need  to worry about using a drug that is untested on pregnant women and their fetuses.

 

I  agree with Mizram that this is madness.

 

ETA:  I looked up the stats on pertussis.  According to the CDC pink book, there were about 15 216 cases of pertussis in the USA in 2011…which is about 1/20 000.  An adult would only be susceptible to pertussis for 1-2 weeks, post tdap shot. All things being equal, the chances of acquiring  pertussis in any give week is 1/52 of 1/20 000…or 1/ 1 040 000.  To me this seems like a much more acceptable risk than giving an untested drug to a pregnant women and her fetus.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/12/12 at 11:40am
post #10 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

People who have been vaccinated against pertussis are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis. That hardly seems worthless to me.  

 

 

You keep stating this range, but what year is it from?  With evidence that the bacterium has mutated, it doesn't seem to be accurate.

 

Edited to change from virus to bacterium.


Edited by Bokonon - 11/12/12 at 6:57pm
post #11 of 55

As recent as 2009.

 

There is evidence that the virus may have mutated, there also may be some vaccine drift with different strains now occurring in different parts of the world.  It is far from the most effective vaccine available, but it still drastically lowers your chances of contracting whooping cough, and makes you less infections (generally speaking) if you contract it.

post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It look like it only takes about 1-2 weeks for tdap to work.http://www.shotsforschool.org/parent-faq/#requirements-and-documentation-11    To me, it makes more sense for a woman to get it (should she so choose) after delivery.  Then there is  no need  to worry about using a drug that is untested on pregnant women and their fetuses.

 

I  agree with Mizram that this is madness.

 

ETA:  I looked up the stats on pertussis.  According to the CDC pink book, there were about 15 216 cases of pertussis in the USA in 2011…which is about 1/20 000.  An adult would only be susceptible to pertussis for 1-2 weeks, post tdap shot. All things being equal, the chances of acquiring  pertussis in any give week is 1/52 of 1/20 000…or 1/ 1 040 000.  To me this seems like a much more acceptable risk than giving an untested drug to a pregnant women and her fetus.  

 

The idea is by giving it in utero the fetus benefits from the antibodies as well.

post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

As recent as 2009.

 

There is evidence that the virus may have mutated, there also may be some vaccine drift with different strains now occurring in different parts of the world.  It is far from the most effective vaccine available, but it still drastically lowers your chances of contracting whooping cough, and makes you less infections (generally speaking) if you contract it.

 

It can't lower your chances of contracting the illness if the strains differ.

post #14 of 55

it's not a all or nothing proposition, though.  At any given time there's more than one strain circulating.  A vaccine may protect you from one and not another, kind of like the flu shot.  

post #15 of 55

Doesn't the vax lessen symptoms of pertussis rather than preventing it? Even the leaflet says it is not known whether it prevents transmission.

post #16 of 55

It does both. It lowers your odds of contracting it and if you get it you typically get a milder case. I say it prevents transmission because milder case = less coughing and less coughing = less transmission.

post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

You keep stating this range, but what year is it from?  With evidence that the virus has mutated, it doesn't seem to be accurate.
Pertussis is a bacterium, not a virus.
post #18 of 55
Quote:
Please be careful being a subject in this massive clinical trial to "protect" your baby. I prey the mercury, dead bacteria and aluminum do not damage your fetus.
Where is that discussion?
Where is discussion regarding mercury in the fetus?
Where are the animal studies?
How much mercury is in the vaccine?
http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/methylmercury.pdf shows that the fetus brain is sensitive to mercury.

The TDaP vaccine does not contain mercury or thimerosol. It also does not contain "dead bacteria". It contains diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis components.
post #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Pertussis is a bacterium, not a virus.

D'oh! And I just repeated it. I knew that, too. Must learn to proofread better.
post #20 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It does both. It lowers your odds of contracting it and if you get it you typically get a milder case. I say it prevents transmission because milder case = less coughing and less coughing = less transmission.

 

I'm quite certain I had read some articles/studies stating that the vaccine seems to shorten the period of sickness and its severity rather than preventing it.  I don't have them on hand right now though, so can't post any. Sorry. Another way to interpret 'less caughing' = 'I'm not that sick, must be a cold' while around newborn babies and other susceptible individuals.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Utter madness: UK to give pregnant women whooping cough vaccine