Originally Posted by iamleabee
Based on *my* understanding and the studies I've read (some of which are posted above), I believe it is worth taking this shot. Overall, it stops the immune system from mounting a response, which would be a lot worse since the activated lymphocyte would clonally proliferate and release a lot more antibody than what is administered in RhoGam. With the shot, the idea is only a small amount of Ab is needed to neutralize a small amount of Ag and shield it from the immune system.
First, when one chooses to accept RhoGam while still pregnant, they are without a doubt subjecting their child to antibodies that will cross the placenta and will do some damage - it's the amount of damage that's in question, not whether or not it actually happens. Anti-Rh antibodies destroy fetal blood cells in the spleen. Period. BUT, if one delays RhoGam until after delivery, there is only a slight, slight chance that their child will be exposed to the antibodies. So, a woman has to decide: If I choose to use RhoGam while pregnant, is the minimal possible benefit (see the Cochrane review) worth the 100% assurance that my child will be exposed to antibodies that will destroy some of his/her blood cells? I think RhoGam after delivery can be a good idea, but RhoGam before delivery in a perfectly normal, healthy pregnancy doesn't make sense.
Second, there are always
more adverse reactions than are reported. I think that's a given with all drugs, all the time. I 100% believe, and I think most
people in this
forum will agree, that clinical trials always understate the risk. They find multiple ways to do this, but they always do it. Believe otherwise if you want, but then we can point you in the direction of information on the SSRI/suicidal ideation links and the Vioxx/heart problem links. Pharmaceutical companies have a long, long, long history of manipulating studies every way they can to make their products look more beneficial and less harmful than they actually are. In reality, they have an imperative to do whatever they legally can to make money for their shareholders. Unfortunately, cheating has been paying off for them. Until the government starts cracking down on that (yeah, don't hold your breath) it will continue to be profitable for them and they will continue to do it.
Editing because you were talking about reported adverse reactions. Of course we can assume there were more adverse reactions that were not reported, as well. Doctors consistently refuse to believe that problems are related to any particular drug or treatment that was given. I developed severe chest pain, difficulty breathing and greying of my vision while on medication as a teenager. The doctor told me it was in my head and I was having panic attacks, until I lucked out and it happened while I happened to be in a hospital one day. A nurse took my bp and it was through the roof - like to the point that they thought I was about to DIE. I had been experiencing that a couple times a day for over a month, but had been blown off by the doctor several times a week since the time I first told him. I guess if I hadn't been in the hospital that day, it would've continued until maybe I just died. Then what? I guess they would've said that I just had a weak heart all along and no one noticed it. This isn't uncommon. It happens all the time.