dtap in pregnancy - let's discuss for pregnant mothers - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 41 Old 04-07-2014, 02:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,055
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)

Let's discuss dtap in pregnancy.  I put this in discussion to keep it focused on discussion as opposed to deabte.  Bring any studies or stats you think are relevent.

 

A few questions to get us started...

 

How effective is dtap in pregnancy in preventing pertussis in early infancy?  How do we know?  What is the evidence?

 

How safe is dtap in pregnancy for mother or baby?  How do we know?  What is the evidence?

Turquesa likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#2 of 41 Old 04-07-2014, 05:52 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

I thought that this procedure, referred to as "cocooning", was abandoned in Australia because it was a failure.

 

This article suggests vaccinating everyone in sight as soon as the pregnancy is confirmed because cocooning is not enough.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/9/893.full.pdf


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#3 of 41 Old 04-08-2014, 06:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,055
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)

I thought this was an interesting read on the subject:

 

http://blindedbythelightt.blogspot.ca/2013/11/neglected-research-and-administration.html

 

The take home message for me was that it is unknown how effective vaccination with dtap during pregnancy will be.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#4 of 41 Old 04-15-2014, 07:47 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Tdap in pregnancy is NOT the same as cocooning. Cocooning takes place after pregnancy and transfers no maternal antibodies to the baby via the placenta. Usually mothers were given shots postpartum as part of the cocooning recommendation.

 

Here's a recent study on maternal antibodies transferred from mother baboons. 5 week old baboons who were exposed to pertussis did not contract the illness if their mothers were first primed, and then given a booster in the 3rd trimester: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/12/infdis.jiu090.abstract

 

"Conclusions. Our results demonstrate that neonatal vaccination and maternal vaccination confer protection in the baboon model and support further study of these strategies for protection of newborns from pertussis."

 

Also interesting to note that it's a study by Warfel et. al, Warfel being the researcher who recently published the widely discussed paper about DTaP allowing baboons to be asymptomatic carriers after they are exposed to pertussis (the paper that calls into question the initial the argument for cocooning with aP).

ss834 is offline  
#5 of 41 Old 04-15-2014, 08:02 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,055
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)

The baboon study was discussed here:

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1399751/maternal-and-neonatal-vaccination-protects-newborn-baboons-from-pertussis-infection

 

The take away for me is that the baboon study is tiny and well, one study.

 

Do we have other studies that collaborate this?

 

What I would really like to see (simply in terms of effectiveness, not safety) is if babies of mothers vaccinated during pregnancy have less probability of getting pertussis in the first 2- 4 months than those born to unvaccinated pregnant mothers.  It would be hard to get such data, as there really aren't that many tiny infants who get pertussis, scary media stories to the contrary.  At this point, I think it is all speculative.  

 

From the CDC, no less:

 

"The effectiveness of maternal antibodies in preventing infant pertussis is not yet known, but pertussis antibodies can protect against some disease and the severe outcomes that come along with it. Experts believe that vaccinating your patients with Tdap during pregnancy will prevent more infant hospitalizations and deaths from pertussis than "cocooning" alone."

 

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

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#6 of 41 Old 04-15-2014, 08:11 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

No other direct studies that I know of.

At this point the recommendations are theoretical, based on disease modeling and related studies, but not direct studies.

This MMWR has some resources listed that you might want to check into. Starts on p 131:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6207.pdf

ss834 is offline  
#7 of 41 Old 04-15-2014, 05:37 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

No other direct studies that I know of.

At this point the recommendations are theoretical, based on disease modeling and related studies, but not direct studies.

This MMWR has some resources listed that you might want to check into. Starts on p 131:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6207.pdf

 

and thus we do not know the long term effect either :eyesroll

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#8 of 41 Old 04-15-2014, 05:41 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 
 
 

and thus we do not know the long term effect either :eyesroll

Which makes any pregnant woman who accepts this prenatal procedure a guinea pig. Are ob/gyns explaining this to their pregnant patients?


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#9 of 41 Old 04-15-2014, 06:00 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I thought this was an interesting read on the subject:

 

http://blindedbythelightt.blogspot.ca/2013/11/neglected-research-and-administration.html

 

The take home message for me was that it is unknown how effective vaccination with dtap during pregnancy will be.

 

 

but they do seem to know the post outcome to the child, theoretical that is - http://www.infantrisk.com/content/new-tetanus-dipththeria-pertussis-tdap-recommendations-pregnancy-0

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is a theoretical risk of a decreased immune response to the infant’s own DTap (diphtheria toxioid, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis) vaccination if exposed to TDap prior to birth. Even if the infant’s immune response is blunted, the protection that would be provided by the mother’s vaccine would protect the infant during the most vulnerable period for pertussis infection, the first three months of life.[6] Data has shown that pertussis infection is more severe in infants who are younger than three months of age. These infants are more likely to be hospitalized and experience apnea in the course of the disease.[5] The CDC recommends for infants to start their own series of DTap vaccine at two months of age.[6] - See more at: http://www.infantrisk.com/content/new-tetanus-dipththeria-pertussis-tdap-recommendations-pregnancy-0#sthash.Ghb0itiu.dpuf

 

guess it ALL depends on what risk you want to take


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#10 of 41 Old 04-15-2014, 06:04 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)

this is from 2012 and since Dr Sears is a member here I thought it appropriate 

 

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=116317855073374&story_fbid=471831589521997

 

Not just ONE dose during ONE pregnancy, but a dose during EVERY pregnancy. Have they gone insane? What are they thinking?


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#11 of 41 Old 04-23-2014, 02:21 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It looks like a randomized safety study was completed in May 2012: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00707148

No results have been published yet, apparently.

ss834 is offline  
#12 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 06:55 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is a note I got back from NIAID today, from when I wrote them asking about the results of the study:

 

"Thank you for your inquiry.  As you know, the study titled, "Pertussis Vaccine in Healthy Pregnant Women," has been completed.  The results will be published in the forthcoming issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which will be available next week.

 

You may also wish to search the medical literature to locate additional articles on this topic through PubMed available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.  PubMed is a service of the National Library of Medicine, NIH, that includes bibliographic citations from biomedical literature, life sciences journals, and online books.  A medical librarian may be able to assist you in refining your search or obtaining copies of journal articles.  Please visit http://nnlm.gov to identify your nearest medical library."

ss834 is offline  
#13 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 12:00 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)

Not about during pregnancy but certainly important to know!

 

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/health-med-fit-science/martinez-family-copes-whooping-cough-despite-vacci/nfhPj/

 

We all had DTaP, we all had the boosters, and we all ****l got whooping cough." the mother told KTVU from her home. She wanted to keep the family's identity secret. "They had a low grade fever and this just seemed like another cold," she said.

After repeated visits to the doctor's office, she asked for a pertussis test. "I said just swab them so we can eliminate it." The test came back positive.

 

Repeated visits to the Dr. and she (the mom) HAD to ask to be tested?! 

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#14 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 12:16 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

After repeated visits to the doctor's office, she asked for a pertussis test. "I said just swab them so we can eliminate it." The test came back positive.

Repeated visits to the Dr. and she (the mom) HAD to ask to be tested?! 

 

"They had a low grade fever and this just seemed like another cold," she said.

 

Yes, it's a shame no one tested earlier. Suppose she wanted to start a pertussis awareness campaign to encourage people to be aware of epidemics and encourage testing-- would that be fear mongering, or would that be a reasonable step to take to improve public health?

 

And even though I've heard whooping cough is nothing to be concerned about, Mrs. Martinez who just suffered from the disease, concluded: "What needs to be done is get another vaccination ready so that nobody has to go through this, ever."

 

It sounds like she didn't have a very good time with the illness, and wouldn't support reverting back to the days of disease-induced immunity.

ss834 is offline  
#15 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 12:24 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

Quote:

 

"They had a low grade fever and this just seemed like another cold," she said.

 

Yes, it's a shame no one tested earlier. Suppose she wanted to start a pertussis awareness campaign to encourage people to be aware of epidemics and encourage testing-- would that be fear mongering, or would that be a reasonable step to take to improve public health?

 

 

 

It sounds like she didn't have a very good time with the illness, and wouldn't support reverting back to the days of disease-induced immunity.

 

I can't speak  for the woman and no where does it say she will continue to get boosters from here on in.

 

I also don't feel one can speculate about what her "good time" was or wasn't because clearly THEY DID NOT get adequate treatment. Repeated (in my mind that says more then once - but who knows how many visits we are talking here) - she was the one to ask? So I assume they must have not been treating them properly to being with - so what does that mean? Where they given antibiotics or steroids when clearly they should not have had prior to her asking to be tested?

 

A lot like that man that recently died (last year) in Wales from measles, he was not diagnosed and was sent home, not properly treated for measles.

 

Clearly not diagnosing and misdiagnosing often results in the WRONG meds being given - so IF it had been me I would not be have had a good time with the illness! 

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#16 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 12:30 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

Quote:

 

 

Yes, it's a shame no one tested earlier. Suppose she wanted to start a pertussis awareness campaign to encourage people to be aware of epidemics and encourage testing-- would that be fear mongering, or would that be a reasonable step to take to improve public health?

 

 

More to this - why aren't PRO-vaccers up in arms with the total lack of public awareness that those who are vaccinated are not free from spreading? 

 

Frankly I don't see the vaccine manufacture or the CDC, WHO, APA, etc saying boo on the fact there is not much encouraging news on those who have been vaccinated and ****l getting it. I'm not holding my breath for a full on public awareness campaign anytime soon! And certainly given how anyone who speaks out about vaccines is treated by the vaccine lobby side,  I see no reason this mom would. She choose not to giver her name.

Mirzam, applejuice and rachelsmama like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#17 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 01:26 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

More to this - why aren't PRO-vaccers up in arms with the total lack of public awareness that those who are vaccinated are not free from spreading? 

 

Frankly I don't see the vaccine manufacture or the CDC, WHO, APA, etc saying boo on the fact there is not much encouraging news on those who have been vaccinated and ****l getting it. I'm not holding my breath for a full on public awareness campaign anytime soon! And certainly given how anyone who speaks out about vaccines is treated by the vaccine lobby side,  I see no reason this mom would. She choose not to giver her name.

 

She didn't speak out against vaccines, so I don't know how you could conclude that's why she didn't give her name.

 

The CDC says plainly that waning immunity is an issue with the pertussis vaccine. The FDA and other research studies have brought up the concerns about pertussis being transmitted by vaccinated individuals, as well as vaccine failure rates. This has been discussed by pro-vax communities. Maybe you're not spending enough time in pro-vax communities to see these discussions?

 

There are plenty of pertussis awareness sites that are run by people who support vaccination. They don't deny the drawbacks of the current vaccine, but they usually advocate for a more effective vaccine. Perhaps you disagree with  the objectives of their awareness programs. The programs exist, nonetheless.There's no reason for pro-vaxxers to exclusively focus on awareness about those who get vaccinated and are spreading the disease, because aside from the baboon study saying it is possible, it hasn't been demonstrated that asymptomatic carriers are a major contributor to disease spread. Waning immunity and an adapting organism appear much more likely to be contributing, and these issues are discussed and are taken up by researchers who fall solidly in favor of vaccines.

 

The only place I've seen outright denial and blame set exclusively on non-vaccinators is in a few misinformed media outlets, and maybe some personal blogs. The response to that is better pertussis awareness in general, not accusations that it's really those who accept vaccines who are spreading disease-- because that wouldn't be true either. Both unvaccinated and vaccinated people are catching and spreading pertussis.

ss834 is offline  
#18 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 02:08 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

She didn't speak out against vaccines, so I don't know how you could conclude that's why she didn't give her name. I said - And certainly given how anyone who speaks out about vaccines is treated by the vaccine lobby side,  I see no reason this mom would. She choose not to giver her name. I "see" I did not say I KNOW - big difference here!

 

The CDC says plainly that waning immunity is an issue with the pertussis vaccine. The FDA and other research studies have brought up the concerns about pertussis being transmitted by vaccinated individuals, as well as vaccine failure rates. This has been discussed by pro-vax communities. Maybe you're not spending enough time in pro-vax communities to see these discussions?

 

There are plenty of pertussis awareness sites that are run by people who support vaccination. AND they are not public government run sites are they? They don't deny the drawbacks of the current vaccine, but they usually advocate for a more effective vaccine. Perhaps you disagree with  the objectives of their awareness programs. The programs exist, nonetheless.There's no reason for pro-vaxxers to exclusively focus on awareness about those who get vaccinated and are spreading the disease, because aside from the baboon study saying it is possible, it hasn't been demonstrated that asymptomatic carriers are a major contributor to disease spread. Waning immunity and an adapting organism appear much more likely to be contributing, and these issues are discussed and are taken up by researchers who fall solidly in favor of vaccines.

 

The only place I've seen outright denial and blame set exclusively on non-vaccinators is in a few misinformed media outlets, and maybe some personal blogs. The response to that is better pertussis awareness in general, not accusations that it's really those who accept vaccines who are spreading disease-- because that wouldn't be true either. Both unvaccinated and vaccinated people are catching and spreading pertussis.

 

The government has not made public service announcements about this, I see no ads running about this by the CDC. NOTHING!

 

People who support vacation are NOT the same as the government doing an ad campaign assuming they are the same is a gross mischaracterization.

 

Are you saying those who are support vaccinations on sites are being funded by the governments?

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#19 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 03:36 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

I can't speak  for the woman and no where does it say she will continue to get boosters from here on in.

 

I'm not sure why you left out the direct quote I took from the mother in the article, which was why I made the statement I did. Again, her quote was "What needs to be done is get another vaccination ready so that nobody has to go through this, ever." It's not about boosters, but clearly a desire for a new vaccine. Those are her words, watch the video.

ss834 is offline  
#20 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 03:43 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

That can be dangerous. Jenny McCarthy marched on Washington, DC with a "Green Our Vaccines" agenda, and she has been villified ever since.

 

OTOH, there was a wP vaccine that was more effective, but was also more reactive; this was known in the medical literature since the 1940s, but Americans used it until 1996.


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#21 of 41 Old 04-29-2014, 04:18 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

I can't speak  for the woman and no where does it say she will continue to get boosters from here on in.

 

I'm not sure why you left out the direct quote I took from the mother in the article, which was why I made the statement I did. Again, her quote was "What needs to be done is get another vaccination ready so that nobody has to go through this, ever." It's not about boosters, but clearly a desire for a new vaccine. Those are her words, watch the video.

grasping??

 

again, IMO I see no relevance with another vaccine or a booster, as to why she did not use her name - Are you assume it's because she wants a another vaccine she couldn't use here name - WOW?

 

Most people see when ever they USE their name publicly about vaccines they are gone after. That was my point and clearly there must be some reason she chose not to. Again, what I said - And certainly given how anyone who speaks out about vaccines is treated by the vaccine lobby side,  I see no reason this mom would. She choose not to giver her name. I "see" I did not say I KNOW - big difference here!

 

 

"We all had DTaP, we all had the boosters, and we all still got whooping cough." -----The whole point of posting this link is to show, here is a family vaccinated, boosters, still got it, went to the doctor (more than once) HAD to ask to be tested. I certainly think someone who is pregnant may want to think about what happen to this family.

 

 

And maybe you missed this post I made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

The government has not made public service announcements about this, I see no ads running about this by the CDC. NOTHING!

 

People who support vacation are NOT the same as the government doing an ad campaign assuming they are the same is a gross mischaracterization.

 

Are you saying those who are support vaccinations on sites are being funded by the governments?

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#22 of 41 Old 05-01-2014, 11:04 AM
 
phxfinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

No where has there ever been a study on the effects of vaccinating during pregnancy. So I wouldn't get it...

 

Food for thought... all 103 vaccinated in Whooping Cough outbreak:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120424095716/http:/www.thetimesnews.com/news/school-53424-department-health.html

applejuice likes this.
phxfinn is offline  
#23 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 05:40 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)

Just saw this today.  A new study is being published in the May 7th issue of JAMA. 

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Study-Whooping-cough-vaccination-during-5452704.php

 

"Between 2008 and 2012, they gave 48 pregnant women a shot - 33 got the vaccine and 15 got a placebo. A second control group, women not pregnant, also got the vaccine.

 

The study found no serious side effects in the women, and all babies were born healthy. Pregnant women had immune responses from the vaccine similar to those of women who weren't pregnant. And infants of mothers who got the vaccine had dramatically higher concentrations of antibodies to whooping cough at birth and in the first few months of life than those infants of mothers who got the dummy shot.

 

The researchers followed the babies for a year after birth and found the infants of mothers who received the vaccine during pregnancy also responded almost as well to their doses of DTaP at 2, 4 and 6 months as those whose mothers didn't get the vaccine." 

Food for thought. 

ss834 likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#24 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 05:47 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Just saw this today.  A new study is being published in the May 7th issue of JAMA. 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Study-Whooping-cough-vaccination-during-5452704.php

"Between 2008 and 2012, they gave 48 pregnant women a shot - 33 got the vaccine and 15 got a placebo. A second control group, women not pregnant, also got the vaccine.


The study found no serious side effects in the women, and all babies were born healthy. Pregnant women had immune responses from the vaccine similar to those of women who weren't pregnant. And infants of mothers who got the vaccine had dramatically higher concentrations of antibodies to whooping cough at birth and in the first few months of life than those infants of mothers who got the dummy shot.

 



The researchers followed the babies for a year after birth and found the infants of mothers who received the vaccine during pregnancy also responded almost as well to their doses of DTaP at 2, 4 and 6 months as those whose mothers didn't get the vaccine." 



Food for thought. 





18 ended up pregnant and with the vaccine- gives me tons of confidence! 18! WOW
applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#25 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 05:53 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,451
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Just saw this today.  A new study is being published in the May 7th issue of JAMA. 

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Study-Whooping-cough-vaccination-during-5452704.php

 

"Between 2008 and 2012, they gave 48 pregnant women a shot - 33 got the vaccine and 15 got a placebo. A second control group, women not pregnant, also got the vaccine.

 

The study found no serious side effects in the women, and all babies were born healthy. Pregnant women had immune responses from the vaccine similar to those of women who weren't pregnant. And infants of mothers who got the vaccine had dramatically higher concentrations of antibodies to whooping cough at birth and in the first few months of life than those infants of mothers who got the dummy shot.

 

The researchers followed the babies for a year after birth and found the infants of mothers who received the vaccine during pregnancy also responded almost as well to their doses of DTaP at 2, 4 and 6 months as those whose mothers didn't get the vaccine." 

Food for thought. 

I was unable to read the article because it required subscribing to the Houston Chronicle, so I will have to take your word for it. Did it mention what the placebo was? I suspect it was NOT saline, enough said. 

applejuice likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#26 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 05:58 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,328
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

I was unable to read the article because it required subscribing to the Houston Chronicle, so I will have to take your word for it. Did it mention what the placebo was? I suspect it was NOT saline, enough said. 

It doesn't seem like the whole study is out to read yet on line but this is some what the same - http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay687490_20140505_Whooping_Cough_Vaccination_During_Pregnancy_Seems_Safe__Study.html

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#27 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 06:05 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,451
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 
 

It doesn't seem like the whole study is out to read yet on line but this is some what the same - http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay687490_20140505_Whooping_Cough_Vaccination_During_Pregnancy_Seems_Safe__Study.html

 

Thanks, the article doesn't much more, but it does call the placebo a 'sham' vaccine, whatever that may be. :flipped

applejuice likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#28 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 09:49 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

I was unable to read the article because it required subscribing to the Houston Chronicle, so I will have to take your word for it. Did it mention what the placebo was? I suspect it was NOT saline, enough said. 

 

"Drug: Placebo

Saline (0.9% NaCl) administered as a single 0.5 mL intramuscular injection into the deltoid."
 
ss834 is offline  
#29 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 11:46 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,055
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Just saw this today.  A new study is being published in the May 7th issue of JAMA. 

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Study-Whooping-cough-vaccination-during-5452704.php

 

"Between 2008 and 2012, they gave 48 pregnant women a shot - 33 got the vaccine and 15 got a placebo. A second control group, women not pregnant, also got the vaccine.

 

The study found no serious side effects in the women, and all babies were born healthy. Pregnant women had immune responses from the vaccine similar to those of women who weren't pregnant. And infants of mothers who got the vaccine had dramatically higher concentrations of antibodies to whooping cough at birth and in the first few months of life than those infants of mothers who got the dummy shot.

 

The researchers followed the babies for a year after birth and found the infants of mothers who received the vaccine during pregnancy also responded almost as well to their doses of DTaP at 2, 4 and 6 months as those whose mothers didn't get the vaccine." 

Food for thought. 

 

I don't think the study tells us a heck of a lot.

 

The study is small and only follows people for a year - so in terms of safety, it will only catch really big issues.  Only 32 people were vaccinated during pregnancy, so if an issue rate is 1/100 (for example) it would not catch it.  It would not catch 1/50, and not necessarily even 1/32….. Follow up went to 13 months, IIRC correctly, so no long term follow up either.  It does tell us there are no massive (such as: affecting the majority)  short term issues with maternal DTaP vaccination

 

As per efficacy - I do wonder how well antigen level relate to disease protection. I have heard people say titer tests are not highly useful in terms of disease protection.   It is not an area I know much about.  

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#30 of 41 Old 05-05-2014, 12:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,055
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)

Here are the list of those excluded from the trial, from ss834 link.  

 

The current recommendation is for women to get a tdap every pregnancy, yet the study excludes those who have ever had a tdap.  I also wonder if doctors refuse to give influenza vaccines near tdap in their practice?  i understand why the study was set up this way (reduce cofounders) but it is not the way the real world works.  

 

  • Serious underlying medical condition (e.g., immunosuppressive disease or therapy, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, collagen vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic hypertension, moderate to severe asthma, lung/heart disease, liver/kidney disease, chronic or recurrent infections).
  • Significant mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia, psychosis, major depression).
  • Currently smoking or using illegal substances.
  • History of a febrile illness (greater than or equal to 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit or 38 degrees Celsius) within the past 72 hours for antepartum injection or febrile illness (greater than or equal to 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit or 38 degrees Celsius) within 24 hours for postpartum injection.
  • Previous severe reaction to any vaccine.
  • Receipt of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid immunization within the past 2 years.
  • Receipt of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine absorbed (Tdap) immunization ever.
  • Receipt of a vaccine (excluding influenza), blood product (excluding Rhogam) or experimental medicine within the 4 weeks prior to antepartum injection through 4 weeks following post-partum injection. However, measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is permitted post-partum.
  • Receipt of or plans to receive influenza vaccine within the 2 weeks prior to or following antepartum injection.
  • Deemed high risk for serious obstetrical complication as determined by the Obstetrical Risk Assessment Form.
  • Anything in the opinion of the investigator that would prevent volunteers from completing the study or put the volunteer at risk.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off