Safety of pertussis vaccination in pregnant women in UK - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 145Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 11:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Safety of pertussis vaccination in pregnant women in UK

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4219

Haven't read the study in depth, but results look promising.

They looked at over 20,000 women who got the pertussis vaccine during pregnancy and found :

"There was no evidence of an increased risk of stillbirth in the 14 days immediately after vaccination (incidence rate ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1.62) or later in pregnancy (0.85, 0.44 to 1.61) compared with historical national rates. Compared with a matched historical cohort of unvaccinated pregnant women, there was no evidence that vaccination accelerated the time to delivery (hazard ratio 1.00, 0.97 to 1.02). Furthermore, there was no evidence of an increased risk of stillbirth, maternal or neonatal death, pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, haemorrhage, fetal distress, uterine rupture, placenta or vasa praevia, caesarean delivery, low birth weight, or neonatal renal failure, all serious events that can occur naturally in pregnancy.

Conclusion: In women given pertussis vaccination in the third trimester, there is no evidence of an increased risk of any of an extensive predefined list of adverse events related to pregnancy. "

And because we all know people are going to accuse the study of being pharma compromised:

"Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

So for discussion, what do you think of the study and results?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#2 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 12:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I have read half the study, thus far.

I am think that the numbers are suffeciently small that one should not draw a conclsuion from them. Bolding mine - but we are looking at numbers like 7, 5 and 2. That is very little to draw conclsuions from.

I think the best you can say is "preliminary finding with very small sample sizes seem to inidcate no increased risk of stillbirth post pertussis vaccination. More studies required"


"In total, 17 560 (87%) vaccinated pregnant women had ≥28 days’ follow-up data after their vaccination record. Five had a recorded stillbirth within two weeks of vaccination. From the ONS data on the rate of live births and stillbirths by gestational age, and using the distribution of gestational age at vaccination estimated from the CPRD, we would expect 7.2 stillbirths in this time frame. Therefore, the observed versus expected incidence rate ratio is 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1.62), meaning that there is no signal of a short term increased risk of stillbirth after vaccination. As part of a sensitivity analysis, we identified an additional two women with miscarriage after vaccination. In both of these cases, vaccination seemed to have been in the second trimester, when miscarriage rates are considerably higher. The observed versus expected ratio including these two women is 0.97 (0.39 to 2.00).

They have similarly small numbers to analyse with regards to things like eclampsia incidence.
No one is saying this should be the only study, there will of course be many more.

But I wouldn't call a study of 20,000 a small study.

Also, I'm not understanding what your point is in the bolded. The vaccine is not an anti-stillbirth or anti-miscarriage vaccine, so those things are still going to happen by chance alone in women who receive the vaccine.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#3 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 12:43 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
No one is saying this should be the only study, there will of course be many more.

But I wouldn't call a study of 20,000 a small study.

Also, I'm not understanding what your point is in the bolded. The vaccine is not an anti-stillbirth or anti-miscarriage vaccine, so those things are still going to happen by chance alone in women who receive the vaccine.
Nm, tea, I deleted (love that new feature!) Must have coffee before posting.

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 offline  
#4 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 12:47 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Nm, tea, I deleted (love that new feature!) Must have coffee before posting.
Yeah, it's a nice feature

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#5 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
I'm still waiting for a study which follows children long term against a cohort who did not receive vaccines in the womb.

I personally know two women who were vaxed while pregnant and both ended up with offspring with developmental disabilities. One got the tetanus vaccine which at that time contained thimerosal and I believe the other one got the flu vaccine.

Personally, I'm not concerned about any of the things they were watching for, my main concern is long-term health and neurological development and so far, no such studies. Something I find very suspicious.
Mirzam, applejuice and kathymuggle like this.
Deborah is online now  
#6 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 01:07 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
ISomething I find very suspicious.
Other than the above line, I agree with your post.

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 offline  
#7 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 01:12 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
There'll always be more to check and more studies to run.

But this study by itself looks quite reassuring for concerns about pregnancy related problems linked to vaccinations.
teacozy likes this.
prosciencemum is online now  
#8 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 01:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Other than the above line, I agree with your post.
I disagree that it's suspicious, too.

The recommendations are still really new. No one ever mentioned the pertussis vaccine to me while I was pregnant, and my son was born in 2012.

I'm sure it's something they are going to study in the future after the recommendation has been out for a bit longer.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#9 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 01:50 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Other than the above line, I agree with your post.
I see your point.
Deborah is online now  
#10 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 01:53 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I disagree that it's suspicious, too.

The recommendations are still really new. No one ever mentioned the pertussis vaccine to me while I was pregnant, and my son was born in 2012.

I'm sure it's something they are going to study in the future after the recommendation has been out for a bit longer.
I'm sorry, but this program of vaccinating during pregnancy is being pushed really, really hard.

I don't feel good about it with NO evidence about long-term outcomes. All of the studies I've seen are very limited to looking at newborns.

The flu vaccine recommendations during pregnancy have been out for quite a while and some data could have been collected. Has it been?
applejuice likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#11 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 02:19 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I'm sorry, but this program of vaccinating during pregnancy is being pushed really, really hard.
I agree.

I am glad this study exists. Assuming there are no significant flaws or limitations, it adds to the knowledge pool on short term effects of this vaccination in pregnancy.

That being said - it seems a bit cart before the horse. Shouldn't these kind of studies exist before vaccines are pushed on everyone? I know we can't study vaccines in humans without giving vaccines to humans, but at a minimum women need to know that studies and info on the safety and efficacy of vaccines during pregnancy are lacking. The whole thing is a bit too guinea-piggish for my taste.

I wonder if we have animals studies on vaccines during pregnancy and if that is good enough….

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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 07-11-2014 at 07:15 PM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#12 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 02:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
The effects of pertussis in infants are well know. I believe 1 out of 100 infants who get it will die. Those are scary odds.

If you have a baby that is going to be born during pertussis season or in an area with a pertussis outbreak, the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

At least for me they would.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#13 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 03:57 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
The effects of pertussis in infants are well know. I believe 1 out of 100 infants who get it will die. Those are scary odds.

If you have a baby that is going to be born during pertussis season or in an area with a pertussis outbreak, the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

At least for me they would.
Got a link to go along with that 1 out 100 figure? Assuming you mean under 6 months???
AND when is the "season"?

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/downloa...nce-report.pdf doesn't seem to be 1 out 100???
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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-11-2014 at 04:14 PM.
serenbat is offline  
#14 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Got a link to go along with that 1 out 100 figure? Assuming you mean under 6 months???
AND when is the "season"?
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/complications.html

Says 1-2 out of 100 infants with pertussis will die.

As for when the season is:

"Does pertussis occur at a particular time of year?

Outbreaks can occur in a community at any time of year but are more likely in fall and winter during cold and flu season. "

Edit: Didn't read it carefully. It says 1-2 hospitalized infants will die. But half of infants under 1 will be hospitalized, and I'm sure the younger the infant the more likely it is that they will need to be hospitalized.

http://www.pkids.org/diseases/pertus...ussis/faq.html

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#15 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:24 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/complications.html

Says 1-2 out of 100 infants with pertussis will die.

As for when the season is:

"Does pertussis occur at a particular time of year?

Outbreaks can occur in a community at any time of year but are more likely in fall and winter during cold and flu season. "

http://www.pkids.org/diseases/pertus...ussis/faq.html
And you did see my link right? Where that does not always occur, thus the reason the CDC uses the word "about" - whole quote here - Of those infants who are hospitalized with pertussis about:

1 in 4 (23%) get pneumonia (lung infection)
1 or 2 in 100 (1.6%) will have convulsions (violent, uncontrolled shaking)
Two thirds (67%) will have apnea (slowed or stopped breathing)
1 in 300 (0.4%) will have encephalopathy (disease of the brain)
1 or 2 in 100 (1.6%) will die


You do know there is a difference between an outbreak and a season? So you are basically saying they are NOW the same

 

 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 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:32 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Before a baby can be seriously ill with pertussis they have to be exposed and catch it. So the odds are not nearly as scary as described.

Plus, as many people are now aware, pertussis can be treated with Vitamin C. Suzanne Humphries has put up an article about it, I'll provide the link if anyone needs it.

Personally, I'd much rather risk having to treat pertussis in an infant with Vitamin C (which has a well-known safety profile) than risk taking a vaccine during pregnancy which has neither a track record for saving lives nor a safety profile. This vaccine is still described as a Class C biological.

There are choices.
Deborah is online now  
#17 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Before a baby can be seriously ill with pertussis they have to be exposed and catch it. So the odds are not nearly as scary as described.

Plus, as many people are now aware, pertussis can be treated with Vitamin C. Suzanne Humphries has put up an article about it, I'll provide the link if anyone needs it.

Personally, I'd much rather risk having to treat pertussis in an infant with Vitamin C (which has a well-known safety profile) than risk taking a vaccine during pregnancy which has neither a track record for saving lives nor a safety profile. This vaccine is still described as a Class C biological.

There are choices.
There is no evidence that vitamin C helps pertussis. The study she references is from the 1930s for pete's sake.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#18 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:39 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Before a baby can be seriously ill with pertussis they have to be exposed and catch it. So the odds are not nearly as scary as described.

Plus, as many people are now aware, pertussis can be treated with Vitamin C. Suzanne Humphries has put up an article about it, I'll provide the link if anyone needs it.

Personally, I'd much rather risk having to treat pertussis in an infant with Vitamin C (which has a well-known safety profile) than risk taking a vaccine during pregnancy which has neither a track record for saving lives nor a safety profile. This vaccine is still described as a Class C biological.

There are choices.


and it's not like the flu (but really that is not "seasonal" as it's pushed year round too! ---------- it's all the time, year round, so basically it's for ALL pregnant mom's! year round!

http://www.kapptv.com/article/2014/j...-workers-near/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/health...gh-california/
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 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:44 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
There is no evidence that vitamin C helps pertussis. The study she references is from the 1930s for pete's sake.
Actual science from the 1930s is better than science that hasn't been done at all. Which is what we currently have on the long-term outcomes of pertussis vaccine during pregnancy.

Plus, something that is odd and interesting:

The Vitamin C protocol for pertussis was put up on this forum several years ago by Hilary Butler. It has undoubtedly been passed from mother to mother. As I said, Suzanne Humphries put an article up on the web describing the protocol in great detail. So, at the least, a few hundred babies have been treated with Vitamin C while ill with pertussis and at the most, thousands. Where are the ill and dying babies arriving at the hospital after the protocol fails? You can be darned sure that the medical folks wouldn't hesitate a moment to make a huge noise about any such case.

On the other hand, there wasn't a big noise about the babies dying in California back in 2010 because parents brought them to the emergency room and the doctors turned around and sent them home again.

We've got a dog that is not barking in the night.

Perhaps the unvaccinated, alternative health babies don't get pertussis?
Deborah is online now  
#20 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:54 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
There is no evidence that vitamin C helps pertussis.
Because vitamins don't help people
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  
#21 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 04:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Where is her published peer reviewed research? Putting her name into pubmed comes up with ZERO results.

And yes, thinking that a study from the 1930s is somehow better evidence than our current understanding of what the best way to treat pertussis is *is* incredibly dangerous. Babies will die. Telling parents not to worry about pertussis in their newborn or downplaying how serious is can be because a study from the 1930s and some youtube videos from Suzanne Humphries say you can treat it with "natural" vitamin C and then claiming how much better and/or more effective that is than the vaccine is extremely dangerous.

Reminds me of this meme that was going around a couple weeks ago. Basically, the same person telling you that pertussis isn't a big deal if you use vitamin C is the same person who doesn't think smallpox or polio was a big deal. So, you know, take from that what you will.


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#22 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 05:11 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
I find this suspicious: "Conclusion: In women given pertussis vaccination in the third trimester, there is no evidence of an increased risk of any of an extensive predefined list of adverse events related to pregnancy. "

The primary concerns with vaccines is that they are a causal factor in both autoimmune and neurological issues, especially when given to infants. Neither of those concerns were considered in this study.

That's rather like taking 20,000 female cigarette smokers, comparing them with non-smokers for a predefined list of things like obesity, hair loss, intestinal disorders, and nearsightedness, and then concluding that smoking is safe.
Mirzam and applejuice like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#23 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 05:16 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
So that is a picture of Mexican men lining up to get their smallpox vaccine and you are taking their word for it? I think it is a line of men waiting for the train. Whatever. The very last person in the United States to get smallpox and recover was a Mexican tourist in NYC in 1950. Do you think he is in the picture?

PubMed has articles from the 1930s, before the vaccine was being pushed on recruits and later the public, that shows that sodium ascorbate helps cut the severity and length of the course of the disease in pertussis.

The smallpox vaccine was pushed on the public. There were no volunteers. I cannot read any one's mind, but people often behave as sheep. Look at how people have believed for decades the old "No shots, No school" mantra, which was a lie told to parents by doctors, nurses, school administrators, teachers, public health officials and principals. Variolation was practiced by wealthy persons for centuries before because they were a class of persons who could afford to lay around for a few days and RECOVER from the procedure. There was always resistance to the procedure in the working class because those people needed to work and were not part of the leisure class.

Hepatitis B as a disease appeared after a very forced vaccine campaign in 1883 in Bremen, Germany. So we now have a vaccine for a disease caused by a vaccine.
applejuice is offline  
#24 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 05:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
In April 1947, people stand in line waiting to be inoculated against smallpox at the Morrisania Hospital in New York. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3076449/ns.../#.U8B_1I1dXeY



June 22, 1957 Southeast Missourian lining up to get smallox vaccine http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/flynch/entry/38206/



New Yorkers queue up for their free smallpox vaccinations after twelve cases were reported in the state, April 1947. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/vials-s...ry?id=24468024



People lined up at clinics throughout Seattle in March 1946 for smallpox vaccinations. http://seattletimes.com/html/nationw...mallpox01.html


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#25 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 06:10 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
If it was so wonderful, why isn't the smallpox vaccine required today?

People lined up to buy pet rocks, Cabbage Patch Dolls, and Tickle Me Elmo dolls not too long ago too.

Goebbels would be so proud of the propaganda here.

Last edited by applejuice; 07-16-2014 at 12:43 PM.
applejuice is offline  
#26 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 06:30 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Well, that was an interesting change of subject.

On the topic of vaccinating pregnant women against pertussis: mass vaccinations of pregnant women make me very uneasy for the various reasons mentioned by previous posters. However, I think it makes a bit more sense to offer pregnant women the option of the vaccine (with the full understanding that the research is still highly limited) than it does to badger everybody else to go along with the myth of cocooning. I like that it might offer some protection to the segment of the population that really needs it (newborns), as opposed to the strange dynamic that occurs when less vulnerable people get vaccinated against the symptoms, but not the infection, and then newborns get sick and there's a whole blame game, etc...... BUT I think there's a huge difference between saying that this protocol is worth considering if you feel your newborn would be at high risk of exposure, and saying that the protocol is "safe".
rachelsmama is offline  
#27 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 08:14 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
If it was so wonderful, why isn't the smallpox vaccine required today?

People lined up to buy pet rocks, Cabbage Patch Dolls, and Tickle Me Elmo dolls not too long ago too.
Maybe because the WHO recommended all countries stop vaccinating for Smallpox in 1972:

"People were once vaccinated against this disease. However, the disease has been mostly wiped out.The United States stopped giving the smallpox vaccine in 1972. In 1980, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that all countries stop vaccinating for smallpox

A massive program by the World Health Organization (WHO) wiped out all known smallpox viruses from the world in the 1970s, except for a few samples saved for government research. Researchers continue to debate whether or not to kill the last remaining samples of the virus, or to preserve it in case there may be some future reason to study it."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001356.htm
TCMoulton is offline  
#28 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 08:15 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Rachelsmama, thanks for a very reasonable comment on what is becoming a somewhat bumpy thread.

Choice. I love choice!
applejuice and rachelsmama like this.
Deborah is online now  
#29 of 91 Old 07-11-2014, 11:25 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Choice is a good thing. I am not aware of any laws forcing pregnant women to vaccinate..... So thank goodness for that.

Tea- fantastic pictures of smallpox lines. Doesn't seem like it would have taken Suzanne Humphries much research to find some. Wonder why she stated so clearly it never happened then (sarcasm alert) - almost as if she has an agenda to make people think vaccines are worthless and dangerous.
prosciencemum is online now  
#30 of 91 Old 07-12-2014, 06:31 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Choice is a good thing. I am not aware of any laws forcing pregnant women to vaccinate..... So thank goodness for that.
I think it goes beyond this, though.

They currently recommend pregnant women get tdap during pregnancy. Recommending is different from offering. Recommending without studies to back up what they are recommending is wrong. At a minimum, they need to let women know that no long term human studies have been done, and few short term studies. I doubt that routinely happens.

Here is a link to a parent page on CDC about tdap during pregnancy. it is filled with words like "need" "should" and "recommend"; it doesn't mention lack of research at all.

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 offline  
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