Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Safety of pertussis vaccination in pregnant women in UK Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
07-25-2014 06:52 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Okay. How many women in the study received thimerosal containing vaccines.
Bumping for you



What is that number?
07-24-2014 07:54 PM
Deborah Okay. How many women in the study received thimerosal containing vaccines.
07-24-2014 09:12 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
From the study: "Maternal receipt of flu vaccine during pregnancy was infrequently recorded in medical charts (2 receipts) and primarily came from maternal report (36 receipts). We defined postnatal exposure as micrograms of ethylmercury divided by the weight of the child (in kilograms) at the time of administration of each TCI. Exposures were summed over the time periods of interest. Prenatal exposure was defined as the cumulative ethylmercury amount (in micrograms) of all TCIs received by the mother during her pregnancy with the child."

Sounds like there were 36 mothers in the study who had received thimerosal containing vaccines during pregnancy. Or am I misreading something?
You're misreading. The part you quoted was only talking about the flu vaccine. They also looked at mothers who received other thimerosal-containing vaccines like immunoglobulins, tetanus toxoids, and diphtheria-tetanus.
07-18-2014 06:09 AM
kathymuggle I found this. If anyone is interested they need to read it carefully.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6207a4.htm

The review, which the recommendation to offer pregnant women a tdap every pregnancy is based on, says the following.

"Methods
In monthly teleconferences during 2012, the ACIP Pertussis Vaccines Work Group considered published, peer-reviewed literature and unpublished data relevant to vaccinating pregnant women with Tdap. When data were not available, expert opinion was considered. Summaries of the data reviewed and work group discussions were presented to ACIP before recommendations were proposed. The proposed Tdap recommendation for pregnant women was presented at the October 2012 ACIP meeting and approved by ACIP.

Summary of ACIP Deliberations and Rationale"

It then lays out its points - and no where does it discuss fetal/baby safety!
07-18-2014 05:54 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
let's backtrack:

What safety studies were the initial recommendation to vaccinate women in pregnancy for pertussis based on?
I'd like to know too...I didn't see any coming out when the recommendation came out to vaccinate pregnant women...to me , it seemed more like a russian roullette game they're playing, and 'let's wait and see on the outcome.' Now 'they' seem to be extracting data which coincides with their beliefs, use biased studies to promote a medical procedure without any evidence of safety for the fetus. Where are the long term nonbiased studies of these fetuses who were routinely subjected to multiple vaccines while in utero?
This study used a very small control group, which does not represent the USA population as a whole, imo.
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00707148
it was biased to begin with.
Quote:
However, the ACIP conclusion is that administration of Tdap after 20 weeks’ gestation is preferred in order to minimize the risk of uncommon adverse events and the possibility that any spurious association between Tdap-related adverse events and another illness might appear causative.2
http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/497.full
Quote:
The importance of vaccinating during each pregnancy is emphasized by the case of a 40-day-old baby who died from pertussis; the baby’s mother had received a postpartum Tdap dose 2 years earlier, but she developed a cough illness a week before delivery.11
again, we don't know the outcome of vaccinating pregnant women every two years with DTaP...will some women have a toxic buildup that transfers to her fetus resulting in brain damage or birth defects? Will her offspring have problems with their children?? Too many unanswered questions...
07-18-2014 05:11 AM
kathymuggle let's backtrack:

What safety studies were the initial recommendation to vaccinate women in pregnancy for pertussis based on?
07-17-2014 10:52 PM
prosciencemum Not exactly no. I know post recommendation studies are ongoing and continue to monitor the effects of these recommendations for pregnant women.

I though up thread you or others were saying that's not good enough and the studies need doing first.
07-17-2014 10:26 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Turquesa - I get that you were asking for that. My response was to ask you how you would go about running clinical trials on pregnant women.

As you are so find of pointing out questions you feel I (and others) ignore I'll point out again that you've ignored that question.
Ack! Take a deep breath. I thought I had already answered with the need for rigorous follow-up of post-natal outcomes. Clinical trials on pregnant women are already being performed post-recommendation. Just one example is this study with an unimpressively tiny sample size: http://health.usnews.com/health-news...ems-safe-study

What difference would it make pre-recommendation? Either way, it's nothing new.

If you understand the full concept of post-marketing surveillance, you'll realize that pregnant women, with scarcely their knowledge or informed consent, are already participating in the trial.

Have I answered your question? Yet?
07-17-2014 09:03 PM
Deborah From the study: "Maternal receipt of flu vaccine during pregnancy was infrequently recorded in medical charts (2 receipts) and primarily came from maternal report (36 receipts). We defined postnatal exposure as micrograms of ethylmercury divided by the weight of the child (in kilograms) at the time of administration of each TCI. Exposures were summed over the time periods of interest. Prenatal exposure was defined as the cumulative ethylmercury amount (in micrograms) of all TCIs received by the mother during her pregnancy with the child."

Sounds like there were 36 mothers in the study who had received thimerosal containing vaccines during pregnancy. Or am I misreading something?
07-17-2014 01:50 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I did about 2 minutes of research and found this:

"Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism"

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...126/4/656.long
Isn't that the study where they found thimerosal has a protective effect against autism?
Maybe shoot for 2.5 minutes next time.
07-17-2014 09:21 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Can you find any study looking at the long-term outcomes in children who received vaccines in the womb? The only one I know of was conducted back in the 60s or early 70s and looked specifically for an increase in cancer.

As I think I said earlier in this thread, I personally know of two women who received thimerosal containing vaccines while pregnant and both had children with developmental problems. If this is just a fluke or coincidence, it should be easy to demonstrate by conducting the monitoring and it should be easy to find out that such monitoring is taking place. Why? Because women would have to be enrolled and they would have to be informed that the health of their children would be checked at various points during their childhoods.

Where is the study?
I did about 2 minutes of research and found this:

"Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism"

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...126/4/656.long
07-17-2014 09:05 AM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Where is the study?
It's in the queue right next to the study of health outcomes for vaccinated vs never vaccinated children.

07-17-2014 08:41 AM
Deborah
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
I see no evidence for avoidance of long term monitoring.
Can you find any study looking at the long-term outcomes in children who received vaccines in the womb? The only one I know of was conducted back in the 60s or early 70s and looked specifically for an increase in cancer.

As I think I said earlier in this thread, I personally know of two women who received thimerosal containing vaccines while pregnant and both had children with developmental problems. If this is just a fluke or coincidence, it should be easy to demonstrate by conducting the monitoring and it should be easy to find out that such monitoring is taking place. Why? Because women would have to be enrolled and they would have to be informed that the health of their children would be checked at various points during their childhoods.

Where is the study?
07-17-2014 08:35 AM
prosciencemum I see no evidence for avoidance of long term monitoring.
07-17-2014 07:47 AM
Deborah If a study will be tricky or ethically tough, then the best solution is to just give as many people as possible the product, avoid monitoring for long-term problems and (not you), mock people who ask questions or turn down the product.

That is weird, IMO.
07-17-2014 03:42 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Turquesa - I get that you were asking for that. My response was to ask you how you would go about running clinical trials on pregnant women. You must have missed Deborah's post? #71?

As you are so find of pointing out questions you feel I (and others) ignore I'll point out again that you've ignored that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Why are you so confident such a study is not planned?

Ongoing safety checks of current vaccinations happen all the time.
Yet you can't show one for what is being asked here.

You are confident that the vaccine should be given even without knowing or showing evidence of a study like others have asked about! Got it! That's so scientific - assume it's just OK!
07-16-2014 11:33 PM
prosciencemum Turquesa - I get that you were asking for that. My response was to ask you how you would go about running clinical trials on pregnant women.

As you are so find of pointing out questions you feel I (and others) ignore I'll point out again that you've ignored that question.
07-16-2014 06:36 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Why are you so confident such a study is not planned?

Ongoing safety checks of current vaccinations happen all the time.
BEFORE the recommendations and requirements go out. Not after, when women's bodies get objectified into the status of lab rats.

That's what we've been trying to hammer home in this thread.

I back what Deborah said on research, by the way. I'd also like to see more longitudinal data.

The objection to the latter may be that we're facing a public health emergency and, to quote a popular meme, "Ain't nobody got time for that."

But there are other solutions, including the development of a better vaccine and a resounding public health message about hand-washing and staying home when symptomatic EVEN if vaccinated.
07-16-2014 05:08 PM
Deborah It is YEARS since flu vaccine was first recommended during pregnancy. Find a study that looks at long-term outcomes and does the type of comparison I described.
07-16-2014 02:36 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
And to the OP, were women who miscarried after receiving this oh,-so-very-safe-vaccine-during-pregnancy included in that study? Fourteen days post vaccination is not sufficient to me, a woman and mother, but to the people promoting vaccines, it may be.
They didn't just look at the first fourteen days post vaccine. That information is in the very first sentence of the quoted study in my OP...
07-16-2014 12:21 PM
applejuice And to the OP, were women who miscarried after receiving this oh,-so-very-safe-vaccine-during-pregnancy included in that study? Fourteen days post vaccination is not sufficient to me, a woman and mother, but to the people promoting vaccines, it may be.
07-16-2014 08:47 AM
applejuice Life experience and knowledge of how drugs are pushed on women without proper testing are how we know that these studies are probably not planned. See Dieckmann Study. See Thalidomide. See Bendectin. See Paxil. See Efflexor. See Tetracycline. Now we have the flu and DaPT vaccine. The P portion of the vaccine has been known in medical literature to be neurologically toxic since the 1940s.

If these women who are receiving the vaccines in pregnancy are part of a safety trial then a waiver should be signed acknowledging the fact that they are guinea pigs in a drug safety test for these vaccines. If something happens to the baby or mother, what recourse is there? Who is the patient? The dose given is an adult dose in the flu vaccine and contains thimerasol.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee, women are subject to prosecution if they are found to self medicate during pregnancy. Only illicit drugs given during pregnancy are allowed if prescribed by a physician during pregnancy or labor.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-charg...ry?id=24542754
07-16-2014 07:37 AM
prosciencemum Why are you so confident such a study is not planned?

Ongoing safety checks of current vaccinations happen all the time.
07-16-2014 06:16 AM
Deborah Actually, at this point it is fairly simple. Do a follow up study comparing the outcomes of the children of women who received various vaccines during pregnancy against the children of women who did not. Match each woman against another woman with similar characteristics. Evaluate every child for health problems of any variety. See if there are any longer term problems. With early intervention, most developmental problems are spotted by age 3, so for the flu vaccine, at least, we could get a picture of whether the vaccines are interfering with normal development.

The fact that no such study has been done or is in the works to be done is very telling, to me.

But the vaccines have been pushed during pregnancy, so the data exists. It should be reviewed.
07-15-2014 11:09 PM
prosciencemum Ok. So could you respond to my question about how you propose to run clinical trials on pregnant women that you would consider sufficient testing?
07-15-2014 04:55 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
OK if you insist (which you seem to like doing)….
I know. I like it when people pay me the courtesy of responding to my questions. I'm kind of evil that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
I think this bit implies no-one cares to do testing (which I disagree with) and just assumes it's safe. Also raises the "toxin" distraction early on (quantities are tiny after all - it's like getting upset over toxins in a glass of water in my opinion):

With these recommendations, the time-honored rule of avoiding any potential toxic exposure that might interfere with the normal development of the fetus has been suspended and replaced with an assumption that vaccination during pregnancy is safe. But what is the scientific evidence documenting that this assumption is a well-informed one?

And wow that's then followed by - a lot of statements casting doubt on the safety and motivations of the vaccination program - statements which are very common here like "vaccinating before the science has been done" (read that a few times on here), etc. etc. Actually makes me wonder if some of you just post directly from NVIC without doing any other reading….

How would you do a clinical trial of vaccines during pregnancy? How long would it take and how many women would you allow to risk complications of flu during pregnancy and passing on pertusiss to their newborns….?
When Fisher says that the recommendation for universal vaccination for pregnancy went out before there was sufficient evidence, she's really not lying.

We've discussed this before.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/downloads/preg-principles-2008.pdf

Quote:
1. "Concerns about vaccination of pregnant women."

1.i. "Lack of data to make evidence-based decisions."
1.i.-1. "No or limited well-controlled trials to establish efficacy of vaccines in pregnant women or their offspring."
1.i.-2. "No or limited post-licensure studies of efficacy or safety."
1.i.-3. "No or limited animal data."
1.C. iii. “Even more limited data on newer vaccine types.”
1.C. iii. 2. “Additives/adjuvants/preservatives (eg, thimerosal). Limited or no safety data on exposure of pregnant women, fetus and newborn to these.”
07-15-2014 01:48 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
How would you do a clinical trial of vaccines during pregnancy? How long would it take and how many women would you allow to risk complications of flu during pregnancy and passing on pertusiss to their newborns….?
so just give the vaccine during pregnancy and hope for the best?

staring to view "science" as a lot of blind faith with a heavy dose of hope - so many seems to embraces this type of thought when it comes to vaccines
07-15-2014 01:11 PM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
I would greatly appreciate an answer to my question, if not from PSM, (to whom it was directed), then from someone else. Pretty please and thank you.
OK if you insist (which you seem to like doing)….

I think this bit implies no-one cares to do testing (which I disagree with) and just assumes it's safe. Also raises the "toxin" distraction early on (quantities are tiny after all - it's like getting upset over toxins in a glass of water in my opinion):

With these recommendations, the time-honored rule of avoiding any potential toxic exposure that might interfere with the normal development of the fetus has been suspended and replaced with an assumption that vaccination during pregnancy is safe. But what is the scientific evidence documenting that this assumption is a well-informed one?

And wow that's then followed by - a lot of statements casting doubt on the safety and motivations of the vaccination program - statements which are very common here like "vaccinating before the science has been done" (read that a few times on here), etc. etc. Actually makes me wonder if some of you just post directly from NVIC without doing any other reading….

How would you do a clinical trial of vaccines during pregnancy? How long would it take and how many women would you allow to risk complications of flu during pregnancy and passing on pertusiss to their newborns….?
07-15-2014 05:35 AM
Deborah
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Wrong again. You don't have to search for it that way.

"The National Library of Medicine began including the full names
of authors in MEDLINE® /PubMed citations to articles published in 2002. Beginning in May 2005 PubMed users were able to search for authors using their full first and last names (referred to here as full name). "

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull...ames.html#fig1
Tha is carrying dismissing older research WAY too far.

Reminds me of when I was an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. They were in the middle of moving their catalog from cards to an online catalog. Three quarters of the collection was still on cards. If I had gone for your approach to searching, roughly 6 million books would have been left out of my research.
07-14-2014 10:42 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Because authors on pubmed are listed:
last name, first initial. Like this: Offit P

Here is the search I did on Offit P and autism http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=offit+P+autism which turned up six articles. Three of them are free full-text. Interested in discussing the science?
Wrong again. You don't have to search for it that way.

"The National Library of Medicine began including the full names
of authors in MEDLINE® /PubMed citations to articles published in 2002. Beginning in May 2005 PubMed users were able to search for authors using their full first and last names (referred to here as full name). "

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull...ames.html#fig1
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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