Whooping cough vaccine for pregnant women

I'm not trying to dispute you, just trying to explain why I'm not having it,
Not because of scaremongering websites, but from first hand experience of vaccine damage

Sure. I can totally understand why you wouldn't if you have had a family member adversely affected. I was just curious as to the argument around not getting it in case you don't make antibodies. I firmly believe we make the best decisions we can for our family and it sounds like you are no exception ticking.clock
 
I'm not trying to dispute you, just trying to explain why I'm not having it,
Not because of scaremongering websites, but from first hand experience of vaccine damage

Sure. I can totally understand why you wouldn't if you have had a family member adversely affected. I was just curious as to the argument around not getting it in case you don't make antibodies. I firmly believe we make the best decisions we can for our family and it sounds like you are no exception ticking.clock

All I said is that it's hoped (as stated in many reports) that the antibodies pass the placenta, it's not been proven, so just because you have the vaccine doesn't mean you'll be protected, just like any vaccine really.
I didn't say do not get it cos it won't work.
 
See report...

You should be offered the whooping cough vaccination at a routine antenatal appointment when you are between 28 and 38 weeks pregnant. Getting vaccinated while you’re pregnant could help to protect your baby from developing whooping cough in its first few weeks of life.
 
And another...

There is no single vaccine against whooping cough, so the jab being offered to pregnant women will also protect against diphtheria, tetanus and polio.

Called Repevax, it has been given to all three year old children as a pre-school booster for nearly a decade and health officials point to its excellent safety record. A full list of the possible side effects can be found in the patient information leaflet, available here. The leaflet says it is not recommended for pregnant women.
 
Repevax leaflet, clearly states not suitable for pregnant woman....
So to the pervious poster who said I was wrong and that it didn't say this, you now stand corrected!

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/File/PdfPil?fileName=PIL.17377.8.pdf&documentId=17377

People will do what is best for them, I'm just highlighting that what I've posted is not scaremongering, but fact from the very people who make the vaccine!
 
We are given boostrix in NZ and the studies I refer to show evidence that it crosses the placenta and antibodies are evident in new born cord blood.
 
where are the drug companies peer reviewed studies??

what preservatives do they intend to use to replace Thimerasol?

has the new preservative been tested on human DNA ?

what is the outcome of their research?


If anyone has this info, I'd gratefully receive it so I can send it on to my sources to be reviewed.

Thanks!


Um, it's in the links I provided, here's the components in the vaccine used in NZ for childhood vaccination:

The diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine components are adsorbed on aluminium salts. The final vaccine is formulated in saline and contains 2-phenoxyethanol as preservative.

INFANRIX meets the World Health Organisation requirements for biological substances and for diphtheria and tetanus vaccines. No substances of human origin are used in its manufacture.

A 0.5mL dose of the vaccine contains not less than 30 International Units (IU) of diphtheria toxoid, 40 IU of tetanus toxoid, 25 μg of PT, 25 μg of FHA and 8 μg of pertactin.



With regards to Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Salon had to retract a piece he wrote:

salon said:
In 2005, Salon published online an exclusive story by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was “convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.”

The piece was co-published with Rolling Stone magazine — they fact-checked it and published it in print; we posted it online. In the days after running “Deadly Immunity,” we amended the story with five corrections (which can still be found logged here) that went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé. At the time, we felt that correcting the piece — and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency — was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics, including most recently, Seth Mnookin in his book “The Panic Virus,” further eroded any faith we had in the story’s value. We’ve grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.

“I regret we didn’t move on this more quickly, as evidence continued to emerge debunking the vaccines and autism link,” says former Salon editor in chief Joan Walsh, now editor at large. “But continued revelations of the flaws and even fraud tainting the science behind the connection make taking down the story the right thing to do.” The story’s original URL now links to our autism topics page, which we believe now offers a strong record of clear thinking and skeptical coverage we’re proud of — including the critical pursuit of others who continue to propagate the debunked, and dangerous, autism-vaccine link.

https://www.salon.com/2011/01/16/dangerous_immunity/



I know you think you are giving people "the other side", but so far, the sites you linked to are more about "junk science" than peer-reviewed science that would actually help people make better decisions.
 
Repevax leaflet, clearly states not suitable for pregnant woman....
So to the pervious poster who said I was wrong and that it didn't say this, you now stand corrected!

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/File/PdfPil?fileName=PIL.17377.8.pdf&documentId=17377

People will do what is best for them, I'm just highlighting that what I've posted is not scaremongering, but fact from the very people who make the vaccine!

I think it's also been explained that it's because there aren't clinical trail done on pregnant for them to actually recommend it for that group.

https://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/Pages/whooping-cough-vaccination-pregnant.aspx

Why does the patient information leaflet for Repevax say that the vaccine should not be used in pregnant women?

This is because pregnant women are routinely excluded from clinical trials. It is not because there are any specific safety concerns or evidence of harm in pregnancy.

As pregnant women do not usually take part in clinical trials, there can be limited evidence on safety in pregnancy. Where there is limited evidence like this, it can be necessary to weigh up the risks and benefits of an intervention, such as a vaccine. Experts at the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) looked into the risk of whooping cough in young babies, and looked into the available evidence on the whooping cough vaccine, and concluded that they had no concerns over the safety of the vaccine for the mother or her baby.

At the end of the day, each parent has to make the judgement about the risks and benefits themselves, but it's important that everyone seek reputable and reliable sources for the information to make these judgements (note: I'm not referring to you specifically).
 
Repevax leaflet, clearly states not suitable for pregnant woman....
So to the pervious poster who said I was wrong and that it didn't say this, you now stand corrected!

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/File/PdfPil?fileName=PIL.17377.8.pdf&documentId=17377

People will do what is best for them, I'm just highlighting that what I've posted is not scaremongering, but fact from the very people who make the vaccine!

I think it's also been explained that it's because there aren't clinical trail done on pregnant for them to actually recommend it for that group.

At the end of the day, each parent has to make the judgement about the risks and benefits themselves, I just hope everyone seek reputable and reliable sources for the information to make these judgements.

Yes I agree, that everyone needs to make a judgement using reliable sources, for me this is my dr who knows my sons medical history and has advised that my other children are at a higher risk of adverse reactions so no vaccines for us :flower:
 
Repevax leaflet, clearly states not suitable for pregnant woman....
So to the pervious poster who said I was wrong and that it didn't say this, you now stand corrected!

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/File/PdfPil?fileName=PIL.17377.8.pdf&documentId=17377

People will do what is best for them, I'm just highlighting that what I've posted is not scaremongering, but fact from the very people who make the vaccine!

I think it's also been explained that it's because there aren't clinical trail done on pregnant for them to actually recommend it for that group.

https://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/Pages/whooping-cough-vaccination-pregnant.aspx

Why does the patient information leaflet for Repevax say that the vaccine should not be used in pregnant women?

This is because pregnant women are routinely excluded from clinical trials. It is not because there are any specific safety concerns or evidence of harm in pregnancy.

As pregnant women do not usually take part in clinical trials, there can be limited evidence on safety in pregnancy. Where there is limited evidence like this, it can be necessary to weigh up the risks and benefits of an intervention, such as a vaccine. Experts at the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) looked into the risk of whooping cough in young babies, and looked into the available evidence on the whooping cough vaccine, and concluded that they had no concerns over the safety of the vaccine for the mother or her baby.

At the end of the day, each parent has to make the judgement about the risks and benefits themselves, but it's important that everyone seek reputable and reliable sources for the information to make these judgements (note: I'm not referring to you specifically).

While there may not be a trial run on pregnant women, it doesn't mean there is not significant evidence to support the giving of the vaccines. Where it is unethical to run a study on a population group but the medicine is given owing to overwhelming need, data is kept to monitor any potential side effects and the efficacy of the medicines. THis is how we know that antibodies are formed in the mother in most cases and are subsequently apparent in the baby when tested. We have also seen that there has been a very small amount of adverse reactions or outcomes on a wide scale in multicentre data collections so the results can be generalised.
 
Repevax leaflet, clearly states not suitable for pregnant woman....
So to the pervious poster who said I was wrong and that it didn't say this, you now stand corrected!

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/File/PdfPil?fileName=PIL.17377.8.pdf&documentId=17377

People will do what is best for them, I'm just highlighting that what I've posted is not scaremongering, but fact from the very people who make the vaccine!

I think I am the one that originally posted that the leaflet I read DOES NOT say it's not recommended for pregnant women. The vaccine I got was not Repevax, but I am in the US, so the leaflet I got was a different one. It was the 2012 brand new leaflet they had just come out with here in the US and talks about it being a Class C and being tested on rats, etc. but definitely doesn't say what the Repevax leaflet does you posted. Just wanted to clear that up. I'm not sure if you were referring to me or not, but I never said you were wrong, I just said the one I read, which was just released in 2012, didn't say that it wasn't recommended for pregnant women.
 
Repevax leaflet, clearly states not suitable for pregnant woman....
So to the pervious poster who said I was wrong and that it didn't say this, you now stand corrected!

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/File/PdfPil?fileName=PIL.17377.8.pdf&documentId=17377

People will do what is best for them, I'm just highlighting that what I've posted is not scaremongering, but fact from the very people who make the vaccine!

I think I am the one that originally posted that the leaflet I read DOES NOT say it's not recommended for pregnant women. The vaccine I got was not Repevax, but I am in the US, so the leaflet I got was a different one. It was the 2012 brand new leaflet they had just come out with here in the US and talks about it being a Class C and being tested on rats, etc. but definitely doesn't say what the Repevax leaflet does you posted. Just wanted to clear that up. I'm not sure if you were referring to me or not, but I never said you were wrong, I just said the one I read, which was just released in 2012, didn't say that it wasn't recommended for pregnant women.

Thanks for clarifying that up,
I guess that's the difficulties in members being from all over, we all have different vaccines, with different issues.
:thumbup:
 
I'm due beginning of feb and I will be getting my flu jab in a couple of weeks. I just saw the news about whooping cough too...nobody has mentioned it to me but if offered it I would have it as they say whooping cough is on the increase.
I will mention it at my 25 week midwife app and see if it is available to me.


Hi...I'm also due same time as you. My doc highly recommends me to take flu shot and Tdap shot which includes whooping cough shot. Did you take any of these?
I've never had a flu shot before. Also I'm very concerned about Tdap during pregnancy as this is a fairly new recommendation. But I've read getting Tdap shot during pregnancy reduces the effectiveness of the primary shot when infant gets it and is referred to as blunting. So the infant maybe protected before 2 months old but not as protected after. That's so confusing. :confused:
"DTaP Effectiveness for Infant if Mother Vaccinated with Tdap during Pregnancy"
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/tdap-pregnancy-hcp.htm
 
i think if we're honest, no pregnant woman wants to have to have any vaccincations - I know I don't. But for me I have to ask myself how I would feel if my baby picked up whooping cough without being vaccinated, I know I would never forgive myself. No one can hide their baby for the first 8 weeks of their life, especially as people can carry whooping cough that show itself my just a little cough - and everyone seems to be coughing throughout the winter. Coughing in hospitals, the midwife coming to your house with a cough, even your partne bringing in the germs. This is not a new vaccine, its just newly advised for pregnant women. And sadly due to the state of the economy, its not that it hasnt been offered to pregnant women due to safety, its all because of money. if the cash strapped NHS feel it is important to spend millions administering this vaccine to pregnant women, then I guess we must accept that it is the right this to do for our little babies.

It's nice to read other threads, where lots of UK women have all decided to get jab done.

I'm booked in for next Tuesday, so bring on the jab!!!xx
 
i'm having my whooping cough jab on the 30th my doctors made sure i will be 28+ weeks, i have my flu jab on the 20th too

tbh i hate needles and if i wasn't pregnant i wouldn't have these jabs for no body but at the end of the day it's to protect my little one and i'll do anything to do that i would never forgive myself if she got whooping cough and got ill or even worse died from having it...when i had the chance to protect her!

it's great to see so many women are having the jabs though!
 
Just had mine today! Each to their own.... Can't be that dangerous if midwives and doctors are telling you to get it... X
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,411
Messages
27,149,837
Members
255,833
Latest member
victoria212
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"