Whooping cough vaccine for pregnant women

[patch2006uk]

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biologi.../UCM101580.pdf

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine." - This is found on page 11.

This is stating effects from the DtAP vaccine. I know the autism thing is definitely controversial but why is it on the fda government website?

After my son had his DtAP shots, he started displaying autistic-like behavior within a week after receiving it. Whether or not it was actual autism, it had seriously effected his development and caused him to display autistic-like behaviors, mimicking autism. These effects lasted for about 9 months and his speech is still delayed because of it (I believe). This is why I am now so anti-vaccine.

It's way too risky in my opinion.

Out of date or not, the sentence I've bolded is the important one here. It's basically saying, yes, we have had reports of a correlation of these things in line with the vaccination, but we can't prove causation.

There is plenty of evidence that vaccines and autism are unrelated, and it's the timing of the vaccines that is inline with autistic symptoms becoming obvious in the child. Also, perhaps we're just better at diagnosing it these days. Countries with different vaccines still report a similar increase in autism rates, so it doesn't seem to follow that one causes the other.

 

[GracieGoo]

Wow and this thread is about to get heated.

I am one of those that is perhaps far too trusting, maybe some would call it stupid even. I believe in my NHS, yes they make mistakes unfortunately, but I like to think that they have learnt form them. Someone recalled the morning sickness drug that caused so many deformities, well I like to think that our NHS researches in much further details to prevent things like that happening again.

This question was primarily being asked to UK women given that it is something that has just been acknowledged in the UK (so I like to think that people arguing about people being irresponsible not vaccinating across continents not knowing the differing situations may be crossing boundaries), I do agree with patch it is scary that it has just come about so suddenly and yes I have questioned its safety, and I also think well if they are paying to protect our lo's from this (where again like patch says there has been 9 sad sad deaths), why on earth are they not testing for group b strep when that is a huge killer in newborns?!?!

Will I be getting this vaccine - I am not sure yet, but in all honesty probably yes - I like to think that my health care system does want to protect me. If you choose not to vaccinate then I might not agree with you, but my children will be vaccinated so hopefully that will protect them and therefore why do I feel the need to criticise (if that makes any sense!!!)

Freedom of choice is a great thing and I respect everyone's choices about vaccinations. I personally am very strongly against it, based on the experience my son has from his DtAP shot and from my own research. I just got very upset when a previous poster self-righteously called me "irresponsible and reckless" for my decision, insinuating that I'm a bad parent, as though they know what's best and their decision is the only right one. We all have the right to decide for ourselves and should not be criticized and judged for it.

There. My rant is over!

I do agree with you. I think the problem is that there is a lot of people that do no research with regards to vaccinations, and then choose not to get their children vaccinated, which is in my opinion infuriating. But perhaps, I am the opposite do my research, do choose to vaccinate, and therefore maybe people think I am putting my child at risk and maybe that is infuriating.

In the UK we are going through epidemic levels of whooping cough at present especially in the north west, and this lies with the fact that more children are not getting vaccinated (a lot to do with the recent autism links with vaccination), so I believe this is probably where the pp's 'anger' and beliefs come from, and I can understand that. But people should research properly before making that decision, and I dont think enough people do (obviously not saying you are one of those). It is a freedom of choice, of course - I wont criticise anyone, as long as they have researched not getting it done properly, but like you say freedom of choice, but that means I wont necessarily agree with the choice.

Actually, the uptake for the DTaP is pretty high, and I believe the reasons for this outbreak is that a) the disease is cyclical anyway and we're at the point of the cycle where an outbreak is expected and b) the vaccine wears off after a few years, and so people now entering their childbearing years don't have sufficient immunity. There's also a theory that whooping cough has mutated, but this is only theoretical at the moment. Most cases are in the vaccinated population, but given almost 100% of us are vaccinated, that's no massive surprise.

It's the MMR where people have concerns regarding autism, not so much the DTaP. Measles, mumps and rubella are definitely at risk of making a comeback if vaccination levels continue to decline.

Sorry I did not make myself clear in what I was saying (tired pregnancy hormones with baby to look after blamed for that!!) I meant to say from speaking to other mums and the health visitors within my local area the supposed autism link with the MMR job has scared many new mums into thinking that all of the baby vaccinations are unsafe not just the MMR (and without doing further research people have just put a stop to vaccinations, my hv speaks a lot of rubbish sometimes, but this kind of makes sense. New mothers are given lots of information within the first year, its hard to know what to do for the best, and maybe thought is to opt out rather than face worries over this. I understand what your saying with the illness being on a cycle, but surely if that is the case, there would be more preventative measures put into place, or more information given about whooping cough. Only information I have received ever is information I have gone looking for myself, and I have a young baby so believe that I should have fairly easy access to this information...And there will be people always entering childbirthing years, and these days it lasts longer so why has this epidemic not happening for the last however many years. I am not questioning you in an arsey way, I genuinely dont know the answers, and havent done enough research, hence my questions

 

[helena]

If the health authorities advise us to do something for the good of our children and the population as a whole who am I to argue, I haven't studied medicine for 6+ years. Little old me won't suddenly come up with some sort of revealing new question that previously highly trained medics hadn't thought of...
Vaccines save lives.

 

[icklemonster]

I'm 100% having the whooping cough jab. Going to phone the docs on Monday about it. I had the flu jab on Wednesday and had a dead arm and felt a little tired for a couple of days (though that could have just been general pregnancy) but other than that have felt fine. After having a bad cold a few weeks back I don't think I could cope with full blown flu without meds. And whooping cough sounds even worse, and I definitely don't want girlbean to get it once she arrives.
DH and I agreed at the beginning of pregnancy we were going to follow the NHS advice to the letter as there is so much conflicting info on everything from foods, drinking, medication, vaccines etc. I think we are lucky to have an amazing healthcare system and I trust their advice xxx

 

[patch2006uk]

I won't do a massive block quote, but this is a response to GracieGoo

I think it's just a bit of a perfect situation for whooping cough tbh. From what I can make out, the vaccine wearing off combined with the point in the cycle has just coincided. It's only really newborn babies who are at risk, because they're too young for the vaccine. The rate of infection drops off massively at 3 months, when the vaccine is fully given and baby is protected. It's just in those first months, and particularly the first 8 weeks before LO has any jabs at all.

I believe the vaccine given previously was the DTP, which was more effective but riskier. Those entering their childbearing years now probably had the safer, but apparently less effective, DTaP. It's all just unfortunate coincidences I think.

 

[RebeccaG]

Thanks ladies for all your thoughts. You've all definitely given me lots to think about x

 

[helena]

Thanks ladies for all your thoughts. You've all definitely given me lots to think about x

..and bearing in mind we aren't doctors, I wouldn't listen to a word of it!

 

[RedRose]

I'm seeing the midwife this afternoon and yes I will be asking for the whooping cough vaccine, along with the flu vaccine.

I had swine flu during my pregnancy with Lily and was completely floored by it- if I was to get it again I wouldn't be able to look after my kids at all, never mind the thought of passing it onto them!

I will also be getting any and every vaccine offered to my kids.

 

[Wellington]

I have studied medicine for 6+ years.
I do see the consequences of not vaccinating. (Although it is to be noted that sometimes vaccines don't prevent the illness, but can minimise the symptoms)
I have had all available vaccinations and so have my children.
They and I will continue to do so. ( currently pregnant)

Must ask my midwife about the pertussis and season flu next visit .... Although we can usually just get jabbed on the wards whilst at work (oh, the perks!)

 

[Mom To 2]

I'm getting my flu shot today.

My doc said whooping cough one after 20 weeks, so should I hold off till 28 weeks?

 

[Kitsch]

After a lot of thinking we'd just decided NOT to get the flu jab when we heard about this and based on the same reasoning I won't be getting it. The midwife didn't actually mention the whooping cough thing at all when I saw her just a week ago so maybe it's not prevalent in our area anyway?

EDIT: Also on further reading of this thread I am horrified by the amount of people being brutally rude when it comes to others decisions. We all make different choices for our children, both before and after they are born - I don't think anyone should be ridiculed or insulted for choosing a different option.

I'd also like to point out that it's completely natural for for there to be this massive divide, people doing it, people not doing it etc Medical professionals still can't agree on whether vaccines such as these for pregnant women are 100% necessary or not so it's hardly surprising that those of us without medical knowledge are even more clueless! At the end of the day it's your personal decision, no one else.

 

[ticking.clock]

I'm not getting the whooping cough vaccine, as the makers (Repevax) clearly state in the info sheet it is NOT safe for pregnant women,
I'm also not having the flu vaccine and my baby isn't having and vaccines either!

Funnily enough in 81% of cases of whooping cough, they all were vaccinated and another 12% were part way through the vaccine programme so you have to question the effects.

 

[ticking.clock]

Wow and this thread is about to get heated.

I am one of those that is perhaps far too trusting, maybe some would call it stupid even. I believe in my NHS, yes they make mistakes unfortunately, but I like to think that they have learnt form them. Someone recalled the morning sickness drug that caused so many deformities, well I like to think that our NHS researches in much further details to prevent things like that happening again.

This question was primarily being asked to UK women given that it is something that has just been acknowledged in the UK (so I like to think that people arguing about people being irresponsible not vaccinating across continents not knowing the differing situations may be crossing boundaries), I do agree with patch it is scary that it has just come about so suddenly and yes I have questioned its safety, and I also think well if they are paying to protect our lo's from this (where again like patch says there has been 9 sad sad deaths), why on earth are they not testing for group b strep when that is a huge killer in newborns?!?!

Will I be getting this vaccine - I am not sure yet, but in all honesty probably yes - I like to think that my health care system does want to protect me. If you choose not to vaccinate then I might not agree with you, but my children will be vaccinated so hopefully that will protect them and therefore why do I feel the need to criticise (if that makes any sense!!!)

Freedom of choice is a great thing and I respect everyone's choices about vaccinations. I personally am very strongly against it, based on the experience my son has from his DtAP shot and from my own research. I got very upset when a previous poster self-righteously called me "irresponsible and reckless" for my decision, insinuating that I'm a bad parent, as though they know what's best and their decision is the only right one. I don't agree with getting vaccinated; however, who am I to pass judgements and criticize those who choose to? It's none of my business what other people do and what they decide for their children. We all have the right to decide for ourselves and should not be criticized and judged for it.

There. My rant is over!

Sadly until people are personally affected they won't question it,
My son was vaccine damaged by his MMR.......... NOT autism and my baby will not be having any vaccines,

The makers of the whooping cough vaccine clearly state that it should not be given to pregnant women!

 

[staybeautiful]

I'm not getting the whooping cough vaccine, as the makers (Repevax) clearly state in the info sheet it is NOT safe for pregnant women,
I'm also not having the flu vaccine and my baby isn't having and vaccines either!

Funnily enough in 81% of cases of whooping cough, they all were vaccinated and another 12% were part way through the vaccine programme so you have to question the effects.

I'm not saying anything to question anyone's choices - I think everyone has their own right to make their own decision about what they do when it comes to themselves and their babies, and I completely understand why some people are choosing, and equally not choosing, to have vaccinations.

I would say that while the info sheet says that it is not suitable for pregnant women, that will be because, ethically, trials aren't allowed to take place on pregnant women. Many drugs that we have to take say on the sheet that they aren't suitable, but we have to trust the judgement of our doctors (yes they will sometimes make mistakes, but if we ask them before hand and they still say yes it's suitable and we need treatment then that's what we have to do). Cetirizine based antihistamines still say on the label that they're not suitable, but if you need antihistamines while pregnant, that's what you have to take because that's the only one that doesn't have an effect on the baby. Many antibiotics that are given as alternatives to usual treatment (e.g. instead of Trimethoprim for UTIs) still say they're not suitable, but they're the most suitable ones for pregnant women. If I refused treatment for a hideous UTI that I had at 13 weeks because the label said that the antibiotics weren't suitable for pregnant women, I dread to think what sort of situation I would be in now, 7 weeks later.
I think most health boards/GPs/hospitals would rather die than administer treatment that could result in them facing legal action for causing injury or harm to a patient or defects in an unborn child. Because they're not able to run specific trials of drugs during pregnancy they have to go with a best fit based on past experience.

 

[nov_mum]

No government would spend huge amounts of money to make a vaccine available if it wasn't proven to save them money. At the end of the day vaccine programmes like whooping cough are provided to reduce uptake of acute services as it costs too much to hospitalise babies. I will be getting this vaccine and so will my husband. If the adults around the child are protected it reduces the exposure to the child.

In regards to the influenza vaccine, there appears to be some misconception that because the vaccine is changed each year and as it only covers selected strains that it is some how flakey and unreliable. It is in fact changed each year on purpose to target dominant strains. If people were to vaccinate against all strains we would never get out of the clinics! It would be cost ineffective and overall, unnecessary. Virologists spend all year monitoring the infections of influenza and identifying strains and mutations to try and stay ahead of the virus and prevent mass infections from the strains you are most likely to encounter. It's a shame that what is actually a sophisticated programme that targets viral outbreaks is understood to be unreliable and inconsistent. With only 60-65% of those immunised seroconverting the vaccine, it should indicate how incredibly important that the uptake of the vaccine is for the majority of the population. Some people just don't seroconvert which is why we need herd immunity. It is also well studied that when people don't seroconvert or at least only partially, that infections they do get are often less severe so overall if prevents serious complications.

 

[patch2006uk]

No government would spend huge amounts of money to make a vaccine available if it wasn't proven to save them money. At the end of the day vaccine programmes like whooping cough are provided to reduce uptake of acute services as it costs too much to hospitalise babies. I will be getting this vaccine and so will my husband. If the adults around the child are protected it reduces the exposure to the child.

In regards to the influenza vaccine, there appears to be some misconception that because the vaccine is changed each year and as it only covers selected strains that it is some how flakey and unreliable. It is in fact changed each year on purpose to target dominant strains. If people were to vaccinate against all strains we would never get out of the clinics! It would be cost ineffective and overall, unnecessary. Virologists spend all year monitoring the infections of influenza and identifying strains and mutations to try and stay ahead of the virus and prevent mass infections from the strains you are most likely to encounter. It's a shame that what is actually a sophisticated programme that targets viral outbreaks is understood to be unreliable and inconsistent. With only 60-65% of those immunised seroconverting the vaccine, it should indicate how incredibly important that the uptake of the vaccine is for the majority of the population. Some people just don't seroconvert which is why we need herd immunity. It is also well studied that when people don't seroconvert or at least only partially, that infections they do get are often less severe so overall if prevents serious complications.

Honestly, the whooping cough vaccine being given to pregnant women feels like they're panicking and want to be seen doing something. It's not proven that the vaccine works as they intend it to.

I understand why they can't trial vaccines on pregnant women, but I don't understand why they're not intending to monitor the outcomes now if they're giving the jab to pregnant women anyway. At least then they'd have some data, and any data is better than no data.

My issue with the flu jab isn't that it's inconsistent, more that it doesn't really work. There are too many strains of flu, colds and other similar illnesses, that protecting against 2 or 3 of them feels pointless. If my immune system was weak, then I might consider it. But given that I've managed this far without the jab, I'll take my chances.

 

[ticking.clock]

I'm not getting the whooping cough vaccine, as the makers (Repevax) clearly state in the info sheet it is NOT safe for pregnant women,
I'm also not having the flu vaccine and my baby isn't having and vaccines either!

Funnily enough in 81% of cases of whooping cough, they all were vaccinated and another 12% were part way through the vaccine programme so you have to question the effects.

I'm not saying anything to question anyone's choices - I think everyone has their own right to make their own decision about what they do when it comes to themselves and their babies, and I completely understand why some people are choosing, and equally not choosing, to have vaccinations.

I would say that while the info sheet says that it is not suitable for pregnant women, that will be because, ethically, trials aren't allowed to take place on pregnant women. Many drugs that we have to take say on the sheet that they aren't suitable, but we have to trust the judgement of our doctors (yes they will sometimes make mistakes, but if we ask them before hand and they still say yes it's suitable and we need treatment then that's what we have to do). Cetirizine based antihistamines still say on the label that they're not suitable, but if you need antihistamines while pregnant, that's what you have to take because that's the only one that doesn't have an effect on the baby. Many antibiotics that are given as alternatives to usual treatment (e.g. instead of Trimethoprim for UTIs) still say they're not suitable, but they're the most suitable ones for pregnant women. If I refused treatment for a hideous UTI that I had at 13 weeks because the label said that the antibiotics weren't suitable for pregnant women, I dread to think what sort of situation I would be in now, 7 weeks later.
I think most health boards/GPs/hospitals would rather die than administer treatment that could result in them facing legal action for causing injury or harm to a patient or defects in an unborn child. Because they're not able to run specific trials of drugs during pregnancy they have to go with a best fit based on past experience.

My son was vaccine damaged by his MMR, and I have been advised by my GP that my baby is also at a higher risk of vaccine damage so I won't allow them and my GP agrees with my decision,
My decision to not have vaccines is based on 11 years worth of research, 11 years of seeing my son suffer the effects, and my wishes to protect my child how I see best.
Whilst some people are happy to vaccinate and put their faith in vaccines, I'm happy to not vaccinate.

Until my son was vaccine damaged I was pro vaccines, now I'm pro choice

 

[Peachypoo]

I won't be getting either done.. God willing me and baby will be ok.. I don't want chemicals in my body especially when all through our my pregnancy we are told not to take even nurofen. My choice.

 

[poutie]

I'm not getting the whooping cough vaccine, as the makers (Repevax) clearly state in the info sheet it is NOT safe for pregnant women,
I'm also not having the flu vaccine and my baby isn't having and vaccines either!

Funnily enough in 81% of cases of whooping cough, they all were vaccinated and another 12% were part way through the vaccine programme so you have to question the effects.

I'm not saying anything to question anyone's choices - I think everyone has their own right to make their own decision about what they do when it comes to themselves and their babies, and I completely understand why some people are choosing, and equally not choosing, to have vaccinations.

I would say that while the info sheet says that it is not suitable for pregnant women, that will be because, ethically, trials aren't allowed to take place on pregnant women. Many drugs that we have to take say on the sheet that they aren't suitable, but we have to trust the judgement of our doctors (yes they will sometimes make mistakes, but if we ask them before hand and they still say yes it's suitable and we need treatment then that's what we have to do). Cetirizine based antihistamines still say on the label that they're not suitable, but if you need antihistamines while pregnant, that's what you have to take because that's the only one that doesn't have an effect on the baby. Many antibiotics that are given as alternatives to usual treatment (e.g. instead of Trimethoprim for UTIs) still say they're not suitable, but they're the most suitable ones for pregnant women. If I refused treatment for a hideous UTI that I had at 13 weeks because the label said that the antibiotics weren't suitable for pregnant women, I dread to think what sort of situation I would be in now, 7 weeks later.
I think most health boards/GPs/hospitals would rather die than administer treatment that could result in them facing legal action for causing injury or harm to a patient or defects in an unborn child. Because they're not able to run specific trials of drugs during pregnancy they have to go with a best fit based on past experience.

My son was vaccine damaged by his MMR, and I have been advised by my GP that my baby is also at a higher risk of vaccine damage so I won't allow them and my GP agrees with my decision,
My decision to not have vaccines is based on 11 years worth of research, 11 years of seeing my son suffer the effects, and my wishes to protect my child how I see best.
Whilst some people are happy to vaccinate and put their faith in vaccines, I'm happy to not vaccinate.

Until my son was vaccine damaged I was pro vaccines, now I'm pro choice

Sorry for the massive quote lol, but I completely agree with you ticking.clock.

I used to be pro vaccine until my son was affected by his DTaP vaccine. It was quite a scare and really opened my eyes to the dangers of vaccines. My view on vaccines has completely changed!

 

[jensha]

Honestly, the whooping cough vaccine being given to pregnant women feels like they're panicking and want to be seen doing something. It's not proven that the vaccine works as they intend it to.

I understand why they can't trial vaccines on pregnant women, but I don't understand why they're not intending to monitor the outcomes now if they're giving the jab to pregnant women anyway. At least then they'd have some data, and any data is better than no data.

My issue with the flu jab isn't that it's inconsistent, more that it doesn't really work. There are too many strains of flu, colds and other similar illnesses, that protecting against 2 or 3 of them feels pointless. If my immune system was weak, then I might consider it. But given that I've managed this far without the jab, I'll take my chances.

I totally agree with you patch2006uk.

To me, the fact that they are not allowed to do trials on pregnant women is scary. They don't have any data that proves that any vaccine is safe while pregnant. So why should we be guinea pigs? Most people are way too trustworthy. They trust doctors with their lives. Doctors, of course, are gonna want everyone to be vaccinated because it's what they are told in school and then pharmaceutical companies pay them too. And this is coming from someone who used to work for a big pharma for 5 years.