Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

AIBU to think that there may be many women who will not get the whooping cough vaccine?

(59 Posts)
CrapBag Fri 28-Sep-12 22:31:12

Just seen the news about there being a vaccine for pregnant women.

Also been reading some of the other thread and find there are people who don't want to vaccinate their children.

This is a new vaccine so I am thinking that women will be reluctant to get it when they are pregnant. I myself wasn't sure about the swine flu one but I did get it when I was pregnant with DD.

I hope women do the sensible thing. Seeing that baby was heartbreaking and in the South West alone cases have risen to well over 800 this year. sad

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 20:46:15

what do they plan to do about bordetella parapertussis? It also causes whooping cough, and it is not affected whatsoever by the pertussis vaccine, acellular or whole cell.

CatherinaJTV Mon 01-Oct-12 20:49:14

It'll protect them and their newborns of pertussis, LD. That's what it is going to do with them. It may also give mum a sore arm - mhhh, sore arm, blue baby, sore arm, blue baby - let me think a bit about that.

I told one expecting mum and she is going to ask her GP for it. I am very pleased and will keep talking about the vaccine smile

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 20:59:47

I'm sure you will. You realise it ISNT LICENSED for this, dont you?

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 21:01:35

"mhhh, sore arm, blue baby, sore arm, blue baby - let me think a bit about that."

You really think the worst outcome of catching pertussis is always going to be a "blue baby" (what about milder infections? DD1 probably had it in July, so what?) and that the worst outcome of vaccination is "a sore arm" (you deny vaccine damage??) ?

The arrogance is breathtaking.

Wait, i forgot who i am talking to.

Whereas yours is not, Leonie hmm - the arrogance, that is...

Lots of things are used without licence.
That does not mean they are not safe, simply that a legal hoop has not been jumped through.
I seriously don't get why all vaccination thread go belly up - you don't want to vaccinate, don't.
Of course there are children damages, and sometimes severely, by vaccination. However, there are far, FAR more children NOT damages because of vaccination. It is a numbers game, you are right, and chance can be a right bitch, but IMO the odds are in favour of vaccination.

<shrugs>

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 21:12:23

Unlicensed vaccines being used on pregnant women, and that's just "okay" tothe medical establishment?

Wait, i forgot this was the brainchild of the JCVI. And we all know they'd NEVER recommend anything dangerous. What? urabe strain mumps / MMR? Oh wait, the JCVI said that was fine and dandy to license here in the UK at the exact same time as they knew full well of meningitis in Canada...

Whoops. All those poor children suffered because the JCVI recommended something dangerous.

And now its just "OKAY" for pregnant women to take an unlicensed vaccine cos some commitee says so?

ElaineBenes Mon 01-Oct-12 21:59:45

I don't know why but somehow I trust a committee of experts more than I do LD and her conspiracy theories.

I'd imagine the reason that they want to now use the vaccine on pregnant women is because they're very concerned about the threat of whooping cough for pregnant women and their newborn babies.

It would be unethical NOT to take action.

ArthurPewty Mon 01-Oct-12 22:09:50

I don't trust them as far as I can spit.

ElaineBenes Mon 01-Oct-12 22:11:21

Conspiracy theory LD? Shares in GSK?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now