Covid vaccine during pregnancy

[Eleano]

I couldn't find a recent thread so I'm posting a new one.

I'm 11 weeks pregnant and have had no encouragement from my midwife to get the Covid vaccine. I've booked it for tomorrow and wanted to get some opinions.

I got vaccinated for Covid a few times when everyone was being called for vaccination and have no issue with being vaccinated but I'm nervous now that I'm pregnant since it seems that most pregnant women don't get vaccinated due to fear and a lack of guidance.

I heard a few womens' midwives told them to avoid it since pregnant women weren't in the clinical trials and since the current variant isn't severe.

However, my husband's a teacher and brings Covid home about twice a year and I catch it every time and it makes me ill for about a week.

I'm the only pregnant woman I know in my social circle getting the vaccine. Am I doing the right thing?

This is completely incorrect @vinegarasacleaner and I'm going to borrow the much used "open your eyes"

Sadly, in the current climate, you make far more as an "anti-science"* media personality than you do as a normal scientist or clinician.

There are tons of examples of people who now make millions from monetising pushing disinformation - this is via youtube, substack, blogs, consultations, overpriced vitamins, giving talks etc etc. These people have been discussed to death on mumsnet. They gain a cult like following and generally pander to the right wing - science has never been more political.

Andrew Wakefield had minimal consequences for actions and instead used his infamy to connect to america's anti-vaccine circuit and is making shed loads. He cannot practise medicine in the UK anymore, but why would he care when he's now a millionaire and his profile is just increasing and increasing. He's literally a celebrity in certain circles.

By "anti-science" - I mean anything that goes against a mainstream evidence based view. So vaccination, climate change, diet fads, even wearing glasses. They all follow the same script.

I was pregnant this time last year and decided to get the vaccine. Both my midwife and GP advised me to get it and I was concerned as I was working in a school where infection rates were very high. You need to be the one to make a decision that you are comfortable with though. Talk through your concerns with your midwife.

So i guess OP the choice is inevitably up to you - I was pregnant in height of covid and didn't have either vaccines- personally as a fit serving military person i didn't feel i needed it and opted for a home birth. I got covid but was a cough really and one day in bed. However I did have whooping cough vaccine - so its your personal choice at the end of the day its not mandated. Read some evidence based literature and make your own decision

OK, so HART?
One of the medics there, Dr Jonathan Engler, does a huge amount of work for them. He has gained nothing, as far as I can see. Prof Norman Fenton similarly - in fact, his career has taken an enormous knock. There are many more.

Academics and medics HIDE that they are sceptical of the consensus, in order that they don't get slammed and their careers forestalled.

The people who make money are few and far between. I know they exist, but they're not the ones doing the heavy lifting in terms of analysis, etc.

Far worse research papers get published in high profile journals if they come to right conclusions. THAT is the sensible route if you want to develop your career. Have a look at the appalling quality of some of the RCTs for the Pfizer jab.

You're completely ignoring my replies @vinegarasacleaner - HART is just a group of people who have branded themselves as such (and they're have many other names), of course they're not paying any of the members.

I have described the ways in which they make money and how this is a common and well trod pathway.

Norman Fenton has little to no scientific career - he has been discussed to death on here, and is terrible example if you are trying to think someone who has a good scientific background and has suddenly gone down the anti-vaccine route.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this - yes publication bias is a huge problem in science. Yes publishing papers forms the basis of being a research scientist.

This is a bit of a confused post - we are talking about vaccination of pregnant women, no one whom took part in the original Pfizer RCTs.

No they don't. I am a scientist, I know lots of scientists.

Scientists are sceptical of research that has dodgy methods or isn't transparent in reporting, not just of "the consensus".

There are literally no consequences to my career if I criticise a specific scientific idea, and indeed i've carried out research that challenges a "mainstream view", unless the points I'm making are themselves not robust or I'm revealing myself to be a bit dim.

And again, yes you make far more money by being an anti-science contrarian - going against mainstream views and developing a cult-like following, than you do as a regular scientist.

I have explained how they do this, and given specific examples in my PP.

No they don't. I am a scientist, I know lots of scientists.

Erm, yes, they do. I know a number of people personally who do this.

People who have tried to publish counter-narrative papers (not just on Covid; also politically-loaded gender issues; papers critiquing certain psychiatric drugs) have documented their struggles on numerous occasions.

Clearly, I'm not saying ALL scientists self-censor. Many have no need to. But many do. Just because you don't know of any does not mean they don't exist. To suggest so seems somewhat arrogant...

I've already said that publication bias is a real problem, but I have no idea how you're linking it to the views you're making.

You are claiming that there is evidence to suggest pregnant women should not be vaccinated in pregnancy. You cannot provide this evidence. You ignore all the evidence that has gone into making this recommendation, worldwide, that shows it is safer to be vaccinated than unvaccinated.

If someone had a paper that suggested that vaccination in pregnancy was either not effective or was associated with worse outcomes, that would be an incredibly high impact paper. Journals would snap it up because it would get them clicks.

Even if it couldn't be published, say no one would accept it, then they'd just need to put it on a preprint server and it would be out in the world. Easy to disseminate and amplify on twitter, rumble etc etc. You claim censorship but we've seen time and time again that controvsial rubbish is much easier to amplify than boring well conducted science.

What point are you trying to make @vinegarasacleaner ?

No, I am not confused. I'm making the point that it's better for your career if you publish pro-vaccine, and that you can get pretty shoddy stuff published if you do.

On the topic of RCTs, it's a shame that high quality RCT evidence wasn't required before recommending pregnant women were injected with a vaccine with novel mechanism, which can enter many tissue types, and for which many people had suggested putative mechanisms of harm. It might be fine. But it's certainly not unreasonable to suggest a high degree of caution. IMHO, that remains.

Some reasons I don't think we can accept the conclusion that it's better for pregnant women to be jabbed are outlined in the HART article. If you don't want to address the concerns because they're from HART, that is your choice.

I'm afraid you are confused and conflating multiple points.

If you are going down the anti-mainstream route, the more controverisal, the better.

If you are trying to carve out a career as a normal scientist, you will not harm your career by publishing something that goes against a mainstream view - I have done - and indeed it is easier to get a controversial paper published than it is a boring one.

it's a shame that high quality RCT evidence wasn't required before recommending pregnant women were injected with a vaccine

Swerving on to the next point! Pregnant women are never included in RCTs - this is not something that was different for these vaccines.

As already posted multiple times in reply to your posts, very high risk women were offered vaccination in the original rollout - they were those for whom the risks of COVID far far outweighed any unknown risks of vaccination.

Data from these women was used to demonstrate safety and efficacy, and as this became clear, all pregnant women were offered vaccination. Data from women who have been vaccinated has informed the 49 observational studies which you keep ignoring. Since then, 4 RCTs have been carried out, again demonstrating safety and efficacy.

@henlee it's easier to get a controversial paper accepted than a mainstream one within certain windows of acceptability. Querying jabs often doesn't fit into this category.

Why don't you describe a specific concern if you are confident in it?

I have already followed back multiple claims from HART and found them to be nonsense (e.g., the vaccines cause COVID), so I would be suprised if they have any new points that are backed by robust evidence, but I am always happy to update my view if there is new evidence that changes it.

What do you mean? Yes of course you're not going to get a commentary paper filled with waffle published - it's a waste of everyones time.

If you have empirical evidence that uses robust methods and finds a suprising result (e.g., vaccines in pregnancy don't work!) then that would be incredibly high impact.

Please feel free to go to the letter @henlee. They make their points better than I can in 2 minutes on here when I should be elsewhere...

As for "the vaccines cause COVID" - if this is has been said, like this (rather than "there is evidence that those who have had more jabs also have higher numbers of infections"), then it sounds a bit silly, I agree. But if HAS been said, it's a peripheral thing amongst many important, well evidenced, other points. And is therefore a bit of a straw man.

If you are claiming pregnant women should not be vaccinated, you should be able to give one of the reasons why, no?

But if HAS been said, it's a peripheral thing amongst many important, well evidenced, other points. And is therefore a bit of a straw man.

Yes HART (specifically Clare Craig) has made that exact fake claim many times - that the vaccines actively cause COVID, in an attempt to coerce people out of being vaccinated. This is alongside far more nonsense, which is why I'm reluctant to give them any airtime, and I'm not sure why you're throwing in "straw man"

there is evidence that those who have had more jabs also have higher numbers of infections
If this is the level of argument you are making, then I am not sure what more can be said!

If you are claiming pregnant women should not be vaccinated....

But I'm not. You are claiming they SHOULD be (I think?); I am making no equivalent claim or recommendation, but am saying it's OK to make up your own mind and that people should read widely around the subject and not be shamed for differing opinion or action.

Lobotomies and thalidomide were once "based on best evidence". You don't have to blindly accept the consensus. You also don't have to blindly accept what HART, or anyone else, says. Read, think, look at people's experiences of the different courses of action, and make up your own mind. That is, and has always been, all I'm saying.

At no point have I said pregnant women "should be" vaccinated, I have pointed out that that this is the recommendation given by public health bodies worldwide, which is based on robust, replicated evidence from multiple streams of evidence.

You keep telling people to "read around" but seem completely unwilling to read anything that isn't a controversial commentary piece from groups who are known to be part of the anti-vaccine industry.

You don't have to blindly accept the consensus.
Except I'm not doing it blind. I've read the empirical evidence that is behind these recommendations.

Everyone should of course make up their own mind, and it's a personal choice, but I'm always going to argue against someone attempting to cause anxiety or worry with absolutely no evidence to back up their statements. All this does is coerce women out of making an informed choice.

This is why I link to the RCOG decision making tool, which sets out the evidence and helps women make a decision, based on what we know regarding these vaccines and COVID.

It's interesting you experience Clare Craig as coercive, and claim people who aren't entirely pro-jab are using fear.

I have never found the HART lot at all coercive - in fact, they were the ones arguing for informed consent when this was going out the window at the time of threatened mandates, language about "selfishness" in the absence of evidence for prevention of transmission, etc etc. All the coercion I experienced went in the other direction.

And as for use of fear - similarly, there was consistent and explicit use of fear in order to get people to take the vaccines, at a time when there was nowhere near enough evidence to suggest it. There's still some use of fear now, especially during pregnancy.

Horses for courses, eh?

It's interesting you experience Clare Craig as coercive,

Yes, it is coercivce and completely unethical to make a career out of pushing fake statements about vaccines, when this causes preventable harm and death.

Your latest post again is a massive swerve.

You've come onto a thread about someone wondering if they should have the vaccine in pregnancy and make loads of vague posts that hint at harm and that recommendations cannot be trusted.

You are entirely unwilling to engage with the actual evidence that underlies this recommendation, yet won't provide a single concrete statement as to why women should not be vaccinated, It's incredibly disengenous @vinegarasacleaner

This is Clare Craig who made erroneous claims on Twitter and deleted her tweets. How is that safe and transparent?

Clare Craig :

“But in April last year, Covid19 Assembly was dissolved on Companies House, the UK’s official business registrar, without ever publishing an audit or filing any accounts.
Since then, people have taken to Twitter to ask what happened to the donations. One person wrote: “With the @C19Assembly dissolved, having never filed any accounts, their ‘Covid Death Audit’ fronted by @clarecraigpath looks increasingly like fraud.” Another asked: “Where is the death audit and where is the money?””