Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

Whooping cough vaccine while pregnant, worrying?

144 replies

Keznel · 21/05/2013 22:19

Just wondering if anyone else feeling reluctant to get the whooping cough vaccination now recommended for 28-38wks pregnant? I'm currently 20wks and really concerned about getting it, but guess I have plenty of time to make my mind up yet . I had DD in the peak of a whooping cough epidemic back (last year) when it wasn't offered to pregnant women! She thankfully was fine and got her own vaccinations at 8wks etc Just wondering if I'm alone in stressing about this? Or should I just do as I'm told and get it?

OP posts:

Thread gallery

Crumbledwalnuts · 27/05/2013 21:52

Your faith is impressive Olive. I agree with you a little bit: I think that rather unquestioning approach is all about faith, rather than evidence.

Crumbledwalnuts · 27/05/2013 22:56

By the way Tabitha I typed injected ingested aluminium mumsnet into google and it was about the third one!

Littleolivetree · 28/05/2013 08:24

Good, because I can confidently say that our health system is influenced by clinical evidence not guesswork.

Crumbledwalnuts · 28/05/2013 21:02

Yes - that's the faith thing again. I'm very happy for you - many people who've vaccinated their children have different experiences.

Littleolivetree · 28/05/2013 21:25

It's not faith it's fact.

Crumbledwalnuts · 28/05/2013 21:29

You strongly believe it's fact. That's fine for you. It's good to have faith - quite often it results in quite a strong placebo effect actually. It doesn't make any difference at all to what I think, obviously, which is an evidence based opinion, by the way. We will have to agree to disagree

Littleolivetree · 28/05/2013 21:30

noblegiraffe · 28/05/2013 21:41

Careful of the nocebo effect, Crumbled.

Crumbledwalnuts · 28/05/2013 21:45

Why? Do you have any comment on the fact that 40 times more vaccine aluminium than breastmilk aluminium must be processed by a baby's kidneys? I'm concerned you may not have realised how misleading your earlier post was.

noblegiraffe · 28/05/2013 21:52

You don't seem to have any evidence that that's a problem, though, Crumbled?

The nocebo effect, by the way, is negative thoughts reducing the efficacy of medicine, or making adverse events more likely to occur. I'd rather the placebo effect

Crumbledwalnuts · 28/05/2013 22:04

It's a known neuro-toxin.

That's not a nocebo by the way. A nocebo is inert, like placebo, but makes you feel worse not better.

noblegiraffe · 28/05/2013 22:30

But that doesn't mean that it causes problems in small doses.

"The study thus demonstrates that sensationalized media reports on potential risks, which often lack scientific evidence, can have a significant effect on the health of large sections of the population"

Nocebo effect in action
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506095305.htm

Crumbledwalnuts · 29/05/2013 06:57

Hmm your last link and your figures were misleading and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that, so I don't think it's possible to trust your links until you do.

The nocebo link is as I described, by the way.

On that one sentence you extract - I don't see the point of it. Do you think that people only report vaccine damage because they read about it in the paper? Is that what you're trying to say? Am I conversing with someone over t'interweb in the 21st century who actually believes that?

noblegiraffe · 29/05/2013 07:40

You haven't provided anything yourself to counter them.

No, the nocebo effect comment was related to your patronising 'faith = placebo effect' remark to olive. If that were restricted to vaccines, then that is bizarre as I don't think a placebo effect related to vaccines has been noted. Certainly homeopathic vaccines are bobbins. But in contrast to faith in evidence-based medicine having a positive effect, as you told olive, distrust of medication, hyper awareness of adverse events etc isn't good for you.

Btw if a placebo can cause adverse events simply through thinking that they can, then it makes sense that actual medication can too. Medication has a placebo effect as well as a medicinal one. It would just be difficult to decide whether a side effect were caused by the medication, or by the patient expecting it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

bumbleymummy · 29/05/2013 09:07

I think it would make sense to test for WC immunity at the same time as rubella immunity and HIV and then only offer the vaccine to women who are not immune. WC in adults can be quite mild so many of us may have had it recently without realising and may already be immune.

noblegiraffe · 29/05/2013 09:21

Even if you're immune, it's recommended that you get the vaccine at the right stage of pregnancy to ensure optimal transfer of antibodies. Even if you have whooping cough earlier in the pregnancy it's still recommended!

noblegiraffe · 29/05/2013 09:38

Should clarify, the wc vaccine in pregnancy isn't about protecting the mother (unlike the flu vaccine in pregnancy which is to stop the mother getting it). It's about trying to vaccinate the baby via the mother before it is born. The best time to do this is late in pregnancy as antibodies don't transfer before then. The vaccine causes production of lots of antibodies in the mother which then pass to the baby.

As it is about vaccinating the baby, you need the vaccine at the right time every time you are pregnant.

I don't think the mother being immune is enough.

bumbleymummy · 29/05/2013 10:50

Why does this policy not apply for all diseases we have been vaccinated against then? Although, considering that Repevax also covers tetanus, diptheria and polio, I guess we pretty much are re-vaccinating!

noblegiraffe · 29/05/2013 10:57

Because babies have been dying of whooping cough lately, bumbley. Ones that are too young to be vaccinated themselves. It's awful.

As far as I know, babies haven't been dying of other preventable diseases to require action.

bumbleymummy · 29/05/2013 13:13

You sound a bit patronising NG. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not...

Is there a breakdown of cases showing the ages of the children contracting WC? I wonder how the percentages of cases in young infants compares to previous years. In the past were mothers more likely to get natural boosters to WC during their pregnancy that enabled them to pass on higher levels of antibodies?

bumbleymummy · 29/05/2013 13:20

HPA WC notifications and deaths.

I don't see a dramatic change...

noblegiraffe · 29/05/2013 13:21

Not intended to patronise, intended to answer your question.

I don't know the breakdown of ages, but last year there were 1687 cases of whooping cough, this year (same time period) there have been 6760 and a number of deaths in newborns (13 was the last figure I heard). That's why action is being taken.

bumbleymummy · 29/05/2013 13:22

HPA WC notifications and deaths.

I don't see a dramatic change...

bumbleymummy · 29/05/2013 13:29

Why such a high percentage of deaths compared to the number of cases? In that chart I linked to there were 14 deaths in 1082 out of over 65000 cases. I'm wondering of more newborns are contracting it now because women aren't getting natural boosters. It would be interesting to see the figures.

bumbleymummy · 29/05/2013 13:30

14 deaths in 1982*

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6