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

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

Original poster

Flu jab in early pregnancy..

18 replies

Cazzr · 17/09/2010 09:27

Hi, I have mild asthma and have found out recently that I am pregnant, so it's early days. Our GP surgery has a flu jab drop in session on 2nd Oct (so will be 6 weeks by then fingers crossed). They have suggested I have the flu jab, ok fine. But.. is it ok before 12 weeks, am I being silly?

I did have flu the winter before last (before they worked out I have asthma) and I NEVER want it again, least of all when I'm pregnant but we've tried for a year for this pregnancy and I'm a little protective as a result..

I'm being daft, right?

OP posts:

Tangle · 17/09/2010 09:34

I don't think you're being daft - I think you're being a concerned mother :)

Can you call and ask your GP whether it would be possible to get the flu jab in November? I think the official line is that there is no known problem with the flu jab before 12 weeks, and that as an asthmatic you are strongly advised to have it - but if you would rather defer it (and I can quite understand why you would - I'd be inclined to do the same) then they ought to be able to accommodate somehow, even if it means you have to go elsewhere for the jab.

Congrats on your pregnancy :)

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 09:37

I think there is mercury in the flu jab. Do check. I'm pretty sure mercury is in there. Beachcomber knows about this: there've been threads in the vaccination section. Of course there are different flu jabs but I know that some have thiomersal. I wouldn't have an injection containing thiomersal during pregnancy.

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 09:39

I am struggling very hard with not saying for the love of God don't. But one doesn't tell people what to do so I'm not going to say that. But for the love of God don't do look into it carefully.

Tangle · 17/09/2010 09:53

I know there are concerns about vaccinations, and especially in pregnancy.

But each individual has to consider the risks and benefits to them of either course of action.

As Cazzr has asthma (a known risk factor for flu complications) and is pregnant (a known risk factor for flu complications) I think there are good reasons why she would be advised to have the flu jab and I think that advice should be considered very carefully.

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 09:59

Absolutely. I think she would be well advised also to consider the effect of thiomersal on a developing foetus.

Dylanpsmummy · 17/09/2010 10:00

There's the same amount of mercury as the average can of tuna. I can understand if you wanted to wait until 12 weeks or even choose not to have it but don't let people scare you into not having it.

As you know how horrible flu is I'm sure you are the person best placed to work out the risks and benifits for you personally.

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 10:06

I think one is advised not to eat tinned tuna in early pregnancy: and calculating gram for gram, the amount of thiomersal in a swine flu jab was tipping the safe level for the weight of a newborn baby. So there's an obvious reason to be concerned.

This isn't swine flu, and we don't know enough about which jab in this case, whether it has thiomersal, what level of thiomersal it would contain, but these are not difficult for the OP to find out, then it is easily possibly to check safe intake.

I am not trying to scare her any more than "asthma (a known risk factor for flu complications) and is pregnant (a known risk factor for flu complications)" is an attempt to scare her.

Original poster

Cazzr · 17/09/2010 10:08

Oki thanks for the very quick responses.
I will have a chat to my asthma nurse on monday and maybe look at defering it till i'm 12 weeks.

A quick google suggests they are now offering the seasonal flu jab to all pregnant ladies, thats a first isn't it?
I mean i knew they offered the swine flu jab (which is now in the seasonal flu jab i gather) to pregnant women but I didn't get the season flu jab in my last pregnancy 2005/2006.

OP posts:

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 10:13

Cazz : even then, ask if there is a vaccine without thiomersal. There are seasonal vaccines without thiomersal apparently. Do be careful and good luck. Don't make a decision on the spot though.

I find the idea that they are offering a jab containing thiormersal to pregnant women incredibly depressing.

Original poster

Cazzr · 17/09/2010 10:17

Appletrees, thanks, i will certainly write that down to ask. My asthma nurse is a nurse practitioner so is fairly knowledgable so should be quite helpful. She also knows how long we've been trying...

goes off to google thiomersal

OP posts:

Tangle · 17/09/2010 12:22

Actually this IS SF - the advice is still for all pregnant women to be vaccinated against SF, either by having the SF vaccination (which increasingly few practices are offering) or by having the seasonal flu jab (which now includes SF). IIRC its something that's being recommended as a one off this year due to the risks of SF. Also, SF isn't intrinsically more dangerous than any other variety of flu once you've caught it - its just that as a young adult you're less likely to have immunity or partial immunity to it and are therefore more likely to catch it.

I also think there's a big difference between quoting well proven risk factors and bringing up issues that have raised concerns but have never been proven to have a causative effect...

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 12:48

I think there is a problem proving a causative effect over certain timescales, and I think there's a big difference between well-established research and using the market as a test bed for a new product.

If this is the swine flu jab then do ask about squalene as well as thiomersal.

Don't forget rather a lot of swine flu vaccination was left over and this "drive" may be simply mopping up a mistake.

Tangle · 17/09/2010 13:12

Yes. There will always be a problem researching vaccines for diseases that evolve quickly. By the time long term research has been done the disease will no longer be of concern, the approved vaccine no longer required and the whole exercise a costly exercise in futility.

It is ethically wrong to test new drugs on pregnant women - but there will always be some women for whom the benefits outweigh the risks even of a new, less exhaustively tested drug and women who are given drugs before they are aware they are pregnant. Using new drugs in these circumstances is the only way to get any testing on the effects of drugs on pregnant women and their babies. The seasonal flu jab has been given to pregnant women in high risk groups (such as those with asthma) for a number of years - the fact that recommendation remains in place with an increasing body of evidence regarding long term effect suggests that, generically, it is pretty safe.

If we choose to never give a product untested on pregnant women to pregnant women then the only other option is to use nothing and keep your fingers crossed you don't catch the disease. Its the choice between a poorly quantified risk with known consequences (catching flu and developing complications when pregnant) and an unquantified risk with unknown consequences (having a jab when pregnant and it affecting the developing foetus).

The seasonal flu vaccine is produced to cover the 3 (IIRC) strains of flu considered to be most likely to be prevalent in the coming flu season - this year that includes SF. That is different to saying that they're taking the left over SF vaccines and using them up. I don't know whether squalene is included in the seasonal flu jab but the inclusion of SF is irrelevant to this issue.

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 13:17

I'm afraid one can be excused for having little faith in this argument when one notes that vaccine testing on children has always been product-on-the-market: in that clinical testing is completed on adults and safe amounts pro-rataed down for children by weight.

When concerns arise from product on the market testing they are dismissed and the complainants smeared.

If a pregnant woman decides to go ahead and in five years time her child has developmental difficulties there is zero chance that this outcome will be recorded in any way.

Tangle · 17/09/2010 14:56

So how would you, ethically, establish appropriate vaccination doses for children? I've got no personal experience of long term follow up from vaccination programmes - if that is an accurate description of the status quo then I agree there's a problem that needs addressing.

Ultimately, there is no hard evidence to quantify or qualify the risks of vaccination and, as such, the decision on whether or not to vaccinate will often come down to how much skepticism any individual has for the scientific process currently in place and how much trust they put in their government's public health policy and their HCP's advice.

Anyhow, this seems to be rapidly turning into a pro/anti vaccination debate, which I suspect isn't really what Cazzr was looking for and which I don't really want to get dragged into right now

Good luck making your decision, Cazzr - and fingers crossed you have a happy, healthy pregnancy :)

Appletrees · 17/09/2010 14:59

Likewise Cazz. No I agree it's not the place for it

Egwar · 13/10/2010 19:33

I'm 26 weeks pregnant now and just had my shot. I had it 2 seasons ago in my last pregnancy as well and both vaccines were thiomersal-free. Good to be sure, so I asked first. Just thought I should put in my two cents' worth :)

Egwar · 13/10/2010 19:42

Oh - and also Cazzr you're not being daft or silly. It's natural and healthy to be protective and careful :) You should be able to get the shot any time, not just at a special clinic. I think it's OK to wait if you want to as well, just don't wait until right in the middle of flu season!

Flip