TimesOnline has just published an article on the NEW swine flu vaccine - and recommends that pregnant women ask for this in addition to last year's if they had it.

[JosephineClaire]

Has anyone else heard this?

I had a swine flu vaccine at about 10 weeks - I'm now wondering if I need another at 34 weeks...

certainly more research needs to be done. But it doesn't seem to get done, partly because of the fear of saying something too controversial.

I agree it's not fair to have mothers living in limbo not knowing what is the right thing to do for their children.

Hard evidence one way or the other is what we all need I understand why that may never happen but I just find it sad that we're left to in effect gamble our childrens lifes and futures.

We all have to do what we feel is best but it's a very hard and unfair situation that mothers find themselfs in.

Absolutely. That's what upsets me too.

That's absolutely no reason why it can not be mercury poisoning. Mercury has been around since the year dot too. But routinely, in children of a certain age -- a different thing altogether. Autism can mirror very closely the symptoms of mercury poisoning. Though there are of course many many descriptors of autistic syndrome and infinite degrees of mercury poisoning.

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to mercury and thiomersal. It can't be denied.

Pofakked, the research isn't done for business reasons.

Who wants to find out that thiomersal causes problems? Certainly not the folks with large amounts of research money to throw around. Any such discovery would be financially catastrophic beyond all imagining for the vaccine manufacturers.

It was one of those manufacturers who threatened the MMR parents with legal costs deep enough to cost them their homes -- rather than spend the money on research.

The marketing and advertising budget of pharmaceutical companies is generally double that of their R and D budget. Why the hell they need charity money for cancer research beats me. They'll be taking those discoveries and patenting them and marketing them as too expensive for the NHS lottery in the end.

It stinks.

This is the information I received from the immunisation branch of the Dept of Health
"Most of the trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines for the 2010/11 influenza season do not contain traces of thiomersal. However, as outlined in the Chief Medical Officer?s Professional letter of 28 May www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_116943.pdf the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for Fluvirin (manufactured by Novartis) states that it contains traces of thiomersal that are left over from the manufacturing process."

The link is to the same document Superpenguin posted above & contains the following info:

"Pregnant women have not routinely been offered seasonal influenza vaccine in the past unless they were in a clinical risk group. However, there is good evidence that all pregnant women are at increased risk from complications if they contract the H1N1 swine influenza virus. In light of this, pregnant women in clinical risk groups will continue to be offered the seasonal influenza vaccine as usual. But in addition, those pregnant women who are not in a clinical risk group and who have not already received a dose of H1N1 swine influenza vaccine will also be offered the trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine once it becomes available. In the meantime, all pregnant women should continue to be offered the monovalent H1N1 swine influenza vaccine."

How helpful, Scarab : they point out that the trivalent vaccines do NOT contain thiomersal but forget to tell us that the monovalent swine flu vaccine most commonly used DOES contain thiomersal.

Yes, a glaring omission, Appletrees. Clearly the policy view is that anyone turing up for a vaccine should be administered whatever is available and to hell with any possible long term consequences.

The message I received also helpfully pointed out that "You may wish to note that there is no evidence of risk from thiomersal-containing vaccines, including for children, pregnant women and their offspring." - which I think is terribly misleading. If the makers of Pandemrix aren't confident enough to say in their leaflet that pregnant women can safely take the drug (instead they are told to consult their doctor), then how dare the DoH stretch it this far?

God that's a dreadful lie. There IS evidence of risk -- just not proof.

I think that's typical of the DoH.

Shocking.

Appletrees,

Again, what is the evidence? And, you again omit to say that you need to balance one (small risk) against a larger risk.

When you feed your child a peanut for the first time, you are taking a risk. However, are you saying that no children should ever eat peanuts?

Well I don't think that analogy is a good one, as peanuts can cause allergies. Thimerosal does not. However, there must be a reason why the DOH took it out of all baby jabs in 2004. I think it would be much better if, as a thimerosal free version of the jab exists, that this was offered to pregnant women.

Laryngyll: I'll do some links from pervious threads. You could look if you were interested, if you want to extend yr research beyond wikipedia?

Haven't omitted anything. You cannot balance the risks as you have no idea what they are. You don't know that it's a small risk, you don't know that the other risk is large or larger. You have no idea, neither do I, neither does the DoH.

I'd like to clarify a few points:

1. What we (pregnant women) are being offered (this year - autumn 2010) is the trivalent seasonal flu vaccine (which also protects against swine flu this year), NOT the monovalent swine flu vaccine.

1. As stated above, none of the vaccines being supplied this year contain thiomersal (except one, Fluvirin, which may contain traces of it).

1. Pandemrix is NOT on the above list.

Had the jab yesterday, am pleased I did as last time I had flu I was hallucinating with fever, aching like I'd been beaten with sticks, lost ten pounds with vomiting, became extremely dehydrated, had a blinding headache and that lasted for 2 weeks. After which I felt ill for a further 6 weeks and went down with every bug going until late March. And during the whole time I was able to self-medicate with hard-core flu remedies, nightnurse, codeine, ibrupofen etc

Since I am 30 weeks pregnant, use public transport in London, and have an immuno-compromised brother and sister, plus a DH who uses public transport, there is no way in hell I am about to risk getting flu again if I can help it.

I have weighed up the risks: there is no contest for me. Vaccine every time. Flu is horribly serious and can be fatal to mothers and babies. Trying to combine recovering from flu and early motherhood is also a recipe for horror, PND and exhaustion IMO.

I know it feels scary getting jabbed when pg but come on. Do the maths.

Actually check bCk up the thread. Pandemrix is being recommended in some circs by some health authorities.

Superpenguin - I think you're wrong about Pandemrix, my interpretation is that it is still being offered, until the trivalent vaccine is available.

It says: " those pregnant women who are not in a clinical risk group and who have not already received a dose of H1N1 swine influenza vaccine will also be offered the trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine once it becomes available. In the meantime, all pregnant women should continue to be offered the monovalent H1N1 swine influenza vaccine."

Pandemrix is the monovalent H1N1 vaccine.

Miffster - I'm glad you're happy with your decision, though I don't think it's sensible to ridicule anyone who has reservations.

After all, you have made your decision based on the known risk of getting flu against the unknown risk of long term side effects. That unknown risk could be a large risk of serious side effects, a large risk of minor side effects or a small risk. Or it could be risk free. However, it is still an unknown risk - so it isn't a 'no-brainer' to take the medicine like a good little girl.

The disgrace here is that women are being misinformed by the health authorities. The drug companies know it but they don't care because the govt has indemnified them against claims by recipients of the vaccine. That should raise concerns. The govt's best interests and yours are not aligned.

Women should be provided with accurate, clear information about what they are being given and should always have a choice of say a thimerosal free vaccine. If it's possible to have a thimerosal free vaccine, why wouldn't you want it? As you say, come on - do the maths.

I agree about having the flu jab in pregnancy, because when I was in my third trimester with dd I got flu [before SF came along] and was terribly ill with it. So really wouldn't like to risk SF when pregnant.

Appletrees,

Please tell me where you are coming from? What is your interest here? Are you a biochemist involved in vaccine research? If so, it would be really interesting to know.

I say the vaccine is a small risk in the sense that there is no clear link. Some people have tried to make a link but,certainly, epidemiological studies have shown no link. You have rubbished those but not explained why. Wikipedia is normally contributed to by experts in the field. And you have referenced Wakefield as someone who should be taken seriously (you previously said the experiment he had suggested had not been carried out). This kind of makes me sceptical.

Scarabeetle

Nowhere did I ridicule anyone.
Nowhere did I use the phrase 'no-brainer'

Please read what I actually posted. Oh, and I find your phrase 'take the medicine like a good little girl' patronising. Was it deliberate?

MIFFSTER - yes you did: "I know it feels scary getting jabbed when pg but come on. Do the maths." So anyone questioning the jab is just a frightened little petal who can't do her maths. That, sweetheart, is patronising.

I was just responding in the same tone.

I can see your reasons for getting the jab, completely - given how badly you suffered in the past. But you aren't everyone and other women will need to assess the risks based on their own circumstances. So don't just pooh pooh anyone who comes to a different conclusion.

In any case, what is so blinking controversial about what I am saying? Why shouldn't people be better informed and have the option of a thimerosal free vaccine.

Oh, and sorry, didn't mean to suggest you used 'no-brainer'. Obviously you didn't.

Do The Maths

Now compare that with maternal fetal morbidity caused by H1N1 and other seasonal flu vaccinations.

I am informed. That is why I chose to protect myself and my baby from flu. Because I did the maths, and looked at the data.

Yes it is scary, being injected with anything, when pregnant, but I repeat, it pays to do the maths. Your maths does not add up. You have provided no evidence. I will always go with evidence-based risk assessments and analyses. Sweetheart.

Well I did explain it. Very clearly. Which bit don't you understand?

Miniature I am supposed to be linking about the thiomersal replacement. Sorry.