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...

My last post was to Scarabeetle btw.

Nobody knows the risks: the assessments are worthless. You are not that well informed.

Yes, it is dangerous to get the flu when pregnant. That's not in dispute.

Whether you get the jab or not is entirely a personal choice - you're the one who has to deal with the consequences of getting it or not.

My maths don't add up? Hmm... well, my obstetrician certainly didn't think so. You know those conversations which go... 'If you were my wife, I wouldn't be telling you to get it...'.

I was pregnant last flu season, refused to take a jab with thimerosal in it, had the flu, got over it, had my baby, who thankfully, appears healthy- and now I'm not worried about the possible long term consequences of a drug I took while pregnant.

"It's actually frightening that so many women are not aware of the amount of pregnant woman and babies who end up seriously ill in hospital or losing their lives"

what is that amount?

Anyone considering Pandemrix may be interested to know that as reported in Wikipedia... (seeing as this is the resource of choice for certain posters above):

"The Swedish Medical Products Agency (MPA) and The Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) have began in Aug 2010 investigations about narcolepsy as possible side effect to Pandemrix flu vaccination in children."

see also: www.lakemedelsverket.se/english/All-news/NYHETER-2010/The-MPA-investigates-reports-of-narcolepsy-in-patients-vaccinated-with-Pandemrix

Sorry -that question was to boonoonoo and Coralanne...

Appletree, there is collected data from last year's pandemic. Pregnant women were proven to have a higher risk of mortality.

The narcolepsy link is very interesting. As it doesn't seem to have occurred with Celvepan, I am wondering why. Unless Celvepan was just used too little to compare.

"Pregnant women were proven to have a higher risk of mortality" how many died?

The only figure I can find is 2 (in the UK). Not sure if that is correct?

See Miffster's link DF.

I can't see in Miffster's link where it says how many women in the UK who were pregnant died from swine flu or flu in 2009. Am I being a bit blind?

The two cases I have found here the women died but gave birth to healthy babies beforehand.

Po: that is one risk. You cannot make a risk benefit analysis if you don't know the risks or the benefits.

Scarab: I didn't know about the narcolepsy. I think your analysis of the choice is good.

I'm finding it very interesting that on the "other" side of the argument there is quite a lot of "just do it, come on ladies, don't be silly, you don't understand, get the jab" whereas not one person who might be said to be on "our" side (pofakked you do an amazing balancing act on the fence!) says: do not do this.

I say I wouldn't: I wouldn't advise anyone what to do or not to do: as Scarab says, information is the key to choice, and without the information, it isn't really achoice at all.

Yes, but that is my problem, I see both sides of the argument and then proscrastinate endlessly. It is a big flaw of mine generally!

But given that we now know that the seasonal flu jab being offered now (and containing h1n1 vaccine) does not have thimerosal in it (and thanks to whoever found that out above), what is the perceived risk of having it whilst pregnant?

I would like to know if it contains squalene. If it doesn't I'd go for it.

Appletrees, don't worry. I've found out that Cervatrix doesn't have a preservative in it - though why some vaxes need one and others don't is a mystery to me.

Meanwhile I've written a v good letter to dd's school based on a brilliant sentence you suggested on a thread about the hpv vaccine - saying no to it. So I am indebted to you!

some jabs need a preservative if they are in a multi-use vial.

squalene though is an adjuvant not a preservative.

i'm intrigued!

Yes Pofak : so the non-squalene one would be less effective.

I still don't know about squalene.

I think with squalene if you don't get an immediate bad effect then it is ok. It is not something you have to worry about long term. I'm thinking about the research on mice that links squalene with inflammatory arthritis.

Po: I don't know about the immediate reaction but I suppose I agree a bit. I really know very little about squalene as adjuvant but I suppose in the vaguest possible way I would fear squalene > immune system difficulties (arthritis etc) while thiomersal > effects on brain development.

Obviously that is crassly put, and > doesn't mean any more than a possibility, but I suppose that's how I would perceive the different risks.

I should still think the risk from squalene is very small, generally. So many people had Pandemrix with no problems. But if you have a dodgy auto immune history I think it might be an issue, speaking as a lay person.

But we don't know the risk: and we don't know that it's "no problems" either. Are the children going to be followed up long term? Are their developmental milestones going to be checked?

I don't think they are. So that means it's not maths, or a calcuated risk, it's a shot in the dark.

That wasn't an intended pun but there we are.

well I suppose with all vaccines there has to be a risk/benefit analysis. And it is hard. but I do understand those that say there are known risks to SF and uknown theoretical risks with the jab, and make their decisions on that. As I said I think I would take a squalene free thimerosal free SF vaccine if pregnant. But it is terribly hard.

Squalene doesn't sound too bad (after a quick google!)

Now I just need to know... will it hurt?