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...

Gosh haven't time right now to resond to all but this I must:

"There is NO solid evidence to be found of any link between flu vacinne and serious harm to a woman fetus or baby; there is speculation, often agenda-driven, there is 'what iffery' and 'what aboutery' and 'you cannot be certain 100%' stuff all over the internet - but no proper evidence of harm."

What do you mean, proper evidence? No study has been done. Remember this. No study has been done, can be done or is being done on the effects of thiomersal or swine flu vaccine on the developing foetus.

Pregnant women and their babies have not been followed up beyond birth. They are not going to be followed up. Are developmental milestones and immune system disorder rates being followed up, reported, prospectively?
No.

Unless you know this, you aren't able to make an informed choice. If people don't want you to know this, or even think about this, then you need to wonder about their motivation.

Scarab, thank you. This has become rather unpleasant! You are quite right, and daemon is coming across as rather childish.

Larry, I owe you no personal information at all. Take issue with my reasoning -- if you can. It's impossible to argue with allowing women to have more information which is less
misleading. This is what you seem to have a problem with.

Do I think Andrew Wakefield is a charlatan? What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

Privet, Pandemrix is being offered. Check back up the thread.

Tangle: you can't beat yourself up. This is so terrible -- who was it earlier up the thread that said the decision was totally thrust onto the parents, and people are ready to tell you to do it, but not take responsibility for what happens
afterwards.

Because when things go wrong with vaccines no one thanks you for your socially responsible sacrifice -- you are vilified, smeared, rejected, ignored, abused, accused. You have a real fight on your hands.

I don't say do or don't. I say I wouldn't -- but the most important thing is to be informed. The official line clouds the issue with fear, guilt, patronage, judgmentalism.

To have real clarity here, more information is always better.

Appletrees,

Nope you don't owe me or anyone else anything. However, If you do not say where you are coming from, people can draw their own conclusions about your agenda.

Why ridiculous re Dr Wakefield? His own profession thinks he is a charlatan. His research was deeply flawed, his samples contaminated. And, as for buying blood from children without their parents' consent, it does not get much worse than that concerning ethics.

Appletrees - thankyou, but its easier said than done. I think the hardest thing is to try not to revist the decision in the light of new information. It wasn't there at the time. We couldn't use it. We did the best we oculd. Plus I'm good at beating myself up about DD1 - maybe its me rather than the circumstance

Back to the research...
The CDC claim they have done research that follows up the effects of thimerosal containing vaccines given to pregnant women and babies. Its reported in the study CDC Study on "Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines and Immunoglobins and Risk of Autism". The main findings of the study were:

"This study found that children with any ASD conditions and those without ASD had similar ethylmercury exposures at the end of each exposure period from pregnancy to 20 months of age. Exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing immunizations during pregnancy (prenatally), or as a young child, was not associated with any of the ASD outcomes. The researchers found that the results were similar between boys and girls?thimerosal-containing immunizations did not increase the risk of any of the ASD outcomes" (their emphasis).

Children were between 6 and 13 when data was collected.

POFAKKED - hope this link works :)

I have no strong feelings on vaccinations in that i tend to follow medical advise but I have to take issue with this statement. Unless I have understood you wrong and you are not defending Andrew Wakefield.

Appletrees
Do I think Andrew Wakefield is a charlatan? What a ridiculous thing to suggest

He has been widely discredited and struck off after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct! I didnt have strong feelings about him either way beforehand but surely this, along with his findings having no basis, proves that he is a bit of a charlatan.

Tangle: thanks for the link

Larry: my agenda is clear: more information. What's so tough about that? Talking sinisterly about drawing your own conclusions is just irrelevant. Who cares? Take issue with the argument, not the credentials.

This problem with Andrew Wakefield is huge. Has anyone read "Callous Disregard?". I guarantee you would change your minds about him. I would bet large amounts of money on it. Until you read that, you are making a judgement based on poor, missing and misleading information, and there's no way I can take that seriously. You're underinformed.

Pandremix is not being offered anymore, it's the seasonal flu one now, which is what prompted the thread in the first place.

I am happier to go with the general medical profession and courts rather than a book that is based on the flawed results and science from the MMR studies.
This is weird territory that I just dont want to engage in so I am off.

Re. the disgraced Wakefield, who is apparently being defended by Appletrees.
I recommend looking at a review of 'Callous Disregard', the book defending Andrew Wakefield, written by... Andrew Wakefield.

The review is by Dr Harriet Hall aka the SkepDoc from the website

'Science Based Medicine'


The title of the book is taken from the GMC's finding that Wakefield had been 'dishonest, irresponsibile and showed callous disregard for the distress and pain of children'. He was struck off in May 2010 after a 2.5 year investigation by a GMC panel.

Appletrees What do you mean, proper evidence? No study has been done. Remember this. No study has been done, can be done or is being done on the effects of thiomersal or swine flu vaccine on the developing foetus.

Fear?
The repetition of the line ?No study has been done?, for emphasis: a common rhetorical device, which when combined with the next step seems to add weight to the argument.

Appletrees Pregnant women and their babies have not been followed up beyond birth. They are not going to be followed up. Are developmental milestones and immune system disorder rates being followed up, reported, prospectively? No.

Uncertainty?
No study has been done! OMG, that must mean it?s bad!
Has there been a study of the effects of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones on the developing foetus?
Would the absence of such a study mean that you would not use a mobile phone, or be in close proximity to somebody who does?
Perhaps the lack of such studies indicate more that the lack of even a causal link between the vaccine/mobile phone and long term effects on child, development after DECADES of their use, points to there being no link to study.

Appletrees Unless you know this, you aren't able to make an informed choice. If people don't want you to know this, or even think about this, then you need to wonder about their motivation.

Doubt?
This is the final link in the chain. What aren?t we being told? What are they hiding? It?s classic conspiracy theory stuff. The best bit is it all sounds perfectly reasonable. The kicker, questioning opponent?s motivation is a classic too, but of course we should take your motivation as read.

The fact is that your misinformation and conspiracy theories do not add anything to help mothers make and informed choice. At best they cloud the real facts, and at worst put people in harms way

Appletrees Scarab, thank you. This has become rather unpleasant! You are quite right, and daemon is coming across as rather childish.

ad hominem attacks? I?m childish therefore you must be the opposite?
And as for unpleasant! I find scaremongering and spreading lies to be deeply unpleasant and make no apologies for calling it out when I see it.

Appletrees Larry, I owe you no personal information at all. Take issue with my reasoning -- if you can. It's impossible to argue with allowing women to have more information which is less misleading. This is what you seem to have a problem with.

You are right about this? It is impossible to argue against allowing women more information which is less misleading. That?s why I am pointing out that this is precisely what you are doing.

Appletrees Do I think Andrew Wakefield is a charlatan? What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

He is a charlatan.
www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper

this thread is NOT the place to have a discussion about Andrew Wakefield. There are plenty of other threads in MN history that have discussed it, with expert knowledge on both sides. Andrew Wakefield has nothing to do with a discussion on SF and flu jabs.

and the idea that, if you do not accept Andrew Wakefield is a charlatan, somehow reduces you or exposes you in some way, is quite frankly ridiculous.

and the idea that, if you do not accept Andrew Wakefield is a charlatan, somehow reduces you or exposes you in some way, is quite frankly ridiculous.

I thought you said this is not the place to talk about Andrew Wakefield?

Pofakkeddthechair,

If, for instance, I worked for Glaxo and was being paid to post on here a defence of their vaccine, I would be very well informed but have an agenda, which would not make my posts disinterested.

Therefore, when one is looking at evidence, unless there is actually a mathematical proof, which is rare in any issues of safety, people's agendae as well as opinions are of interest to those reading them. If someone thinks that a man who has been struck off the medical register for dishonesty and poor research is not a charlatan, people can form their own opinions of the poster's views accordingly.

I have clearly stated where I am coming from and people can draw their own conclusions and listen to me or ignore me. Appletrees refuses to do the same.

Appletrees' view on Wakefield is entirely relevant to this thread as it exposes her general unfavourable disposition towards vaccines, which means everything she says about them should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

Someone mentioned a witch hunt earlier - appropriate reference as people were afraid of medicine and science then too.

Jeely: Wakefield himself doesn't have a "general unfavourable disposition towards vaccines" -- far from it.

Amusing thought that Wakefield is afraid of science and medicine

Personally I'm not in the least bit afraid of it -- I'm just not as credulous as you about the altruism of large corporate organisations.

I'm talking about you, not Wakefield. You also apparently believe girls shouldn't be taking the HPV vaccine, from miniatureschnauzer's comment about what you said on the subject. So I infer you are generally anti vaccine.

Appletrees, I'm so sorry to have called all this abuse down on your head from bonkers posters.

FWIW, most of my dc are totally unvaxed. My PFB had a single jab then a horrific reaction. None have been vaxed since. I needed the Cervarix info so that I could talk to dd about its contents, not so that I could make up my mind. I would not allow any of my dc to be vaxed. Happily dd's friend is also refusing the hpv vax on the grounds that it has not been properly researched. Nonetheless dd is v concerned about those of her friends who are going ahead with vaccination. This is similar to the way I feel; generally I keep quiet about my own choice, but every now and then it seems wrong to keep all the knowledge I have about vaxes and health to myself when other people are stumbling into it like sleepwalkers. Nonetheless the reaction by posters on this thread is a reminder why people like me keep our mouths shut.

I am appalled that some people are not researching the swine flu vaccination for themselves, just doing what the NHS says. There really is a need to understand the economic imperatives within the NHS.

I think Larrygrylls is being very stalkerish towards you, and I hope you don't feel bullied into giving away personal information so that he can stalk you some more.

Will everyone stop getting at Appletrees and concentrate on the rather valid debate here about the combined flu/swine flu vaccine? I think it's rather good that people who are contributing might be prepared to take their own views about some public health advice. Especially as it seems that individual views from those within the medical profession as to whether it's necessary to have the vaccine during pregnancy (and how many other vaccines are we recommended to take while we have a developing foetus inside us? er...none, as far as I know, and there's probably a reason for that...) seem to differ widely. (I'm not referring to the pharmacists etc. who've contributed to this debate; they have their own sometimes strongly-held views, and I'm sure they've weighed up the evidence as we pregnant women all have to).

I know my London GP hasn't notified me of the vaccine even having come in to the surgery. Yet they're doing the jabs this week and - being asthmatic - I'm in two high-risk groups. Might this indicate that they don't see it as quite as crucial as has been made out?

I'm still wondering where I stand on this, but perhaps my views are a bit tainted by the fact that in winter I always get chest infections associated with a high fever which are not attributable to flu and which there is no vaccine to prevent. All I can do about those is keep away from public transport, crowded places and my DP when he sneezes, take my pregnacare vitamins, and hope for the best. I'm not sure getting flu would be any different, though swine flu would. We still don't know whether it's a real pandemic.

I am appalled that some people are not researching the swine flu vaccination for themselves, just doing what the NHS says. There really is a need to understand the economic imperatives within the NHS.

Perhaps some people are doing their own research and finding that the misinformation and fear-mongering of the anti-vacc crowd are baseless at best, and at worst downright dangerous.

Fine, if that's what they conclude. At least they will have done the research.

Miniature,

Stalkerish? I am asking her for her agenda, not her address!

concentrate on the rather valid debate here about the combined flu/swine flu vaccine?

That's the point though isn't it? The "debate" is the same old stuff about the efficacy and safety of vaccines in general.
It's about debunking the myths, misinformation and falsehoods that always get peddled about any vaccine.

Appletrees is getting comments because she posts this rubbish.

The worst part of it is that it is presented as offering balance and the other side of the fence. It is presented as if they care about you and only want you to have all the information so that you can reach the right conclusion. Naturally the right conclusion is to agree with them and not use the vaccine.

Evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory is ignored, discredited information is peddled.

The storm that the discredited MMR/Autism link created caused a massive drop-off in uptake for the vaccine. What's happened since? Yep, measles outbreaks all over the country.

We have had DECADES of immunisation programmes, they work.

Yes it's your choice. I'm not going to force you to take the vaccine. I DO encourage all people to do the research. Look behind the anti-vaccine myths and misinformation!

Schauzers calls other people bonkers, then boasts that her own children are all-natural and entirely unprotected from disease. They will also be helping to spread the diseases amongst the rest of population.

Now who's bonkers?