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...

Miniature,

Great,

"most of my children are totally unvaxed"

I just hope that you live in an area where the vaccine uptake is high enough that they can shelter under the shield of everyone else's vaccinations. So, what you are actually saying is that you are happy for other children to undergo vaccinations so that your children do not get measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus and meningitis. And that previous generations were vaccinated so that you and your children are no longer at risk of polio and smallpox.

If enough people think like you, though (and a fair few did over MMR), you will start to see some of those diseases come back, as measles is in certain areas.

Immunisation is one of medicine's triumphs and only the truly naive would believe otherwise. Sure, you can debate this particular vaccine and maybe you are happy to risk influenza but let us agree that, in general, immunisation has been a powerful force for good and that those recommending this vaccine are probably doing so for that reason.

Same point put more eloquently larry - my excuse is I'm posting at work on my phone

Jeely,

I could never do that on my phone! I am impressed.

Just never fail to understand the disrespect for science and scientists and the general embracing of alternative medicine and conspiracy theories.

Yet, most, when sick, run straight to a real hospital rather than their acupuncturist/ayurvedic therapist/homeopath. Slightly different but related point.

They will also be helping to spread the diseases amongst the rest of population

This is an important point. Immunisation programmes work when uptake is ~95%. This produces "herd immunity". Where uptake is less than 95%, the virus can take hold, the non-immunised acting as vectors, repeating the exposure of others and increasing the likelihood of infection and mutation.

If few people refuse the vaccine then they will probably be ok due to this herd immunity.
If more refuse it then herd immunity drops off and more people will be infected - including some who were immunised.

Ah but larry 'tis an iPhone! It can do everything except protect me from flu.

Yes it is a thorny issue, relying on society to protect unvaccinated children. I find that a difficult one. However there are some children who have serious reactions to jabs, and very often a doctor puts the reaction down to conincidence. This also helps to foster paranoia and fear. A more transparent system where reactions are acknolwleged and vaccine safety was much more stringent would help. This does not mean that we are not indebted to medicine for a vaccination programme that has wiped out so many fatal childhood diseases - it has - and I really don't like it when that is not acknowledged. But there should be a balance in approaching such a difficult issue.

The only thing I will say about Wakefield [and you're right I should obey my own rules] is that his study was never intended to be a statement on the general safety of MMR - it was a tiny study based on a small subset of children with gut issues - and it was the press that blew it out of all proportion [the same press that are now happy to call him a charlatan.]

Larrygrylls in 2009: "I enjoy a lively debate and sometimes state my point of view too aggressively. Re my previous thread, I do recall you becoming personal ahead of me, as it is something I rarely do.

"Anyway, I think Mumsnet is mainly for Mums and so this will be my last post on it. It has been fun and I have really enjoyed taking the other side of the general consensus, and there are some really fantastic posters on here. As a forum for parents (well mothers at least) it is of very high quality and I wish everyone the best of luck with their families in the future.

"All the best and, once again, apologies,

Laurence"

Apparently you changed your mind, Larrygrylls.

Well if we're playing that game minuture :

Appletrees 17th September a thread about flu jab In early pregnancy.

Add message | Report | Message poster  Appletrees Fri 17-Sep-10 09:39:05

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 look into it carefully.

So much for being so much better than the pro vaccine people for never telling people what to do.

WRT pg women having the flu - it has been mentioned the danger to the fetus during the course of the infection, but there is also some significant data that shows the danger persists into the child's adult life. When studying the data from the spanish flu epidemic they have found that the rate of heart disease in men who were in utero at the peak of the flu was 23% higher than the population average and it was 17% higher for women. They also found that, on average, the babies born during the spanish flu were shorter than the population average for other time periods immediately before and after.

Now that's not to say that the mothers having flu during pregnancy caused these things - just a large statistical correlation that cannot seem to be explained by any other cause, but it may be incorrect to say that the extent of the damage done by the flu virus to PG women and their fetus is limited to discomfort/fetal distress. It's also incorrect to say that women might be risking long-term damage to the fetus if they are vaccinated versus potential short-term damage from the virus. The reality is that there is a very good chance of long-term damage from the virus, and not a minor one either. To give you an idea for comparison's sake, in peer-reviewed, scientific study they have been unable to find a similar correlation between vaccines and ASDs.

Here's a good article on the subject. While I don't know that the flu jab is totally safe, a mother certainly needs all the information out there before deciding to take her chances.

Also from the article:

• Children born to women who had been infected with flu were three to seven times more likely to develop schizophrenia later in life.

I read this in the waiting room for a scan last week (topical, no?). Sucks... appparently none of the stuff that happens whilst pg is minor.

Schnauzer, that is truly pathetic.

It's interesting how vicious some posters have become when they realise their argument does not obtain, that it is not quite cogent enough to justify their supercilious and patronising attitude.

TBH this is quite different to what normally happens. Usually when their arguments are gradually decontstructed one gets the line "well I'm far too busy to discuss this with a bunch of mums all day" and off they pop.

Jeely et al: what are you afraid of? Why do open debate and calls for information frighten you so much?

Look at Tangle, who has engaged without this nastiness and come up with a very good link (sorry haven't had time to read it yet) which actually adds something.

Got to go but coming back.

LOL

Yes where was I. For example Larry, pasting on and on about epidemiological studies, what's wrong with them, why don't you like them etc. Explanation, extremely good explanation, is supplied, ignored, then finally, I presume read -- but instead of acknowledging there are jolly good reasons why those kinds of studies don't show the kinds of things he wants to believe they show, he just starts sort of name calling, well who are you to say this kind of thing. It's like he can't engage with it, just moves on to being insulting.

Angry children needing attention.

Heh, Appletrees

I love that you are all incensed about 'name calling' and 'being insulting' when you have just called posters who don't agree with you 'angry children needing attention', 'vicious', 'supercilious', 'patronising' etc etc.

There has been an open debate. Calls for information have duly been posted. Nobody is censoring you. Nobody is expressing fear that you are posting. Perhaps some people have posted in a way that indicates exasperation. It's an emotive subject, and a serious one too. The awful tragedy of what happened to Tangle should make that clear, the obvious distress and anxiety of some posters here battling with the decision should make that clear. You find people defending vaccines 'supercilious and patronising'; well, I'm sorry, you find it hard work to read what they say but it was your choice to come on here and try to persuade people not to get vaccinated and to risk flu instead. Or at least, to present them with frightening conjecture that contradicts NHS advice.

Information, hard data backing up the position of people who urge pregnant women not to get vaccinated against seasonal flu has been notably unforthcoming.

Information regarding the safety of flu vaccines, the efficacy of same, the lack of serious side effects and the seriousness of the effect of H1N1 flu on pregnant women and babies has been supplied.

Moaning that you don't like the tone of the thread is your perogative. As is putting forward your opinions about vaccination, Wakefield etc. However, on a public talk board, there will be consequences of doing that.

Personally, I think putting out evidence-untroubled frightening hypotheses and speculation to upset pregnant women who then may act on it and risk harm to themselves and their babies is immoral and wicked at worst, ignorant and dangerous at best. If you've nothing to back up the 'don't take the vaccinne' argument, I think it is more appropriate to keep quiet.

But that's just my opinion.

Appletrees It's interesting how vicious some posters have become when they realise their argument does not obtain, that it is not quite cogent enough to justify their supercilious and patronising attitude.

Oh the irony...

Appletrees where on earth have you got the idea that I and others don't like information? You have no decent information, which is the point. As I said before you are a danger to others as you are screeching 'panic!' 'conspiracy!''don't trust the men in white coats!' and unfortunately your scaremongering may have persuaded some pregnant women not to take the vaccine.

People making the decison not to take it should be basing that on their own proper reasoning and not the sustained rantings of an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist. And you do come across as a bit mad, especially when you accuse me, Larry etc of name calling when anyone reading the thread can see any of that came from you and your supporters. I give you schnauzer's 'bonkers' and your own 'unpleasant' and 'childish' comments.

I am pregnant and I will be having the flu vaccine. Not because I am blindly pro-anything, and it wasn't an instant decision, but because from research it was clear that while the risk to me and the baby from having the vaccine is unknown - though all the evidence points to it being very very low or nonexistent - the risk to us from flu is significant. Unknown does not mean high.

We know flu can kill, it has done thousands of times. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that vaccines have ever caused death or serious injury. So the decision seems pretty clear.

Am a bit fed up that everyone has had to repeatedly tell you this and it has just wound you up to even greater heights of anti-vaccine propaganda.

Jeely et al: what are you afraid of?

Dangerous loons like you spreading misinformation, fear, uncertainty and doubt. You are putting people's health and lives at risk.

You not a harmless poster offering genuine advice. You are dangerous.

ok, so maybe i've sunk to name calling, but I was provoked guv...

Tangle, I'm so very sorry for your loss. It was awful in the flu season last year, with the media going nuts and very little real information about the vaccines. What can I say, it could just as easily have been me or any number of my pregnant friends. I am so sorry.

Thank you for posting the information about the CDC study. It's good news, for sure. Had I read that last year, would it have swayed me? Well, probably not in all honesty. I likely would still have had concerns about messing with the developing baby's immune system enough to prevent me from getting the jab. That's just me.

I acknowledge the information provided by another poster on the possible risks of exposure to flu in utero. Yes, it is concerning.

To certain others, I'm bored by your belligerence. It's like watching a child having a tanty with their hands over their ears. Good luck.

Scarab, you took the words out of my mouth. I was just coming back to say this is what it feels like -- a tantrum.

I'm not incensed, I was actually intrigued by the direction of this thread when it became apparent that "don't be silly, you silly silly mums" (to paraphrase) wasn't going to be seen as a very forceful argument.

Instead of engaging, you just went for throwing the toys out of the pram without anything worthwhile to say at all.

This, for example, is bizarre: "Dangerous loons like you spreading misinformation, fear, uncertainty and doubt. You are putting people's health and lives at risk. You not a harmless poster offering genuine advice. You are dangerous."

You are frightened of something, that's for sure. None of the above is true, but you can't get your own way, so you scream and shout without making any sense.

Oh btw, the angry children needing attention earlier on were actually mine, and I was just explaining why I had to go!

However I do think as I say that the response here has been one big giant and rather unpleasant moue because some people won't bow to your greater ahem knowledge.

"immoral and wicked at worst, ignorant and dangerous at best" oh my goodness, I've only just read that bit

seriously, is this a new tactic? it's strange, we haven't seen that much of it before -- usually when faced down there's a general rush to the door with a "well I haven't got time to sit around talking to a bunch of mums about this"

It's not a 'tactic', I am not part of some vast conspiracy to suppress Teh Twoof.

It is, as I said, my own personal opinion. And I note you STILL have nothing to justify your attempts to put women off taking the seasonal flu vacinne, as per NHS advice.

I am a mum to be, who has taken the vaccinne to protect herself and her unborn son.
I am sister to a man who is immuno-compromised following a bone marrow transplant and at high risk of dying from flu, measles, or other infectious diseases.

I am still waiting for you to produce anything at all to back up your position that I, my child, my brother and anyone else at risk of becoming seriously ill from flu should not follow NHS advice.

In the absence of anything to back you up, I think you are peddling dangerous information - personally, as I have said, I think to and immoral at best, ignorant and dangerous at worst.

I do not say you are immoral, dangerous, wicked or ignorant but I think what you are doing on this thread is.

My personal opinion.

Faced down? Are you referring to yourself facing down people who have disagreed with you here?! Have to laugh at that.

As for having nothing worthwhile to say, have you read any of the stuff I and others posted about risks of flu vs risks of vaccine? And evidence? That is kind of the point of the thread.

Your behaviour has been so strange that I looked back at some of your posts on other threads and noticed you always jump on an opportunity to talk about vaccines - one statement along the lines of "MMR will have caused some of those cases of ADHD". Says who?

I have also noticed your tendency to get aggressive quickly when anyone questions you, not something I've seen in any of the people arguing that there is no evidence of vaccine damage.

What do you mean new tactics? I've never spoken to you before (not that I have tactics anyway) and I think daemon is a new poster. What are you on about, and why are you always going on about "a bunch of mums?". I am a mother-to-be myself.

I am going to bed now, not having been "faced down" by anyone and certainly not a conspiracy theorist with a unexplained fear/suspicion/hatred of modern medicine. Don't flatter yourself.