Dr Hilary Jones on gmtv hmmm now what do I do?

[iateallthecreameggsyummy]

Ok had decided I would go ahead and have the Swine Flu jab once my surgery got in touch, then while led in bed this morning on comes Hilary Jones saying if his wife was pregnant he would advise her not to have it! Only 2 weeks ago or so he was saying all pregnant woman should have it!!

So now what do I do? and yes I am the sort of person who prefers information in plain english so I can understand, im not a medical type of person with no medical background. All I care about is will my baby be OK if I had the jab. Im 30 weeks right now.

I know we are all in similar positions as each other not really knowing what to do but after this conflicting advise im totally confused!

Sorry I prob sound really thick now

shiny It seems to be pretty much the same here in NL. Definitely not until 13 weeks but there isn't scaremongering in the media... in fact yesterday's radio article was about "chocolate letters M, P and S have gone wrong for St. Niklaas"!

skihorse I could just eat a choc letter although there are healthier breakfasts.

I wonder why the approach here and in NL differs so much to the UK approach I think maybe it is a personality trait they are very pragmatic and unflappable in the Benelux. Mexican flu hasn't been in the news here for a while to be honest. The good news is I have no decision to make and really feel for those women in the UK who have to decide.

Millymollymoo: "absolutely no vaccination is contraindicated in pregnancy because it's unethical to do trials in pregnant women so the truth is none of them have a clue whether it's safe or not, you are the trials."

Well that's not entirely true - they are using the same basis for the SF vaccine as for the normal annual flu vaccine (just changing the actual virus bit like they do with the normal one each year) and they have been giving the annual flu vaccine to pregnant women for a long time.

And MMM unless you are medically qualified I think you should be careful about saying people are unwise to take it. The worst that can happen is NOT a good dose of flu, the worst that can happen is dying from flu complications.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but there is no evidence that the jab is harmful and quite a lot of evidence that flu is harmful or possibly fatal!

I am not trying to minimise any concerns and I agree the jury is out - several of my family are medics and virologists and every one has a different view. But people need to stick to the facts when posting.

shiny Yes, you could nip out and get a hot waffel!

You're right - they do seem more unflappable about this sort of thing although my office has just put out antiseptic hand wash... but then you need to touch door handles anyway. I've just bunged some on my desk if and will use it before I eat/stick my fingers in my mouth.

Theyoungvisitor I am medically qualified and I still would not tell anybody what they should or shouldn't do.

The fact is nobody knows, full stop.

Well MMM if you are medic then I'm quite surprised that you're using 40 year old examples from a completely different virus, produced in a completely different way with a completely different effect on pregnant women.

The rubella debate is nothing to do with current vaccine technology.

I was using it as an example of the fact that nobody can predict the outcome of a vaccination in utro and that is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago.

But they have tested a lot of the components of the swine flu vaccine because many pregnant women have had the flu vaccine on which it's based, and they know quite a bit about the way the virus interacts with foetuses because of the number of pregnant women who have had swine flu.

Testing methods have completely changed in 40 years, in the 60s they were totally gung-ho about giving all sorts of untested stuff to pregnant women and that's simply not the case now.

The vector for this is well tested. Of course the debate is complicated and of course there's no right answer, but comparing modern vaccine technology to what happened 40 years ago is not helpful, and very distressing to women who've already had the vaccine and may be reading this thread, and saying things like "the worst that can happen is a good dose of flu" is frankly wrong.

Actually I did not say that at all, I said for none pregnant people a good dose of flu is all they are risking by having the vaccine, you are taking the comments completely out of context.

For a pregnant person the risks to be considered are altogether different.

I agree with theyoungvisitor. MMM, it's just scaremongering to quote random vaccination stories from 40 years ago and very disturbing for people (like me) who've already had the vaccination.

What about the other pregnant women 40 odd years ago before a rubella vaccination was available who contracted congenital rubella syndrome (CRC)and whose babies then often had combined sight and hearing loss as well as various other difficulties?

The point I'm trying to make is, you can always quote some scare fact or other to support your argument and I don't think it's helpful or useful to always highjack these topics with 'anti' vaccination agendas.

MillyMollyMoo - I have taken advice from medical consultants - both those I am seeing directly for my pg, and those in my own family. They are all unequivocal.

It is not an untested vaccine. The only 'new' bit as such is the dead H1N1 virus. The rest of it has been used for years as the regular flu virus, and has been given to pg women across a long period of time.

A pg woman who does NOT take the vaccine must be aware that the potential consequences are NOT just getting flu, but putting themselves and their baby at risk. I think this is often overlooked when weighing up risk - I've heard people say 'I won't take the risk of the vaccine', but they are not thinking about the potentially catastrophic risk of not having it.

The case of rubella vaccine will have used a live vaccine, which is a totally different kettle of fish.

And where are the published results of this knowledge they have of the effects of the virus on foetusews ?

As my MIL did 40 years ago, you have to look at the outcomes and make your mind up which is the risk you personally can live with.
With Rubella it was loosing an eye v's brain damage or death if she caught it.

Personally I am not going to have the vaccination, that is based on professional advice and personal preference, other people must make their own minds up.
But Dr Hilary wouldn't be playing any part in that decsiosn making process for me.

The most compelling evidence I have for the medical world's faith in the vaccine is that my cousin who is a GP, married to a hospital consultant, and 30 weeks pg has just had the vaccine.

MMM - you're posting on the pregnancy board for crying out loud... your response needs to be in line with that

Someone on another SF vaccine thread - in the SF topic posted a link to all reported side effects for both vaccines recorded since the vaccination programme came in... it includes a separate section for reports of side effects in pregnant women. I found it a reassuring read.

It's all about weighing up the risks of each scenario. And to me what swayed it was the risk to me from SF itself seemed greater than the risk from the vaccine - but I accept that having an underlying condition as well in many ways makes it a simpler decision. I think we can safely say if I got SF whilst heavily pregnant, due to my underlying condition, I would end up in a bad way... which would be bad for my babies and my 3 year old...

It is a DEAD virus. Unlike the rubella one that is used in vaccinations. A dead virus is enough for your body's immune system to recognise it and build antibodies, but is not active, and therefore will have no effect on the foetus.

I asked my DH (who is a doc) about this the other day, if I were pregnant (which I should be but m/c) would he want me to have the swine flu jab. He said yes. I am not entirely sure I agree with him as a layperson hearing lots of scare stories and I wouldn't have it in the first 12 weeks but he pointed out that whilst pregnant you have a supressed immune system so whilst you might feel all healthy and low-risk you are in fact high-risk of the flu turning nasty if you catch it and if you die the baby dies.

Sorry - your post still doesn't make sense to me.

Look, I'm not trying to say you are wrong to say there's a debate in the medical community.

What I'm saying is please, think about the fact that there will be pregnant women reading this who've had the shot and don't need unrelated scare stories.

Bloody hell! I am 30 weeks also and after a lot of research, posting on here and worry I have decided to have it.

My reasoning is that it seems as though a large number of pregnant suffer complications, end up in intensive or die from it. My lungs are already squashed and I get breathless very easily so I can see why.

I have a 17mo dd and would rather have the jab and not risk leaving her alone then not.

I think people just dont know what could happen so are being very careful with what they say and recommend. If it turns out that there was a nasty side effect to unborn babies it would come back on them for advising us to have it.

ok lots of different views just like all other threads really.

Well I am going to have the jab it makes sense to. Its to stessful wondering shall I or shant I!

Thanks for everyones input.

just read the thread title in Active Convos and started to snort

now off to read the OP.

Ive emailed GMTV, not sure what good it will do. But I have basically asked what his reasons are for now not recommending it. What an idiot.

Dr Hilary Jones, for example, is a twat.

Sorry OP. That is true if unhelpful. The man talks out both sides of his mouth.

I suggest you do as your gp says.

I am home poorly with SF, not pg. Judging from how awful I have felt over the last nearly 2 weeks, I would rather had taken the jab as I can't imagine being pg as well as feeling as awful as I did.

I hope this totally subjective POV helps rather than confuses you more.

I had the SF jab yesterday. I'm 31 weeks. I was undecided, but DH has had SF and he said to definately get it. He suffered terribly and he is a healthy bloke.
TBH I would much rather have the jab than the flu (even though my arm REALLY aches today)

I'm sure it was someone on here that said, would your family cope with the worst possible outcome? I have 2 DSs and would not want to leave them for the sake of a jab.

foxytocin is right about Dr Hilary Jones - there was been a LOT of complaints about his dubious advice on other matters.

I thought I read somewhere that any type of flu can be dangerous to the baby in pregnancy - specially in the 2nd trimester?

I thought that a link has been found between very high maternal temperature and brain development issues in the child in later life.

I had a feeling that's why they recommend the seasonal flu jab to pregnant women now.

That's one thing that sways me towards the vaccine - ok, you probably won't be in the tiny minority who die as a result of SF, but if you catch it and recover then your high temperature alone could have damaged the baby.

I know there's lots of speculation about the adjuvants in the vaccine being linked to conditions like autism, but I think catching flu in pregnancy is linked to similar conditions?

I've got to google this now as it's only half remembered from a couple of years ago.

I have no idea how robust this study was, it's the only thing I can find at the moment because everything I search for brings up Swine Flu links atm.

Maternal Flu Linked To Schizophrenia, Autism In Child