Gransnet forums


Vaccine and Women of Child Bearing years.

(30 Posts)
Dawn22 Thu 03-Dec-20 23:17:47

Just a query.

Anyone have any thoughts on women of child bearing years taking the Vaccine when it does get rolled out. Thinking of the Thalidomide devastation during the sixties. Yes l know then it was a medication and not a vaccine but a vaccine is still a foreign body in a pregnant woman 's body. Have clinical trials factored in safe guarding in pregnancy or future potential pregnancy into it's extensive research l wonder and have they answers for us regarding the above.


V3ra Thu 03-Dec-20 23:45:51

Pregnant women are classed as "clinically vulnerable" and will not be offered the vaccine until after their pregnancy.

SueDonim Fri 04-Dec-20 00:06:21

Pregnant women and those planning to become pregnant in the near future will not be offered the vaccine. HTH.

Lillie Sun 06-Dec-20 08:46:59

There's bound to be a drop in the birth rate next year then. Many planning to become pregnant will have delayed it.

sodapop Sun 06-Dec-20 09:02:58

I understand the vaccine will not be given to pregnant women or those who are breast feeding.

Sunlover Sun 06-Dec-20 09:36:39

I was wondering about this too. All 4 of my daughters/ daughter in laws are either pregnant or planning babies in the next year or so. None are keen on being vaccinated.

NotSpaghetti Sun 06-Dec-20 09:40:16

The other posters are right. Pregnant women are not going to receive the vaccine.

M0nica Sun 06-Dec-20 10:12:26

The thalidomide tragedy happened about 50 years ago, had nothing to do with vaccinations and the testing procedures it went through before release would be considered grossly inadequate by modern standards.

Quoting thalidomide when worrying about this vaccination is as ridiculous as worrying whether sugar is safe to eat because in the 19th century it use to be 'extended' by adding white lead and other poisonous chemicals. to it

I am not saying that some thought needs to be given to giving the vaccination in some groups, but if comparisons are to be made they should be current and relevant.

Did you know that lead was added to cosmetics in the 18th century? I will never buy another item of cosmetics again!

MawBe Sun 06-Dec-20 10:21:22

Well said M0nica - honestly Dawn there are enough things to worry about these days without looking for extra unconnected risk
. “Child bearing years” is a heck of a long time - teens to forties - that would rule out a massive swathe of the population.

Ellianne Sun 06-Dec-20 10:27:16

I have some empathy with Dawn and her comments. The wellbeing of the unborn child is a timeless and universal worry, especially if you are the mother carrying it. Some people have a butterfly mind and concerns and anxieties run wild. It's no wonder bygone tragedies spring to mind sometimes.

MawBe Sun 06-Dec-20 13:32:57

If you are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy then the obvious thing to do is to take medical advice and to be cautious.
When my DD started a 5 year drug trial for Psoriatic Arthritis she and SIL were told firmly “No babies” and that if they wanted to consider having a baby, a 4 month wash out period was necessary before conception.
Hard when you are 30, newly married and ultimately hoping for a family.
7 years later they had their longed for little boy.
The vaccine will not at present be offered to pregnant women and any girl contemplating pregnancy would be advised not to have it at the moment, but there’s a lot more “of child-bearing age”.
NHS professionals, Care workers etc will have a decision to take and I hope the correct medical advice will guide and inform them.

grandtanteJE65 Sun 06-Dec-20 13:38:37

How about considering the risks of contracting Covid19 while pregnant or breast feeding?

The vaccine may well be safer than that!

NotSpaghetti Sun 06-Dec-20 13:48:18

It's not about whether it's safer grandtante it's about whether it's safe enough to administer.
They are still collecting data and intend to follow up for two years apparently.

M0nica Sun 06-Dec-20 14:28:30

It's no wonder bygone tragedies spring to mind sometimes.
Ellianne not when they are utterly irrelevant to the concern considered, if not down right misleading.

Ellianne Sun 06-Dec-20 15:05:16

Apologies M0nica I didn't realise the OP was trying to mislead and dupe us into discussion here. I was commenting about peoples' responses to any tragedy or disaster, and how the mind can run away with worry, particularly when one is pregnant.
Just to make it clear I am not an anti vaccer.

Wheniwasyourage Sun 06-Dec-20 15:52:16

Let's face it, the age-group of women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy is not going to reach the head of the queue for some time. Those of them who have serious medical conditions are going to need individual advice depending on their own circumstances.

GrannyLaine Sun 06-Dec-20 16:57:03

Current Government Advice (from the Green Book):

Pregnancy and Breastfeeding

There is no known risk associated with giving inactivated, recombinant viral or bacterial vaccines or toxoids during pregnancy or whilst breast-feeding (Kroger A et al., 2013). Since inactivated vaccines cannot replicate, they cannot cause infection in either the mother or the fetus. Although AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine contains a live adenovirus vector, this virus is not replicating so will not cause infection in the mother or the fetus. As with most pharmaceutical products, specific clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy have not been carried out.
Although the available data do not indicate any safety concern or harm to pregnancy, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine is formulated in lipid nanoparticles, and although studies with other mRNA liposome vaccines in non-pregnant animals do not suggest any problem is likely (Bahl K et al (2017), Liang F et al (2017), animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. Whilst testing of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in pregnant animals is undertaken, the MHRA has put forward a very precautionary approach. In addition to not vaccinating in pregnancy, MHRA advise that pregnancy should be avoided until 2 months after the second dose of vaccine. They also have advised vaccination should not be given whilst breastfeeding. MHRA have not advised performing a pregnancy test prior to offering vaccination.
JCVI recognises that the MHRA’s advice is based on the absence of evidence in pregnancy, and not on the presence of evidence to implicate toxicity in pregnancy. To appropriately reflect this stance, JCVI have advised that routine questioning about last menstrual period and/or pregnancy testing is not required before offering the vaccine. JCVI have agreed that those

NotSpaghetti Sun 06-Dec-20 23:11:01

* Grannylaine*
It goes on to say that women who may be pregnant who are being invited for vaccination should be able to access additional advice.

It also says that if
a woman finds out she is pregnant after she has started a course of vaccine, she should complete her pregnancy before finishing the recommended schedule.

And that high risk women and health care workers should be offered vaccine as soon as possible after pregnancy.

Termination of pregnancy following inadvertent immunisation should not be recommended.

Surveillance of inadvertent administration in pregnancy is being conducted for the UK by the PHE Immunisation Department, to whom such cases should be reported

These are the women which they will learn from. These vaccinated "early" pregnancies. The info I read said they would follow these women up for 2 years.

Fuchsiarose Mon 07-Dec-20 02:52:56

Do these women make babies on their own then? How is this vaccine going to impact on sperm in years to come.

M0nica Mon 07-Dec-20 10:56:49

is there any evidence that any vaccine has ever affected sperm production or quality?

Why should it.

Should we worry about the effect the vaccine might have on the environment? Does it affect soils or wildlife? is it linked to the current outbreak of bird flu?

For heavens sake. There is nothing special about the COVID vaccination that makes it uniquely different from any other vaccine.Even the speed of its development is not unique. Why, do people who cheered when they heard that a vaccination against Ebola was developed in under a year get so suspicious when the COVID vaccination was developed in a similar period of time.

This vaccination is just a vaccination, get over it and have it and stop straining at gnats while swallowing elephants.

NannyC2 Mon 07-Dec-20 12:22:05

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

M0nica Mon 07-Dec-20 12:51:18

Who made this application? What are their qualifications for making this application and what data did they submit to support their application.

DH was part of Phase 3 for the Oxford vaccine and I know others. Neither he nor any of the others have experienced ny side effects that caused concern to the recipients or the research team.

NotSpaghetti Mon 07-Dec-20 14:08:41

This is info I found relating to NannyC’s post:

It is not the full application as I’m busy today and haven’t had time to find it.

NotSpaghetti Mon 07-Dec-20 14:10:10

Oh, here it is:

Filed by the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg.

Alegrias2 Mon 07-Dec-20 14:48:36

That's Dr Yeadon who has said the pandemic was over in the summer and we didn't need restrictions any more, and Dr Wodarg who said the restrictions were just "hype" based on selective perceptions of researchers and who has been suspended from the board of Transparency International, an NGO combatting global corruption?

Maybe its just me, but I don't think they are trustworthy in these matters.....