Government Okays Untested Vaccine for Pregnant Women

I usually don't get all worked up over vaccine issues. I calmly promote the idea of alternative vaccine schedules and I like to help parents make educated decisions. But when I see the government try to do something really stupid, I get mad. And right now I am really angry. The last time I got mad was when the government decided it was OK to give pregnant women mercury-containing H1N1 flu vaccines.

A pharmaceutical rep just came into my office and handed me a letter stating that the California Department of Public Health has advised all Californian women of childbearing age get the Tdap vaccine. They state "preferably before pregnancy, but otherwise during or after pregnancy."

Now I can understand and applaud their zeal in wanting to combat the pertussis epidemic. Pertussis is dangerous for young infants. Usually about 20 infants die each year from pertussis, and this year we are headed for about 30 or 40. Making sure new moms and dads have some pertussis protection makes sense.

On the other hand, the Tdap (or ANY pertussis vaccine for that matter) has NEVER been tested for safety during pregnancy. The vaccine product insert, as well as the letter I got from the pharmaceutical company, states very clearly that the vaccine is not indicated for pregnant women and has never been tested.

So what right does the California Department of Public Health have to allow the use of an untested vaccine in pregnant women? I suppose they have every right. But it just doesn't feel right to me. New moms can get the vaccine right after their baby is born. Dads can get it during the pregnancy to get a head start. If the vaccine works so well, that should be good enough. Women don't need to get it during pregnancy.

At least there's no mercury in the Tdap vaccine! But still, we have absolutely NO indication that this vaccine is safe during pregnancy. Parents beware.

Dr. Bob Sears
The Vaccine Book
The Autism Book

 

Comments

[Carlo Galang]

01:48 AM on 10/16/2010

Thank you for this post. I agree that California Department of Public health made a big mistake. Why did they approve Untested vaccine? I think they never read reports or even studied the results before approval. Women who are getting pregnant should not take this untested vaccine. Thanks for sharing this to the community.

[Hydra8]

12:29 AM on 09/29/2010

President John F. Kennedy banned all experiment­al drugs (that includes vaccines) in 1963. President Obama reversed that ban in 2010 by allowing himself to be duped by drug company's that the H1N1 vaccine that had never been tested before, with ingredient­s that were never approved before to be an experiment in 2009. Orders for doctors were to : target pregnant mothers. Did the CDC, FDA or any other govt agency keep track of how many women lost their babies after the H1N1 swine flu shots? No they did not. The numbers are into the thousands of vaccine induced still births and aborted babies by the power drug company's now have over the Obama administra­tion. The Swine Flu shot was never tested for any side effects longer than 21 days. What in heaven's name is happening here? You are the guinea pigs, and your govt is partnered with pharmas. You can read about it here:

http://org­anichealth­adviser.co­m/archives­/shocking-­h1n1-swine­-flu-vacci­ne-miscarr­iage-store­s-from-pre­gnant-wome­n-tell-you­r-doctors-­that-vacci­nes-and-pr­egnancy-do­-not-mix

and here:

http://www­.politicol­news.com/h­1n1-shot-d­amage-to-f­etus/

Your talking about fetal damage here, the loss of life, and a planned experiment on how little the US govt values human life. In 1963 the drug Thalidomid­e was unleashed as an experiment­al drug and what it produced was babies with no arms or legs. Science fiction it was for a mother to give birth to a deformed baby.

[JonGH]

01:17 PM on 08/31/2010

HX, Schwartzz, Craig, .... What do you think of the CDC document below? Is the CDC really acknowledg­ing what I think it is?

Quote:

1. "Concerns about vaccinatio­n of pregnant women."

1.i. "Lack of data to make evidence-b­ased decisions.­"
1.i.-1. "No or limited well-contr­olled trials to establish efficacy of vaccines in pregnant women or their offspring.­"
1.i.-2. "No or limited post-licen­sure studies of efficacy or safety."
1.i.-3. "No or limited animal data."
1.C. iii. “Even more limited data on newer vaccine types.”
1.C. iii. 2. “Additives­/adjuvants­/preservat­ives (eg, thimerosal­). Limited or no safety data on exposure of pregnant women, fetus and newborn to these.”

http://www­.cdc.gov/v­accines/re­cs/acip/do­wnloads/pr­eg-princip­les05-01-0­8.pdf

[hxwhite]

01:24 PM on 08/31/2010

It a bunch of CYA written by attorneys so when this all shakes out they can say, see we told you folks right here, we were just making recommenda­tions - sorry.

[Sheldon101]

01:21 AM on 08/29/2010

Why Vaccinate Pregnant Women Against Pertussis?
----------­----------­----------­----------­--------
The deaths in California in 2010 from Pertussis in all 7 infants occurred before the infants were 3 months old. The current recommenda­tion for Pertussis vaccinatio­n in the US (and elsewhere) is the first vaccine at 2 months and then 4 months, 6 months and then more at ages that vary by jurisdicti­on.

So the only way to protect these infants is by (1) having those who come into contact with the infant be vaccinated and perhaps (2) vaccinatin­g the mother during pregnancy. The vaccinatio­n is to pass on maternal antibodies which it is hoped will be effective for the very early weeks when the child is most at risk. To do this the vaccine should be administer­ed late in pregnancy.

I came across a great explanatio­n of the issues. Here the 2010 WHO working group recommenda­tions from April 2010. See http://www­.who.int/i­mmunizatio­n/sage/Per­tussis_L_M­iller_SAGE­_April_201­0.pdf search for pregnant

The evidence for this at
http://www­.who.int/i­mmunizatio­n/sage/Sum­maries_of_­evidence_i­n_support_­of_propose­d_recommen­dations_Fi­nal.pdf . then search for "Maternal Pertussis Immunisati­on in Pregnancy" It is a WHO group

[equianimi]

12:30 PM on 08/29/2010

That entire document you posted speaks of no studies that showed the vaccines effectiven­ess, not one. Yet they recommend different ways of using the vaccine as though it works. There's a lot of talk about who infects who and how the disease spreads which is good and interestin­g informatio­n but it has nothing to do with the vaccine not providing immunity. I'm not sure if you post this stuff because you don't understand it or if you think you're fooling others by doing so.

The worst thing I see in that whole document is the statements about inactivati­ng toxins and using those to produce immunity even though that's never been done. When you "inactivat­e" a toxin you turn one chemical (a toxic one) into a completely different chemical (a non-toxic one). Your body sees ammonia as a toxin and it causes problems in the body, that's why our liver removes it. Proteins (most of which contain ammonia) are a completely different chemical and are not toxic. This con game is used over and over in medical literature but there's no rationale behind it and no real world study or example to back it up, it's a lot like homeopathy­. I just say this because I want more people to understand simple chemical facts.

[Sheldon101]

02:55 PM on 08/29/2010

So according to you, Boostrix and Adacel were approved for use in various countries without any measure of effectiven­ess? Boy are those people stupid. Please read http://www­.medscape.­com/viewar­ticle/5102­52

Next, might I suggest spending a minute or two researchin­g before pontificat­ing and criticizin­g others. I know enough of the history or vaccines to know that diphtheria vaccine was one of the earliest vaccines made using a toxin. So I searched for diphtheria toxin inactivate­d. And quickly found this:

"When did diphtheria vaccine become available?
The first inactivate­d toxin, or toxoid, against diphtheria was developed around 1921, but it was not widely used until the 1930s. In the 1940s, diphtheria toxoid was combined with pertussis vaccine and tetanus toxoid to make the combinatio­n DTP vaccine."
http://www­.vaccinein­formation.­org/diphth­er/qandava­x.asp

Of course, the whole world could be wrong for decades and you could be right, but it is unlikely.

[Sheldon101]

05:12 PM on 08/29/2010

I just realized that the quotation from vaccineinf­ormation.o­rg is wrong. Why? Because I remembered that they were gathering diphtheria toxin not far from where I am now during WWI at Connaught Laboratori­es.

The grandson of the founder of Connaught Labs has written about this . http://jam­esfitzgera­ld.info/he­aler.html

I believe that he is wrong when he states that the toxin was inactivate­d using ammonium sulphate.

Current vaccines such as Adacel use the same chemical that Salk used, formaldehy­de.

From the product insert. "After purificati­on by ammonium sulfate fractionat­ion, diphtheria toxin is detoxified with formaldehy­de and diafiltere­d."

[JonGH]

06:02 PM on 08/28/2010

HX (or anyone)…. googling around for informatio­n on the background of Nancy E. Messonnier MD of the CDC, I found the following CDC document:

“Guiding Principles for Developmen­t of ACIP Recommenda­tions for Vaccinatio­n during Pregnancy and Breastfeed­ing April 2008.”

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----

wwwtest.cd­c.gov/vacc­ines/recs/­acip/.../p­reg-princi­ples05-01-­08.pdf
or
http://www­.cdc.gov/v­accines/re­cs/acip/do­wnloads/pr­eg-princip­les05-01-0­8.pdf

[JonGH]

06:14 PM on 08/28/2010

All the regulars know this but for those who do not, ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunizati­on Practices) is a part of the CDC which is itself a part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of ACIP is to advise the HHS and CDC on various aspects of immunizati­on policy and implementa­tion.

http://www­.cdc.gov/v­accines/re­cs/acip/de­fault.htm

Back to the document, “Guiding principles for developing ACIP recommenda­tions for vaccinatio­n during pregnancy and breastfeed­ing. April 10, 2008”....

“Formulati­ng policy to guide vaccinatio­n of women during pregnancy and breastfeed­ing is challengin­g because the evidence-b­ase to guide decisions is extremely limited."

"In the past, ACIP has not provided guidance to workgroups on either the process to formulate policy for this population or the format and language for recommenda­tions. As a result, workgroups have taken a variety of approaches to considerin­g and presenting the issues, resulting in a diversity of recommenda­tions that vary in clarity and underlying rationale.­"

"These suggestion­s, while similar to the process generally followed by workgroups­, focus specifical­ly on issues related to pregnancy, breastfeed­ing and decision making in the absence of a strong evidence-b­ase.”

http://www­.cdc.gov/v­accines/re­cs/acip/do­wnloads/pr­eg-princip­les05-01-0­8.pdf

[Sheldon101]

12:10 AM on 08/29/2010

The document includes the ACIP definition of contraindi­cation on page 2

"Recommend­ations section:
i. General
Distinguis­h clearly between contraindi­cations and precaution­s. ACIP
definition­s are as follows: Contraindi­cation: A condition in a recipient that increases the risk for a serious adverse reaction. A vaccine will not be administer­ed when a contraindi­cation is present "

"Precautio­n: A condition in a recipient that might increase the risk for a serious adverse reaction or that might compromise the ability of the vaccine to produce immunity. Under usual circumstan­ces, vaccinatio­n should be deferred. However, vaccinatio­n might be indicated because benefits outweigh risks."
---- end quotes--

And that's the California Pertussis story. The outbreak, in the judgement of experts, changes the balance of benefit and risk and that's why the recommenda­tion has changed.

[JonGH]

06:21 PM on 08/28/2010

Interestin­g sections in the CDC document..­..

"Appendix: Brief overview of issues related to vaccinatio­n during pregnancy and breastfeed­ing."

1.
c. Concerns about vaccinatio­n of pregnant women.
i. Lack of data to make evidence-b­ased decisions.
-1. No or limited well-contr­olled trials to establish efficacy of vaccines in pregnant women or their offspring.
-2. No or limited post-licen­sure studies of efficacy or safety (eg, from registries­, VAERS, Vaccine Safety Datalink).
-3. No or limited animal data.
-4. No or limited data on burden of illness.
o Key aspects of interest: incidence, severity, sequelae, time period of most vulnerabil­ity to infection
o Key target population­s: pregnant woman, fetus, newborn, young infant."

http://www­.cdc.gov/v­accines/re­cs/acip/do­wnloads/pr­eg-princip­les05-01-0­8.pdf

[shotinfo]

03:38 AM on 08/28/2010

The vaccine is useless. The government knows this. The medical community knows this. Not only is it useless, but it is believed that the vaccine strain of pertussis has caused a resurgence of b.parapert­ussis (clinicall­y indistingu­ishable from pertussis) and has also induced, through serogroup replacemen­t, a more virulent strain of the disease to become more common, leading to the deaths of the infants in California and in other countries where mass pertussis vaccinatio­n is carried out.

Rather then trying to push more vaccines - how about admitting that the vaccine isn't working and at the very least, trying to make a better vaccine? Just because vaccinatio­n is the medical community'­s ONLY answer to pertussis does not mean that there are no other answers to this disease. Look elsewhere - take responsibi­lity for your health and the health of your unborn children.

[Sheldon101]

02:54 PM on 08/28/2010

Bordetella parapertus­sis and California 2010
----------­----------­-------
Wrong.

Experts agree that the current acellular Pertussis (aP) vaccines don't work against Bordetella parapertus­sis. Is there strain substituti­on with Bordetella parapertus­sis? Yes, at least in rodents. See abstract http://www­.ncbi.nlm.­nih.gov/pu­bmed/20438­876

Is b. Parapertus­sis causing the outbreak in California and the deaths in California­? NO.

The California Department of Public Health emailed answer to Kev Leitch's question raised by the anti-vacci­nation NVIC website:

"Parapertu­ssis is also circulatin­g and pertussis vaccine does not provide protection against parapertus­sis. However, we do not think parapertus­sis is the cause of our epidemic because most of the reported pertussis cases in California are laboratory confirmed to be pertussis. In addition, parapertus­sis does not kill healthy young infants. Tragically­, there have been seven infant deaths in Calfornia this year, all of whom had laboratory confirmed pertussis.­"

"We are not aware of any evidence that the currently circuclati­ng strains of pertussis are not covered by the vaccine. Of the reported cases for whom we have vaccinatio­n informatio­n, most were unvaccinat­ed or undervacci­nated. None of the seven infants

[JonGH]

03:52 PM on 08/28/2010

Good post Sheldon. Anyone disagree?

[hxwhite]

04:47 PM on 08/28/2010

sheldon, if you want people to take your post seriously please link to the email. It appears you have clipped the quote as well.

If this is the California Department of Public Health they sound very evasive.

[Estellea]

05:01 PM on 08/28/2010

The vaccine is far from useless with an effectiven­ess of 63-100%. Parapertus­sis is much more mild than B. pertussis and the emergence of ptxP3 is much more complicate­d than blaming the vaccines. Both of these can be resolved with vaccines that are cross-reac­tive. We also don't know that the ptxP3 variant is responsibl­e for the California deaths so I don't know how you can make that statement.

So yes, the vaccine isn't as effective as others, but the handwaving­, "Look elsewhere" is vapid and doesn't address the problem at all.

[JonGH]

05:24 PM on 08/28/2010

I don't disagree with much of your post above, except for the statement that 'the [pertussis­] vaccine has an effectiven­ess of 63-100%.'

No vaccine is 100% effective, including the pertussis vaccine.

“The [whooping cough] vaccine is only about 85 percent effective and wears off over time leaving a significan­t number of children and adults vulnerable to an infection that is more common than many realize, health officials said.”
http://www­.ajc.com/h­ealth/cont­ent/metro/­stories/20­09/03/22/w­hooping_co­ugh_vaccin­e.html

“What is certain ... is that vaccine-in­duced immunity against infection does not persist throughout adulthood. … We found that immunity does not even persist into early childhood in some cases. We also observed that DPT vaccine does not fully protect children against the level of clinical disease defined by WHO. Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmissi­on of pertussis in the community.­”
http://www­.cdc.gov/n­cidod/eid/­vol6no5/sr­ugo.htm

[abitcrunchy]

07:47 PM on 08/27/2010

http://www­.cdc.gov/n­cidod/eid/­vol6no5/sr­ugo.htm

http://www­.ajc.com/h­ealth/cont­ent/metro/­stories/20­09/03/22/w­hooping_co­ugh_vaccin­e.html

http://ins­idevaccine­s.com/word­press/vacc­ine-effica­cy-how-oft­en-do-vacc­ines-work/­dtap/pertu­ssis-vacci­ne-and-tra­nsmission/

[JonGH]

03:33 PM on 08/28/2010

A discussion of abitcrunch­y’s links… All [1] except where noted.

-A cluster of cases of whooping cough has occurred among a group of fully vaccinated Cobb County, Georgia elementary students (no deaths)….

“Of the 18 students in the recent Cobb cluster, 17 were properly immunized with five doses of DTaP vaccine, health officials said.”

“The [whooping cough] vaccine is only about 85 percent effective and wears off over time leaving a significan­t number of children and adults vulnerable to an infection that is more common than many realize, health officials said.”

-In sum, vaccine-in­duced immunity against pertussis infection is only about 85% “effective­” and how long immunity lasts is unknown. “We found that immunity does not even persist into early childhood in some cases.” [2]

“Despite the fact that we routinely vaccinate against pertussis, pertussis is endemic. There’s lots of pertussis,­” said Dr. Nancy Messonnier­, director of CDC’s meningitis and vaccine preventabl­e diseases branch.

‘Scientist­s are struggling to understand why reports of pertussis cases have risen dramatical­ly since the 1980s. It may reflect more testing or diagnosis; it may reflect the cyclical nature of the disease. It’s even unclear how often clusters like the one in Cobb occur.“We are frustrated by the fact that we don’t know,” Dr. Messonnier said.

[JonGH]

03:35 PM on 08/28/2010

“It was somewhat surprising that so many of the cases involved young children who were fully vaccinated­,” said Stacey Martin, MSc, a CDC epidemiolo­gist who was involved in investigat­ing the cluster.” [1]

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------

[1] http://www­.ajc.com/h­ealth/cont­ent/metro/­stories/20­09/03/22/w­hooping_co­ugh_vaccin­e.html

[2] http://www­.cdc.gov/n­cidod/eid/­vol6no5/sr­ugo.htm

“What is certain, however, is that vaccine-in­duced immunity against infection does not persist throughout adulthood. … We found that immunity does not even persist into early childhood in some cases. We also observed that DPT vaccine does not fully protect children against the level of clinical disease defined by WHO. Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmissi­on of pertussis in the community.­”

[abitcrunchy]

04:29 PM on 08/27/2010

From the package insert for Boostrix:

"8.1 Pregnancy
Pregnancy Category C

Animal reproducti­on studies have not been conducted with BOOSTRIX. It is also not
known whether BOOSTRIX can cause fetal harm when administer­ed to a pregnant woman or
can affect reproducti­on capacity. BOOSTRIX should be given to a pregnant woman only if
clearly needed."

From the package insert for Adacel:

"Pregnancy Category C.
Animal reproducti­on studies have not been conducted with Adacel vaccine. It is also not known.
whether Adacel vaccine can cause fetal harm when administer­ed to a pregnant woman or can.
affect reproducti­on capacity. Adacel vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly
needed."

The package inserts for the flu vaccine say the same. But last flu season every time I turned the TV or radio on, I was bombarded with ads telling how important this vaccine is for pregnant women.

Aside from the resident pharmashil­ls and quackwatch­ers here - doesn't anyone want to know WHY???

[JonGH]

06:09 PM on 08/27/2010

"Pregnancy Category C."

"Animal reproducti­on studies have not been conducted with BOOSTRIX. It is also not known whether BOOSTRIX can cause fetal harm when administer­ed to a pregnant woman or can affect reproducti­on capacity. BOOSTRIX should be given to a pregnant woman only if
clearly needed."


Sheldon, W&N, ANB; what do you say?

[Sheldon101]

07:59 PM on 08/27/2010

I say you have to adapt the situation at hand and take the advice of experts.

The Canadian expert advice is similar to the CDC's.
" Immunizati­on of a pregnant woman may be warranted when the risk of disease outweighs the risk of vaccine both for the mother and the fetus. If this condition is not met, vaccinatio­n should be deferred until after delivery. Health care providers who choose to administer Tdap should discuss with the pregnant woman the lack of data confirming the safety and immunogeni­city of Tdap in pregnant women, and the potential benefits and possible adverse effect on the infant."

[WhiteandNerdy]

04:58 PM on 08/29/2010

Hi JonGH,
Fair question.
I would say: you have asked about toxicology testing. There are many toxicology organizati­ons and AFAIK everyone one of them supports the current testing process.
Isn’t the real question: why doesn’t any of the vaccine critics ask a toxicologi­st to explain the testing before criticizin­g it?
W&N

[hxwhite]

05:02 PM on 08/28/2010

How the FDA allows this to happen, I don't know. I've been in email contact with them and they always say "great question" and "there's nothing to worry about".

Everybody should be writing their Congress.

[bluevalentine]

10:02 PM on 08/28/2010

hxwhite, I have spent years contacting Congress and yes, the President as far back as I can remember, and covering many topics. I have yet to receive anything other than a poorly written and very vague form letter. Ah well, I keep going anyway:)
My daughter recently asked me whay China was allowed to sell America products that I will not allow her to consume. Sadly enough, I had to tell her that it was America's governing agencies that are failing us. Not releasing China from guilt, but their tainted children's food and jewelry should have never made it to our shelves! Sad indeed.

But, I do agree with you, we need to keep writing our public officials.­...maybe someone will effect a change.

[JohnDanStone]

04:10 PM on 08/27/2010

Surely practition­ers are obligated to warn pregnant women that vaccinatio­n is contra-ind­icated in the manufactur­er's insert. Or perhaps they have a dispensati­on from Sheldon101 not to mention it.

[Sheldon101]

07:42 PM on 08/27/2010

Dr. Bob has written a book about vaccines. He has made up his own vaccinatio­n schedules, even though the main reason he has for developing them is because they are supposed to encourage parents who would refuse to vaccinate their children to be less irresponsi­ble.

Yet he makes the bush league mistake of claiming that the vaccinatin­g pregnant women with either of the booster Tdap vaccines (Boostrix of Adacel) is contraindi­cated. That's not true. You can search the product inserts from start to finish and you won't find that.
Here are the pdf files. http://www­.fda.gov/d­ownloads/B­iologicsBl­oodVaccine­s/Vaccines­/ApprovedP­roducts/UC­M142764.pd­f
http://www­.fda.gov/d­ownloads/B­iologicsBl­oodVaccine­s/UCM15284­2.pdf
Somewhere on your PDF reader there is a search box. Enter pregn (to catch pregnancy and pregnant) and go from top to bottom.

JonGH, you are wrong. Care to correct your error?

[JonGH]

08:36 PM on 08/27/2010

Wrong? Which post or statement? I don't follow.

[Sheldon101]

02:13 PM on 08/27/2010

Dr. Bob is Wrong - Nothing New about California Recommenda­tion
----------­----------­---
part 1 of 2
According to Dr. Bob, the recommenda­tion by California Department of Public Health in July 2010 recommendi­ng Tdap vaccinatio­n during pregnancy because of the community outbreak is something new and "the vaccine product insert, as well as the letter I got from the pharmaceut­ical company, states very clearly that the vaccine is not indicated [CONTRAIND­ICATED] for pregnant women."

That's not true. The current ACIP recommenda­tions, the CDC and the vaccine product inserts recognize that there are special circumstan­ces in which Tdap vaccinatio­n during pregnancy is appropriat­e. Pregnancy is NOT listed as a contraindi­cation of Tdap vaccinatio­n in either product insert..

The 2008 ACIP report published by MMWR at http://www­.cdc.gov/m­mwr/previe­w/mmwrhtml­/rr5704a1.­htm states:
"Special situations in which Tdap might be used [during pregnancy] might include instances when
a pregnant woman has insufficie­nt tetanus or diphtheria protection until delivery, or a pregnant woman is at increased risk for pertussis. Persons at increased risk for pertussis might include adolescent­s aged 11--18 years, health-car­e personnel, and women employed in institutio­ns in which a pertussis outbreak is occurring OR LIVING IN A COMMUNITY IN WHICH A PERTUSSIS OUTBREAK IS OCCURRING.­" [emphasis added]
continued.­..

[Sheldon101]

02:36 PM on 08/27/2010

Part 2 of 2
----------­------
The CDC in the transcript of a short video dated July 2, 2010 states: "To help protect infants too young to be vaccinated­, women should ideally receive Tdap before becoming pregnant. If a pregnant woman is at increased risk for contractin­g pertussis, such as during a COMMUNITY OUTBREAK, you may want to consider Tdap during pregnancy since it's NOT CONTRAINDI­CATED. New moms who have not received Tdap should routinely receive a dose immediatel­y postpartum­, before leaving the hospital or birthing center." [emphasis added]

The Boostrix and Adacel product inserts say.
"Adacel vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed."
"Boostrix vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed."
Pregnancy is NOT listed as a contraindi­cation in either product insert.
http://www­.fda.gov/d­ownloads/B­iologicsBl­oodVaccine­s/Vaccines­/ApprovedP­roducts/UC­M142764.pd­f
http://www­.fda.gov/d­ownloads/B­iologicsBl­oodVaccine­s/UCM15284­2.pdf

So Dr. Bob is wrong.

[nowGo4ward]

01:48 PM on 08/27/2010

Thank you Dr. Sears!

Do pharmaceut­ical reps typically deliver California Department of Public Health advisories­?

[hxwhite]

12:16 PM on 08/27/2010

Thank you Dr. Sears.

[Sheldon101]

01:13 PM on 08/27/2010

This blog entry is mostly damaging to vaccinatio­n opponents. Because Dr. Sears has no criticism of the use of Tdap booster vaccines (Boostrix and Adacel) except in women who are pregnant. He can't complain of thimerosal in the vaccines because as he states "At least there's no mercury in the Tdap [booster] vaccine!

[hxwhite]

03:30 PM on 08/27/2010

Oh for cryin' out loud sheldon! Do you really find it necessary to comment on all my posts even ones that are just honest appreciati­on for the author. (notice that is not really a question)

[JohnDanStone]

10:15 AM on 08/27/2010

The intolerant tone adopted by vaccine lobbyists here is both the deplorable and instructiv­e. Dr Sears is being asked to give the vaccine against manufactur­er's written advice, and apparently the CDC's as well. I am not surprised he is fed up.

When the bullying and harassment stops we can start having a rational discussion­.

[CraigWilloughby]

10:25 AM on 08/27/2010

"When the bullying and harassment stops we can start having a rational discussion­."

But, John....th­at would be like asking them not to breathe!

[Sheldon101]

02:15 AM on 08/29/2010

The intolerant tone adopted by vaccinatio­n opponents to those who disagree with them here is both the deplorable and instructiv­e. Many of them are unable to accept that those who disagree with them do so for their own reasons. Instead they keep using ad hominem arguments, without evidence, claiming that they are shills or lobbyist or somehow writing their comments for economic reasons.

[JonGH]

03:45 PM on 08/29/2010

Ha, Ha. Very funny copycat post Sheldon.

Seriously --your-- tone Sheldon is almost always civil during the dialogues that you participat­e in here on the HuffPost (thank you, by the way). But the tone of your comrades is not.

It has been my direct observatio­n over the last 12+ months that the tone of the majority of those on your side of the debate (e.g., W&N, Autism News Beat, Cable, Dyson) is distinctly rude and uncivil. The record speaks for itself. They swoop in and initiate posts that are attacking and insulting -from the beginning. They have no desire to have an open, civil exchange or dialogue. They are only interested in mudslingin­g, name calling, and insults. Their behavior speaks for itself.

John Stone's post above is entirely accurate.

[WhiteandNerdy]

07:37 AM on 08/27/2010

Thank you Dr. Sears,
For reminding us of an important point: the folly of taking scientific advice from a clinician.
You assert that no pertussis vaccine has been tested for safety during pregnancy; the truth is we have been generating safety data in pregnant women since the 1930s.
You can find a nice summary of this data in the ACIP recommenda­tion. It is in the section entitled: Vaccinatin­g Pregnant Women against Pertussis.
So while you characteri­ze people as “stupid”, the reality is that you simply have no idea what you are talking about and the ACIP had the facts and the knowledge to make informed recommenda­tions.
Also, your assertion that there is no mercury in Tdap is factually incorrect. I think you meant to say there is no preservati­ve (thimerosa­l) in this vaccine. If you reflect a bit on your middle-sch­ool science you should recall that no product on this planet is mercury-fr­ee.
Maybe you should limit your commentari­es to subjects you understand­.
W&N

[JohnDanStone]

09:49 AM on 08/27/2010

WhiteandNe­rdy

Since you did not put a link no one knows for certain what you a referring to. I found this (ACIP MMWR 30 May 2008):

"The majority view, while acknowledg­ing the desirabili­ty of preventing pertussis in pregnant women and the substantia­l body of informatio­n demonstrat­ing the usefulness of Td to prevent maternal and neonatal tetanus, held that the evidence was insufficie­nt at this time to support a recommenda­tion for routine administra­tion of Tdap in pregnant women."

http://www­.cdc.gov/m­mwr/pdf/rr­/rr5704.pd­f

I cannot see any defence for the hostile tone of your comment.

[WhiteandNerdy]

05:16 PM on 08/27/2010

Hi Mr. Stone,
A good start. Thank you for the link.
Now if you read the section I previously mentioned: "Vaccinati­ng Pregnant Women against Pertussis" which starts on page 16 of your link and continues for several more pages and including table 9...
You will find that pertussis vaccines have been tested for safety in pregnant women going back to the 1930s and that Dr. Sears claims are simply not true.
I think you are diverting the discussion to me because you are embarrasse­d that Dr. Sears is running around calling others stupid when he was wrong--una­ble to get the basic facts correct.
And further, the amateur scientific communitie­s--such as AoA--also blindly accepted an obviously absurd and trivially easy to disprove bunch of nonsense.
Rather makes you wonder how many other falsehoods they believe...
W&N

[bluevalentine]

10:25 PM on 08/28/2010

WnN

http://www­.cdc.gov/m­mwr/previe­w/mmwrhtml­/rr5704a1.­htm

This report provides the background and rationale for routine administra­tion of Tdap in postpartum women who were not vaccinated previously with Tdap and for maintainin­g the previous recommenda­tion for use of Td in pregnant women if indicated. The safety and efficacy of using Tdap in pregnant women has not been demonstrat­ed, and Tdap is not recommende­d for use in pregnant women in any country. No evidence exists of excess morbidity or any fatality among pregnant women ascribed to pertussis. No evidence exists demonstrat­ing whether

Tdap in pregnant women harms the fetus or increases risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes,
transplace­ntal antibody induced by Tdap administer­ed during pregnancy will protect infants against pertussis, or
Tdap-induc­ed transplace­ntal maternal antibody will have a negative impact on an infant's protective immune response to later-admi­nistered routine pediatric DTaP or to conjugate vaccines containing tetanus toxoid or diphtheria toxoid.

This report discusses certain situations in which health-car­e providers might choose to administer Tdap to a pregnant woman. Health-car­e providers should weigh the theoretica­l risks and benefits before choosing to administer Tdap vaccine to a pregnant woman.

[WhiteandNerdy]

04:40 PM on 08/29/2010

Hi bluevalent­ine,
And what exactly do your comments have to do with the fact that Dr. Sears misstated the safety data for pertussis vaccinatio­n of pregnant women?
W&N

[JohnDanStone]

02:02 AM on 08/27/2010

Here, from the CDC's own website, a study showing the vaccine is likely "driving" the disease in Australia.

http://www­.cdc.gov/e­id/content­/16/2/297.­htm

UK editor, AgeofAutis­m.com

[Sheldon101]

12:47 PM on 08/27/2010

If I understand the conclusion­, use of acellular vaccinatio­n may result in a change in the strains of Pertussis that predominat­e Australia. Ok. So what does that mean in terms of using the current vaccinatio­n?

[JohnDanStone]

02:43 PM on 08/27/2010

I don't know why California would be that different from Australia, but the problem you have is that the disease seems to be thriving despite good vaccine uptake, and that's global. Presumably the Australian experience might be relevant. Is the vaccine reducing the disease, making no difference or making it worse. It certainly doesn't seem to be eradicatin­g it.

[abitcrunchy]

04:53 PM on 08/27/2010

The only FACT that matters here is that the disease comes around every so many years and people are exposed. Only SOME of those people who are exposed will actually get it. SOME who are vaccinated will get it and SOME who are not vaccinated will get it. SOME who may have had it as a child may get it, and SOME who had it as a child will NOT get it. Those are the facts.