Home > Expert Insights, Preventable Diseases, Science & Research, Seasonal Flu > Flu Vaccine Protects a Pregnant Women, Her Unborn Baby and Her Newborn Baby

Flu Vaccine Protects a Pregnant Women, Her Unborn Baby and Her Newborn Baby

This guest post was contributed by Melody Butler and originally appeared on the Nurses Who Vaccinate blog.  It has been edited and modified in length for inclusion in this Shot Of Prevention Friday Flu Shot series. 

Marie was a nurse, expecting her third child when the H1N1 scare arose.  At that time, her state was considering a mandate that would force all healthcare professionals to get the flu vaccine or face being fired.  Marie knew she couldn’t escape contact with the flu virus, since more than 60% of the patients her unit was seeing at that time consisted of people suffering with influenza.  Marie was concerned about protecting her unborn baby, but still somewhat reluctant to get the shot, so she addressed her concerns with her fellow employees, including the head of Infectious Disease and the Clinical Nurse Educators.  She wanted some assurance that receiving the flu vaccine while pregnant was safe.

What did Marie learn about influenza in pregnancy?

Influenza can cause severe illness and complications in pregnant women due to the changes in their immune, cardiac, and pulmonary systems during pregnancy. This makes pregnant women more likely to suffer adverse affects from influenza, as well as hospitalizations and even death.

When a pregnant woman contracts influenza, it increases her likelihood of premature labor and delivery, which in turn leads to a much higher risk of complications and even death for her child.

Pregnant women should get the seasonal flu vaccine.

The flu vaccine helps protect both the mother and the child by preventing or lessening the intensity of influenza.  In fact, there is a 70% decrease in preterm deliveries during the flu season for moms who got their yearly flu shot.  In September’s issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, researchers found women who received the flu vaccine were less likely to suffer a stillbirth –  just 0.3% of vaccinated women gave birth to stillborn infants, while 0.6% of unvaccinated women delivered stillborn babies. And mothers who receive the flu vaccine are significantly less likely to have respiratory illness with fever and fewer clinic visits. 

Influenza vaccine protect a woman’s unborn baby as well as her newborn baby. 

Marie learned that newborns enter the world without any protective immunity and while breastfeeding can help pass on some immunities, there is question as to how much and how long that immunity lasts.  Unfortunately, infants are not able to receive the flu vaccine until they are six months of age.  Meanwhile they remain extremely vulnerable to the flu. Infants who fall victim to the flu can become severely ill.  Many require hospitalization and some even die.

However, when pregnant women receive their flu vaccine, they’re not only protecting their baby in the uterus, but the protective effects of the flu vaccine continue on in that child after birth.

Several studies have found that pregnant women who received a flu vaccination passed their flu immunity to their babies in the form of flu antibodies.

“Our research suggests that maternal vaccination does provide some protection from the flu for a few months after birth,” asserts lead author Dr. Julie Shakib, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah.

In a 2011 study, babies whose mothers had a flu shot during pregnancy were nearly 50% less likely to be diagnosed with the flu during their first flu season than were babies whose mothers didn’t have a flu shot during pregnancy.

One particular study revealed a sharp reduction in flu season hospitalizations among infants whose mothers were vaccinated against the flu, determining that the vaccine, when given to pregnant women, was 91.5% effective in preventing hospitalization of their infants for influenza in the first six months of life.  Comparatively, while 0.4% of unvaccinated mothers lost their babies soon after birth, only 0.2% of vaccinated mothers suffered the same loss. Still other studies show that the flu vaccine can reduce influenza in infants up to 6 months of age by 63% and helps to avert approximately a third of all febrile respiratory illnesses in mothers and young infants, proving that maternal influenza immunization benefits both mothers and infants.

Are Flu Shots Safe for Pregnant Mothers?

The flu shot has been studied in over ten thousand pregnant women and there is no evidence to suggest that the vaccine presents a risk to either expectant mothers or their babies. Despite a common misconception that immunization of pregnant woman may lead to miscarriage, there are significant scientific studies that have determined that there is no risk of such complications among pregnant women who’ve received the flu vaccine.  In fact, based on these findings, the AJOG determined that the flu shot is safe during pregnancy.

Importance of Cocooning

It’s important that expectant parents not only get vaccinated for influenza, but also encourage family members, and those who will have close contact with their infant, to get their annual flu shot as well. This helps to lower the risk of exposure for both the mother and her unborn child.

Once Marie took the time to discuss her concerns with her colleagues and hospital educators, her questions were answered.  By the time Marie’s hospital had a supply of the vaccine, she was one of the first in line, anxious to protect herself and her baby.

Unfortunately not all pregnant mothers had early access to the H1N1 vaccine and as a result of contracting the flu there were many women, including one of Marie’s friends, who lost their child after contracting influenza and suffering from a miscarriage.

We are grateful for healthcare workers like Marie, who continue to play a vital role in educating pregnant mothers about the importance of the influenza vaccine – a vaccine that has saved countless lives over the past 45 years of use and helps new families start their lives healthy and flu-free.

Know anyone who is expecting?  Be sure to share this information with them.  We want moms, dads and grandparents to know how important it is for us adults to get our flu shots in order to protect our precious babies.

The Nurse Who Vaccinate blog and Facebook page helps provide timely information regarding immunization news. Their main objective is to promote knowledge and competency in immunizations and to position nurses and other health care professionals as vaccine advocates for colleagues, patients and the public.

  1. Mick
    October 26, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    My 70 year old father was just hospitalized for 4 days after getting his flu shot.

    The flu vaccine has been proven to be very ineffective and it isn’t safe.

    Here are some of the serious reactions to the flu vaccine:
    -Allergies to various ingredients
    -Guillain-Barre Syndrome
    -Encephalitis
    -Neurological disorders
    -Thrombocytopenia

    I suggest people do their own research before making these decisions.

    Like

  2. October 26, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    @mick – we’ve been through all of this before. Please cite your sources please, especially anything related to either the total number or rate of “serious” reactions…..

    Like

  3. Chris
    October 26, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Mick, could you please post the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed paper that shows those symptoms occur more often with the flu vaccine than with influenza? As you can see in the above article actual papers were referenced, so we really cannot just believe everything you type. Thank you.

    Like

  4. lilady
    October 26, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Mick:

    Your statement about your father being hospitalized four days after receiving the flu vaccine is no more valid, than your father got hit by an automobile four days after receiving the seasonal flu vaccine.

    Why was your father hospitalized?

    Please post any links (preferably from PubMed and from peer-reviewed first tier journals), that support your statement.

    Like

  5. Mick
    October 26, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    lilady,
    He didn’t go in 4 days after the flu shot, he went in within a few hours of getting it, and was in the hospital for 4 days. I tried to post another comment to you but looks like I am banned from commenting and had to use a friend’s email address to post this? Very bogus this site would ban me for pointing out the safety of the vaccine.

    Like

  6. Chris
    October 26, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    I lilady was asking about your father’s symptoms. What was it (from your list):
    -Allergies to various ingredients
    -Guillain-Barre Syndrome
    -Encephalitis
    -Neurological disorders
    -Thrombocytopenia
    ?

    Like

  7. lilady
    October 27, 2012 at 12:01 am

    I *wonder why* “Mick” was banned from posting…and resorted to using a friend’s email address.

    So “Mick” why was your father hospitalized?

    Like

  8. Mick
    October 27, 2012 at 12:18 am

    I don’t know “lilady” why don’t you tell me. I can only assume it is because you can’t handle the truth “lilady”. Is that it “lilady”?

    Like

  9. Chris
    October 27, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    So, you took an opportunity to reply and did not provide any scientific evidence? How can we tell if it is the “truth” when you don’t produce verifiable documentation to back it up, like what was used multiple times in the above article?

    I am sorry, but the plural of anecdote is not data and we cannot accept argument from assertion. That is why the comment policy says that comments will be removed if they contain “unsupported accusations.” Your first comment made an accusation with no supporting evidence.

    Like

  10. Truth Seeker
    October 27, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    I notice how there seem to be calls for “evidence” from the more patronizing commentators. This is an interesting demand because I recently read the most of the evidence particularly supporting the flu vaccine is questionable, yet nobody seems to be questioning the evidence that suits their views.

    “Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season.”

    “Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited.”

    “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”

    “This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

    http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults

    How on Earth can you claim that the flu vaccine “protects” women and unborn babies when the “proof” of protection among the general population is at best questionable. Some of those key points from this review of studies:

    1-Flu virus itself only accounts for 10% of all flu-like illnesses.
    2-While there was a lower incidence of flu in the vaccinated groups, complications, transmission and days off work were only “modestly” affected by vaccination.
    3-Industry funded studies are significantly more likely to be positive towards the product than independent studies.
    4-Industry funded studies are more likely to be referenced and published even though there is an obvious bias in their results.
    5-Studies of harm from vaccines are very limited.
    6-Overall evidence of benefits are thin and “there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies”.

    If you couple the above with the vaccine package inserts which specifically states that there have been NO studies of pregnant women (and by extension on fetal effects), then the entire post can be discarded as unsubstantiated propaganda.

    Like

  11. Truth Seeker
    October 27, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    I think it is also worth mentioning that the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology link “proving” safety is actually a Reuters News article which admits that the “safety” findings were based on a review of VAERS. I went to VAERS to see what the source was and here is what VAERS itself says about it’s data:

    “VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

    “Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.”

    I read that to say that the data on VAERS should not be used to draw any conclusions, yet that is exactly what the report “proving” safety has done. Only pointing this out in support of my statement that the posting is unsubstantiated.

    Like

  12. Mick
    October 27, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Chris,
    I did answet your question, but the moderator chose not to let me comment.

    What exactly was my accusation?
    That my Dad was hospitalized from the flu vaccine? That the flu vaccine isn’t very effective? That the flu vaccine isn’t safe? Or that I recommended people doing their own research?

    Like

  13. Mick
    October 27, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    Oh and I forgot to add paralysis and autoimmune diseases to the reactions from the flu shot.

    Like

  14. October 27, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    @Mick – and would you like to cite your “research?” There is plenty cited in the actual blog post – so please point out the errors, if you please.

    Like

  15. Gray Falcon
    October 27, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    @Truth Seeker- The VAERS data is simply a listing of cases where vaccines were suspected of causing problems, nothing more. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Likewise, if you wish to make an accusation, you must provide evidence for that specific accusation. Making broad statements about drug companies does not help your case.

    Like

  16. Chris
    October 27, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    Mick, though it would seem logical to most people to actually read my original request I shall just cut and paste it:

    Mick, could you please post the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed paper that shows those symptoms occur more often with the flu vaccine than with influenza?

    Just post the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed papers that answer that question, because you asserted that the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease.

    Like

  17. Leigh S.
    October 27, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    My anecdote is that I, too, was pregnant during the heart of the recent H1N1 flu uprise, due to give birth in late November to early December 2009. In our area, there was a shortage of vaccine at the time–I know, because I checked in with my GP and OB/GYN regularly, as well as pharmacies and the health department–but I finally got lucky and received the vaccination at the health department (a few weeks after having had what seemed to be a mild case of flu) in early November (turns out, the vaccination was administered just a few weeks before the baby arrived). I am forever thankful I got the preventative H1N1 vaccination, and I’d not hesitate to do it again while pregnant. No adverse reactions for me or baby #2, nor did I or my first child have any adverse reactions from the TDaP jab we received. And, importantly, we’ve not experienced any of the diseases that these vaccines have covered. Those have been our positive personal experiences, and those experiences as well as the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccinations are why we remain a family who vaccinates and why we share our story in the hopes that others do, too.

    Like

  18. Mick
    October 27, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Yes Lawrence…..the “research” cited above is mind blowing. Did you actually read them?

    Like

  19. Mick
    October 27, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Chris, do you deny that studies exist proving that the flu shot is ineffective? If so, you haven’t done the research. If you have done the research, then you know they exist. I do like the study that TS provided above….try that one http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults

    Like

  20. Chris
    October 28, 2012 at 12:08 am

    Now you must show that “one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome” from the vaccine is greater than that caused by influenza. GBS is caused by several viral infections. Just show that there were no other cases during that particular year (2009?).

    Like

  21. October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    I find it increasingly humorous when anti-vaccinationists and anti-science supporters boast of how much ‘research’ they do. Are they statisticians, scientists, virologists or immunologists? If not, then how can they be researching anything? They are merely reading what other people have claimed and generally those are other people who aren’t doing the actual research either, but cherry picking parts of the research and leaving out the parts they don’t like or completely misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding it all together. We are lay people, for the most part, so we generally don’t do ‘research’. But we can read what other people’s research has found, but we always must keep in mind that until one study is repeated, it isn’t ‘officially’ correct and true science. One study does not set a precedent. Mr. Wakefield’s fraudulent study on the MMR and autistic enterocolitis is an excellent example of that. To date, nobody has been replicate his results, and no wonder since he faked them to begin with. A person begins with a hypothesis, they conduct a study to prove their hypothesis, and if they do it then becomes a theory. It doesn’t become actually acceptable scientific fact until it is found to be reliably repeatable. I learned that bit about science in Junior High.

    Like

  22. Mick
    October 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Lara,

    You are way off topic reagarding, MMR, Autsim, etc… 🙂 Also, what you said about reasearch is ironic. Did you read the “reasearch” in the article? Did you read the research that TS presented?

    Like

  23. Mick
    October 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Chris,
    2009? You mean the year of the big H1n1 hype?

    Like

  24. lilady
    October 28, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Let’s just ignore “Mick” who has already been banned from this blog.

    Like

  25. Mick
    October 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Why is that “lilady” ? Oh yes, you are a “professional”, so rather than discussing the issues with the flu vaccine, you would rather ignore them. I gotcha “lilady”

    Like

  26. October 28, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    @Mick – I don’t see a lot of citations on your side of the discussion….care to add any?

    Like

  27. Mick
    October 28, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Lawrence….did you read the one supplied by TS? Did you read the ones cited in the article? I haven’t stated anythinge that isn’t true….the flu vaccine is not safe, it injurs people every year. The flu vaccine is not very effective, there are plenty of studies. My Dad was hospitalized for 4 days recently after receiving his shot.

    Like

  28. Mick
    October 28, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Lawrence….are you Todd? How do you link up to his site?

    Like

  29. Chris
    October 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Mick, that was the 2010 Cochrane review. It said that there was one case of GBS from influenza. So go and tell us if there were no other cases in the USA during the year that the link you provided spanned, make sure you document that the absolutely only case of GBS was the one mentioned.

    Like

  30. Chris
    October 28, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Correction: it said there was one case of GBS from the influenza vaccine. I actually cut and pasted the quote from the link you gave: “Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations.”

    And I see I made an error. So do tell us if the cases of GBS from the vaccine was more than from other reasons, like other viral infections. That is how you determine the relative risk, you compare the numbers of those who had the vaccine versus those who got GBS but did not get the vaccine. Make it something like this post on a forum that lists several studies.

    Like

  31. Truth Seeker
    October 28, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    @Truth Seeker- The VAERS data is simply a listing of cases where vaccines were suspected of causing problems, nothing more. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Likewise, if you wish to make an accusation, you must provide evidence for that specific accusation. Making broad statements about drug companies does not help your case.

    Thank you for confirming that you agree with my point. I said “I think it is also worth mentioning that the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology link “proving” safety is actually a Reuters News article which admits that the “safety” findings were based on a review of VAERS….” and “I read that to say that the data on VAERS should not be used to draw any conclusions, yet that is exactly what the report “proving” safety has done.” So in essence you are criticizing the blogger who posted the article and linked to a “dishonest” (using your words) claim as “proof” of safety. I applaud your candor!

    Lara Lohne, I am amazed at the blatant contradiction in your posting. First you say “They are merely reading what other people have claimed” and then you continue on to say “We are lay people, for the most part, so we generally don’t do ‘research’. But we can read what other people’s research has found”. So we read an interpretation and you read an interpretation so by what gift of omniscience can you conclude that your preferred interpretation is right and others are wrong? Let me give you a hint from the Cochrane Review:

    “An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.”

    You (and Chris) demand that we all accept these studies as infallible proof when independent reviewers have found your “proof” to be biased, manipulated and spurious (defined as lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false). The Cochrane Library is not some website selling vitamins now is it? The reviewers are highly credentialed and free from the conflicts of interest that many researchers and research institutions have.

    So I restate my original point which thus far has not been refuted in any way, shape or form:

    There is no evidence of safety in vaccinating pregnant women, there are no studies looking for fetal harm and the posting itself has been shown to be mere propaganda. It is only right and fair in the search for truth that these points be made.

    Like

  32. Truth Seeker
    October 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Chris :
    Correction: it said there was one case of GBS from the influenza vaccine. I actually cut and pasted the quote from the link you gave: “Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations.”
    And I see I made an error. So do tell us if the cases of GBS from the vaccine was more than from other reasons, like other viral infections. That is how you determine the relative risk, you compare the numbers of those who had the vaccine versus those who got GBS but did not get the vaccine. Make it something like this post on a forum that lists several studies.

    Oh you cherry picker you!! You are relying on the one comment about a negative report to make your silly demands and completely ignore the fact that the reviewers found the information upon which they made their findings were at best questionable. AND you still got the quote wrong. You have reduced the incidence rate by almost 40% AND claim that there was only one case when the RATE was 1.6 per 1 million. Since low estimates are 100 million getting the vaccine, the additional number of cases would be 160, not 1. According to the CDC, there are approximately 10 to 20 cases per million of GBS so the 1.6 number actually equates to an 8% to 16% increase attributable to the flu vaccine. The numbers aren’t really the point, your attempt at spin is! Here is the quote again:

    “Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited.”

    Let me repeat that last line that you have so conveniently ignored: “THE HARMS EVIDENCE BASE IS LIMITED.” This implies that not all events have been recorded or researched.

    And let us not forget the disclaimer at the end which highlights the “spurious” nature of your infallible PubMed type studies:

    “The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

    So the “positive” proof is spurious and the research into harm is “limited” and yet you still carry on with your discredited point and ask for proof from your discredited sources. Amazing! If I didn’t know better I would say your were a bit of a zealot as opposed to someone rationally seeking truth.

    Like

  33. Truth Seeker
    October 28, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    And here is your CDC link:

    http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/gbs_qa.htm

    I have already linked the Cochrane Review.

    Like

  34. Gray Falcon
    October 28, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Number of facts in three of “Truth Seeker”‘s posts: None. Anyone who bothered to understand the VAERS database knows that the reports alone, that is, the suspicions, are not sufficient to draw conclusions. The conclusion that vaccines are safe was drawn from actually investigating the cases in detail, something he lacks the ability to comprehend. As far as he cares, suspicion alone should be enough for a conviction.

    Like

  35. Truth Seeker
    October 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Number of facts in three of “Truth Seeker”‘s posts: None. Anyone who bothered to understand the VAERS database knows that the reports alone, that is, the suspicions, are not sufficient to draw conclusions. The conclusion that vaccines are safe was drawn from actually investigating the cases in detail, something he lacks the ability to comprehend. As far as he cares, suspicion alone should be enough for a conviction.

    Gray Falcon you are preaching to the choir on this one. Suspcion is NOT enough to draw conclusions. Here is what the poster wrote:

    “In fact, based on these findings, the AJOG determined that the flu shot is safe during pregnancy” and linked by hyperlink to a Reuter’s news release.

    Here is a quotation from the Reuter’s article that the POSTER (not me) used to “prove” that flu vaccines are safe for pregnant women:

    “Adding to evidence that the flu shot is safe during pregnancy, a U.S. government study found no unusual complications among pregnant women who’ve received the vaccine in the past 20 years.

    Researchers found that between 1990 and 2009, there were 175 reports of possibly vaccine-related medical complications among pregnant women submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).”

    So again I thank you for supporting my point that there is no substantiation to the safety claim.

    Like

  36. Truth Seeker
    October 28, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    I will grant you this: the article says 10,000 women were studied. So where is the link to the study? It’s not there. Where is the abstract? It’s not there. Where is the structure of the study? It’s not there. Which vaccine products were studied? We don’t know. All the article does is throw out a claim, fail to substantiate it and then go on and on about VAERS. Hardly inspiring evidence.

    Like

  37. Quokka
    October 28, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    TS calm down you are becoming hysterical. I am interested in your interpretation that the word limited means that the research into harm is limited, not all events have been recorded or researched. Could it not equally mean that it does not have as much raw or verified data as other sources – that is not the same as saying the data they have has not been researched or that the research into harm is in itself limited.

    Can you please find out exactly what is meant by this term?

    Like

  38. Chris
    October 28, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    I love it when these guys can’t figure out that there are embedded links, which is why there are words written in a different color. (hint, it was the first study mentioned, the one that includes a name of a month)

    Like

  39. lilady
    October 29, 2012 at 1:18 am

    Chris, I mentioned one of those studies and linked to it, on a thread on this blog, weeks ago.

    As I recall one of the trolls who has since been banned, offered up the same lame arguments against the study’s findings. I think we are dealing with several sockies here.

    Why do the trolls persist after they have been banned from a site? What sort of mental derangement are we dealing with here, where they come back with another ‘nym and “brag” that they are posting from another computer? Strange..and pathetic.

    They crave attention…best to just ignore them.

    Like

  40. Mick
    October 29, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Yes….please don’t feed the trolls Chris.

    Like

  41. Chris
    October 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    So says the person who could not figure out the year of the paper that he posted. LOL

    Like

  42. Becky
    October 29, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    I don’t see that this Cochrane review proves what you’re saying it does, Truth Seeker. It states that the flu vaccine significantly reduces risk of influenza symptoms. The NNT in a good matching year are 33 and in a poor matching year are 100. So this review shows that it IS effective. The data on harms, including Guillaine Barre syndrome, comes from non randomized trials not from the RCTs, so the strength of the evidence on the additional 1.6 case per 1 million vaccinations is limited.

    Like

  43. Truth Seeker
    October 29, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Quokka :
    TS calm down you are becoming hysterical. I am interested in your interpretation that the word limited means that the research into harm is limited, not all events have been recorded or researched. Could it not equally mean that it does not have as much raw or verified data as other sources – that is not the same as saying the data they have has not been researched or that the research into harm is in itself limited.
    Can you please find out exactly what is meant by this term?

    Why are you using such inflammatory words as “hysterical”? You are playing word games. It is quite clear that the statement, “The harms evidence base is limited” means that there is very little documentation of harms from vaccines or proper studies of harms from being conducted thus leaving a huge gap in information.

    For Chris and Lilady, I would like to point out that slurs and attacks are NOT refutations of points. In fact, when adjudicating debates, the use of your tactics are considered implied capitulation to the previous point made. That means, Chris, when you start acting condescending while ignoring the point, you are in fact conceding the point. I accept your concessions to my points.

    Becky :
    I don’t see that this Cochrane review proves what you’re saying it does, Truth Seeker. It states that the flu vaccine significantly reduces risk of influenza symptoms. The NNT in a good matching year are 33 and in a poor matching year are 100. So this review shows that it IS effective. The data on harms, including Guillaine Barre syndrome, comes from non randomized trials not from the RCTs, so the strength of the evidence on the additional 1.6 case per 1 million vaccinations is limited.

    Yes Becky, I see your point, but you have ignored the closing statement. Let me quote it again,

    “This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

    Like

  44. Chris
    October 29, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Truth Seeker, I gave you a hint of how to find the study you were claiming was not linked to when you said “I will grant you this: the article says 10,000 women were studied. So where is the link to the study? It’s not there. Where is the abstract? It’s not there.”

    It is not an insult to tell how to find the information that you could not find, because it was right there in blue text. Now if you are color blind and cannot see the links that are in blue text, then just say so.

    Like

  45. Quokka
    October 30, 2012 at 12:20 am

    TS I am not playing word games – I don’t think “word games” means what you think it means.

    I was asking you to go to the source and verify what was meant by “limited”,not your interpretation, not your opinion – I have already read those.

    I expected you to go back to the source and clarify – no bolding, no shouting, no exclaiming – just calmly doing some fact checking.

    If you don’t know how to go back to the source and find more information just say so.

    I will attempt to get access to the source and find out the information for myself, without accusing anyone of ignoring, slurring or attacking.

    Your writing style is overly emotive – in my opinion. Your bolding, shouting and accusing I interpret as hysterical. I will not attempt to engage you again.

    Like

  46. Chris
    October 30, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Also, Truth Seeker, that one sentence referring to over ten thousand women being studied was including all of the studies that were linked to in the previous paragraphs, and one did include a bit over ten thousand subject. The others just added to it. So your emotive “screaming” that there was not a link, when there were several, does not reflect well on your research.

    Like

  47. October 30, 2012 at 10:32 am

    @Chris – unfortunately, “truthseeker” is anything but……

    Like

  48. Truth Seeker
    October 30, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Chris – unfortunately, “truthseeker” is anything but……

    Lawrence you have actually provided support for my claims TWICE now. You have been conscientiously exposed as someone who looks for key words and spouts off a canned reply. I was critical of a study using VAERS and you have supported me both times. In this case, my truth IS your truth.

    Chris :
    Also, Truth Seeker, that one sentence referring to over ten thousand women being studied was including all of the studies that were linked to in the previous paragraphs, and one did include a bit over ten thousand subject. The others just added to it. So your emotive “screaming” that there was not a link, when there were several, does not reflect well on your research.

    Let’s take your links in turn, shall we?

    Link 1: “September’s issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology” links to “Effect of Influenza Vaccination in the First Trimester of Pregnancy”. Given that the study was for inactivated vaccines, it is reasonable to assume that these vaccines contained mercury, a known neurotoxin, for which, according to the WHO, there is no safe exposure level for fetuses. Since this study only dealt with premature, still birth and physical abnormalities and not with potential neurotoxic effects which are not apparent at birth (or even up to 36 months), This study is a typical case of asking the question in a way that avoids looking at the real dangers.

    Link 2: “Several studies” links to a newspaper report. The report actually states “Because these studies were presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.” That means that using it as “evidence” is inappropriate. Aside from that, this was a small study (emphasis on small). It is based on 27 women. With such a small sampling, the results will always be statistically insignificant.

    Link 3: ” a 2011 study” links to “Impact of maternal immunization on influenza hospitalizations in infants” which studies hospital admissions for infants with regard to vaccination status of the mother. In no place does it mention non-hospitalization flu among infants. No conclusion can be drawn about prevention when only a very small subgroup of flu sufferers has been studied and not related back to overall incidence. For all we know, far fewer children of unvaccinated mothers contracted the flu, but a larger number ended up in hospital. Also, the cause of hospitalization is not given. We are left to assume that all admissions were due to the flu, but this is a mere assumption. Again as with Link 2, this study is of a statistically insignificant sampling anyway. It was the results of studies of 3 counties. How many counties are there in America? 3,140. Hardly a reasonable data base from which to draw conclusions.

    Like

  49. Truth Seeker
    October 30, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Link 4: “study” links to “Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy Protects Newborns, Study Suggests” in Science Daily. Even the title states “suggests” which does not bode well as “proof” of anything. This in turn links back to the exact same link as Link 3. So now we have a non-representative study being linked to through two different sources to attempt to hocus pocus more evidence then is actually there.

    Link 5: “the vaccine, when given to pregnant women, was 91.5% effective in preventing hospitalization of their infants for influenza in the first six months of life” links to “Influenza Vaccine Given to Pregnant Women Reduces Hospitalization Due to Influenza in Their Infants”. Well this study, from ONE hospital I might add, draws it’s conclusions in the same way as Link 3. How many hospitals are there in America? Over 7,500. Hospitalizations are studied without regard to overall incidence in the vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers’ infants. This is a fatal flaw. Also, the study states that, “patients were infants aged <12 months admitted to a large urban hospital in the northeastern United States because of laboratory-confirmed influenza from 2000 to 2009." It then goes on to make conclusions based on "control subjects aged <6 months". So which is it? Less than 6 months or less than 12 months. This is crucial as less than 12 months could also have received the vaccine directly. This study is so convoluted as to be worthless.

    Link 6: "other studies" links to "Effectiveness of Maternal Influenza Immunization in Mothers and Infants" in the New England Journal of Medicine. I REALLY like this study! First of all, the author has used this to support claims for American children and mothers, yet the study is from Bangledesh!! Now let's look at the Methods:

    "In this randomized study, we assigned 340 mothers to receive either inactivated influenza vaccine (influenza-vaccine group) or the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (control group)."

    Great, the subject group got a MONO-valent vaccine and the control group got a 23-valent vaccine. In other words, ALL controls and subjects were vaccinated, only the antigens were different. Another point worth mentioning is that this study starts off by saying, "Subjects with febrile respiratory illness were assessed clinically, and ill infants were tested for influenza antigens. We estimated the incidence of illness, incidence rate ratios, and vaccine effectiveness." So let's get this right. All of the results were ESTIMATED. Not good for "proof". This is the same flaw as the previous studies. I see a pattern here. If you only study the hospital records, you will NEVER get an accurate assessment of efficacy, yet that is what every study does! Since this has gone over 3 studies from 3 sources in 2 countries, it lends credence to institutional fudging of research as the likelihood of this coincidence is quite small.

    Like

  50. Nathan
    October 30, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    It is always amusing to watch antivaxers do an amateur breakdown of research and pretend that they have just successfuly proved them all wrong.

    Link 1: “September’s issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology” links to “Effect of Influenza Vaccination in the First Trimester of Pregnancy”. Given that the study was for inactivated vaccines, it is reasonable to assume that these vaccines contained mercury, a known neurotoxin, for which, according to the WHO, there is no safe exposure level for fetuses…

    Well, no, it is not reasonable to assume that as about half of the flu shot supply is thimerosal free. And it doesn’t matter, since studies looking at in utero thimerosal exposure from vaccines have not found any long term problems.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/4/656.full

    Since this study only dealt with premature, still birth and physical abnormalities and not with potential neurotoxic effects which are not apparent at birth (or even up to 36 months), This study is a typical case of asking the question in a way that avoids looking at the real dangers.

    You don’t think miscarriage and prematurity are real dangers? Seriously. That’s what this study was about. So, I take it you agree that the flu vaccine does not cause these dangers?

    Link 2: “Several studies” links to a newspaper report. The report actually states “Because these studies were presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.” That means that using it as “evidence” is inappropriate.

    It’s not inappropriate at all. These are results from legitimate researchers at a major conference. They are quite definitely evidence. Only you would assume that they are made up.

    Aside from that, this was a small study (emphasis on small). It is based on 27 women. With such a small sampling, the results will always be statistically insignificant.

    You really don’t know what “statistically significant” means, do you? You can have a statistically significant difference even in a small study. No unimmunized women passed on antibodies, whereas sixty percent of babies to immunized women had antibodies at two months. You are proposing this is by chance alone? Also, you ignored that there was a second study concerning miscarriage cited in the news report.

    Link 3: ” a 2011 study” links to “Impact of maternal immunization on influenza hospitalizations in infants” which studies hospital admissions for infants with regard to vaccination status of the mother. In no place does it mention non-hospitalization flu among infants. No conclusion can be drawn about prevention when only a very small subgroup of flu sufferers has been studied and not related back to overall incidence.

    What can be concluded, however, is that kids have less severe flu and get hospitalized less, if their mothers are immunized. This is a huge deal.

    For all we know, far fewer children of unvaccinated mothers contracted the flu, but a larger number ended up in hospital.

    This not only makes no sense, it really doesn’t matter. If maternal influenza immunization prevents infant hospitalization, this alone is a good thing.

    Also, the cause of hospitalization is not given. We are left to assume that all admissions were due to the flu, but this is a mere assumption.

    You must not have read the study. They tested every enrolled child who came in with fever an/or respiratory symptoms regardless of the reason for admission. You are not, in fact left to assume anything as the reason for hospitalization does not change the results.

    Again as with Link 2, this study is of a statistically insignificant sampling anyway. It was the results of studies of 3 counties. How many counties are there in America? 3,140. Hardly a reasonable data base from which to draw conclusions.

    This must be the funniest thing you’ve said yet. Because the results are from three counties, they are “statistically insignificant?” You again demonstrate a lack of understanding of these scientific terms.

    Link 4: “study” links to “Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy Protects Newborns, Study Suggests” in Science Daily. Even the title states “suggests” which does not bode well as “proof” of anything. This in turn links back to the exact same link as Link 3. So now we have a non-representative study being linked to through two different sources to attempt to hocus pocus more evidence then is actually there.

    Uh, no. They are two different studies. Some big clues are that they have different methods, different authors, and different titles.

    Right around “Link 5” you lost coherence entirely. Why does the number of hospitals in America matter? Are you suggesting that infuenza vaccination of mothers prevents influenza in infants in some hospitals and not others? What possible hypothesis could you have to explain this? And if you had bothered to read the study you would have read that they broke down the data into those less than and those more than six months old, and that vaccinated infants were excluded. It is, in fact, your deconstruction that is “so convoluted as to be worthless.”

    Link 6: “other studies” links to “Effectiveness of Maternal Influenza Immunization in Mothers and Infants” in the New England Journal of Medicine. I REALLY like this study! First of all, the author has used this to support claims for American children and mothers, yet the study is from Bangledesh!!

    This invalidates it how?

    Great, the subject group got a MONO-valent vaccine…

    Um, it says “Fluarix (lot number, AFLUA004BC), containing strains for 2004 (including A/New Caledonia/20/99 [H1N1], A/Fujian/411/2002 [H3N2], and B/Hong Kong/330/2001), as recommended by the WHO for the southern hemisphere.” This is a trivalent vaccine. Another spectacular reading fail.

    In other words, ALL controls and subjects were vaccinated, only the antigens were different.

    Yeah, but since they were looking at influenza infection, this is bad… why?

    So let’s get this right. All of the results were ESTIMATED.

    This was a prospective, randomized, blinded trial. The results then become estimates – to know the true efficacy, one would literally have to test every single pregnant woman on earth! The results of any study are an estimate of the truth as no study perfectly represents all of humankind. A study does not provide “proof,” they provide evidence for or against a hypothesis. This study provided evidence that maternal influenza vaccination reduces influenza in infants, and gives us an estimate of that efficacy. And this was not a hospital based study. The mothers brought their kids in for testing to the clinic when symptoms developed.

    Since this has gone over 3 studies from 3 sources in 2 countries, it lends credence to institutional fudging of research as the likelihood of this coincidence is quite small.

    I read this sentence several times and can only conclude that it is word salad.

    I see a pattern here.

    This, I agree with. The pattern is that antivaxers without fail will nitpick at studies they don’t understand and dismiss them without cause, in favor of fundamentally awful research that says what they want.

    Like

  51. October 31, 2012 at 9:31 am

    @TS – you seem to have me confused with someone else. I’ve never agreed with you – since the beginning, when you tried to push a quack’s opinion that research into flu vaccines was a waste of time – which we immediately proved otherwise.

    And since Nathan did such a great job in exposing your cherry-picking & misrepresentation / misinterpretation of your “cited evidence” I think we can effectively close you down as a “truth seeker.”

    Like

  52. novalox
    October 31, 2012 at 9:54 am

    @Nathan

    Great take down of “truth seeker”. Guess for him/her/it, truth is only what he/she/it makes of it.

    I guess we can all consider “truth” seeker to be a lie spewer, judging from the copious amount of lies that he/she/it has consistently typed out.

    Like

  53. Chris
    November 2, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Mick/Joe/whoever:

    My 70 year old father was just hospitalized for 4 days after getting his flu shot.

    With this person’s recent behavior, that statement may be true. BUT! But perhaps it is because his/her father fell and broke a hip or had angina due to atherosclerosis or any number of problems that are not related to a vaccine.

    The thing is that this person is someone who changes his/her name, so there is no way to know if their anecdotes are real.

    Like

  54. lilady
    November 2, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Chris…Mick bragged that he has been banned and is using a friend’s computer. Pathetic.

    Like

  55. Truth Seeker
    November 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Nathan: “Well, no, it is not reasonable to assume that as about half of the flu shot supply is thimerosal free. And it doesn’t matter, since studies looking at in utero thimerosal exposure from vaccines have not found any long term problems.”

    Not all flu vaccines are thimerosal free. Your assumption that thimerosal is not an issue is unfounded conjecture. The fact that this issue is basically omitted is cause for concern. Your link shows nothing more than that low exposure to mercury is as dangerous as higher exposures.

    Nathan: “It’s not inappropriate at all. These are results from legitimate researchers at a major conference. They are quite definitely evidence. Only you would assume that they are made up.” (In reference to using non-published studies).

    Many of the advocates on here very quickly dismiss anything that is not in PubMed or been published in NEJM, Pediatrics or other like publications. I have not assumed that this is made up, only that it does not meet the requirements of information given as ‘evidence’. The article itself states this quite plainly yet you seem to bend your rules when it suit you. Pot, kettle, black and hyporitical as well!

    Nathan: “This must be the funniest thing you’ve said yet. Because the results are from three counties, they are “statistically insignificant?” You again demonstrate a lack of understanding of these scientific terms.”

    Three counties without knowledge of geographic location, demographics, etc. is a meaningless sampling. Even with that knowledge, the sampling is still insignificant. Maybe one county is by Three Mile Island, another on the Gulf Coast and another in California where the highest radiation levels from Fukishima have been recorded. Who knows? You don’t and neither do I and that makes the results unreliable.

    Nathan: “Right around “Link 5″ you lost coherence entirely. Why does the number of hospitals in America matter? Are you suggesting that infuenza vaccination of mothers prevents influenza in infants in some hospitals and not others? What possible hypothesis could you have to explain this?”

    Eh? Is that your straw man I see? The hat’s a bit crooked. The problem with the study is the same as above. An insignificant sampling. I have made no suggestion whatsoever about treatments across the board and neither has this study. Different hospitals use different criteria for clinical to laboratory confirmed diagnosis (for example). Studies which omit various factors by consolidating the results into an insignificant sampling are meaningless.

    Nathan: “Um, it says “Fluarix (lot number, AFLUA004BC), containing strains for 2004 (including A/New Caledonia/20/99 [H1N1], A/Fujian/411/2002 [H3N2], and B/Hong Kong/330/2001), as recommended by the WHO for the southern hemisphere.” This is a trivalent vaccine. Another spectacular reading fail.”

    I read the abstract which did not make that clear. In any event, you have control and subject groups ALL being fully dosed on the routine stuff and a tri-valent subject and 23-valent control. What happened to comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated? The amounts of vaccines given to both groups creates a confounding factor that means the no differences in results can be assigned any causal relationships. Remember the Canadian study which has been duplicated four times now (including with ferrets) shows that H1N1 vaccines increase the risk of contracting seasonal flu? Without knowing or understanding synergies (which no one does), virtually all of your ‘evidence’ fails to be compelling.

    “Since this has gone over 3 studies from 3 sources in 2 countries, it lends credence to institutional fudging of research as the likelihood of this coincidence is quite small.”

    I agree that this did not come out right. Let me try again… Given that the same issues undermine the results of 3 studies from 3 sources in 2 different countries lends credence to the notion that there is institutionalized fudging of data and results, which is EXACTLY what the Cochrane Reviews found.

    Like

  56. Kirk
    November 6, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Excellent points Truth Seeker!

    Like

  57. November 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    *sniff, sniff* SOCKS!!!!

    Like

  58. lilady
    November 6, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    *sniff, sniff, sniff* Dirty Smelly Sockies!!!!!

    Like

  59. Chris
    November 6, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    TS and his sock puppets:

    Not all flu vaccines are thimerosal free. Your assumption that thimerosal is not an issue is unfounded conjecture.

    But that does not mean that all them have thimerosal. Looking at this table I see at least five that do not have thimerosal, and they are in the majority.

    Like

  60. Nathan
    November 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    I’m sorry, TS, but what you write doesn’t actually make any scientific or logical sense. You cannot dismantle an entire body of evidence based on such weak criticisms.

    Not all flu vaccines are thimerosal free. Your assumption that thimerosal is not an issue is unfounded conjecture.

    I made no such assumption. You made the assumption that they did contain thimerosal, despite the fact that half the supply has no thimerosal. And it is not an issue, as the study found improved outcomes in the vaccinated vs. no vaccine at all, and the literature continues to show no neurotoxic effects of thimerosal in the small amounts in vaccines.

    Your link shows nothing more than that low exposure to mercury is as dangerous as higher exposures.

    My link shows that children with autism have no more thimerosal exposure than those without, and includes patients that had zero exposure. If thimerosal cause autism, one would find more thimerosal exposure in the group with autism. And this is one of over a dozen studies that find no association between thimerosal and developmental disorders.

    Many of the advocates on here very quickly dismiss anything that is not in PubMed or been published in NEJM, Pediatrics or other like publications. I have not assumed that this is made up, only that it does not meet the requirements of information given as ‘evidence’.

    Any such information is evidence, yet I agree that evidence is stronger when it is published and peer reviewed. However, to compare results presented in a recent and major ID conference by an epidemiology team which is consistent with the literature to date, to (for example) a paper written by one of Wakefield’s buddies that is not consistent with reams of established literature and hasn’t gotten published for nearly a decade would be a ridiculous comparison. The latter is far weaker evidence.

    Three counties without knowledge of geographic location, demographics, etc. is a meaningless sampling. Even with that knowledge, the sampling is still insignificant. Maybe one county is by Three Mile Island, another on the Gulf Coast and another in California where the highest radiation levels from Fukishima have been recorded.

    Oh, good gravy you have an imagination. The counties are listed in the study – you should try reading a study before you try to critique it. You’re going to have to actually come up with a legitimate reason why these results would not apply, something better than “it’s only three counties, they could be, I don’t know, irradiated or something.”

    Eh? Is that your straw man I see? The hat’s a bit crooked.

    Your grasp of logical terms is as poor as your grasp of scientific study design. When I ask you what your hypothesis is, that is not a strawman. You need to explain why these results may not apply to other hospitals. For your criticism to be valid, there must be some reason why you believe the results would not be representative.

    The problem with the study is the same as above. An insignificant sampling.

    And the problem with your criticism of the study is the same as above: an insignificant understanding of science. To be valid, you need to have, exactly, data from how many hospitals? Just curious, not that it matters as your opinion has no bearing on actual quality science. And certainly not on statistical significance.

    Different hospitals use different criteria for clinical to laboratory confirmed diagnosis (for example). Studies which omit various factors by consolidating the results into an insignificant sampling are meaningless.

    And, again, if you read the study, you would see exactly how the diagnoses were made, rendering your criticism moot. You cannot critique a study based on an abstract.

    [Regarding the trivalent vaccine] I read the abstract which did not make that clear.

    Once more, with feeling… Why on Earth are you trying to critique studies you have not even read??

    What happened to comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

    There are strengths to using another vaccine in looking for these kinds of outcomes. Having a placebo that does not reduce influenza blinds the patient better, and also provides benefit to the patient. Besides, you are going to find thousands of completely unvaccinated pregnant women who would participate in this trial… where exactly?

    The amounts of vaccines given to both groups creates a confounding factor that means the no differences in results can be assigned any causal relationships.

    No, it doesn’t. Because the outcome of interest is influenza infection. You are again just making up sciency sounding sentences to dismiss that which you don’t understand and don’t like.

    Remember the Canadian study which has been duplicated four times now (including with ferrets) shows that H1N1 vaccines increase the risk of contracting seasonal flu? Without knowing or understanding synergies (which no one does), virtually all of your ‘evidence’ fails to be compelling.

    Yes, I’m very familiar with that research, more familiar than you, since you have the vaccines backwards. However, they do not change the results of these studies, which clearly showed less influenza and better outcomes in the vaccinated group. So get your seasonal *and* novel influenza vaccine when needed.

    Let me try again… Given that the same issues undermine the results of 3 studies from 3 sources in 2 different countries lends credence to the notion that there is institutionalized fudging of data and results, which is EXACTLY what the Cochrane Reviews found.

    Still nothing. I see the words, but not a coherent point. Though if I were to guess, you are trying to claim that your weak criticisms represent an international conspiracy of fraud? You have quite a grand opinion of your opinions. Also, I’m interested to see where the Cochrane reviews used the word “fudging.” Because what you said was EXACTLY what they found and all.

    Like

  61. VW
    December 23, 2012 at 11:50 am

    The flu shot should NEVER be recommended for pregnant women. I was given the flu shot two weeks ago while I was 6 weeks pregnant even though i told my OB/GYN that I did not want it! A few days later I did not feel like I was pregnant anymore and my morning sickness stopped. I went to the OB/GYN a week later for a sonogram and while they saw the fetal pole, there was no heart beat! I had two successful pregnancies with zero complications before and I was not administered the flu shot during those pregnancies.
    My husband and I are in great health, and I am only 34 years old. I did not want the flu shot but my OB/GYN forced this on me because it is mandated by the CDC! Now I have to explain to my 4 year old why she will not have a baby brother or sister. We are so heartbroken!
    I will be writing my state senators in the hopes that the CDC might review its policy. Given the thousands of miscarriages reported after pregnant moms took the flu shot, I cannot understand why the CDC let the pharmaceutical companies have so much power over our future.

    Like

  62. December 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    @VW – first, at least make the story believable. The CDC “recommends” the flu vaccine for pregnant women (given that a number of pregnant women died of H1N1 – at a higher rate than average) – nothing is mandated.

    If you were given a medical treatment against your will, are you suing the doctor?

    And please, including your citations for the “thousands” of miscarriages – because the anti-vaccine lies that are being pushed (the 4250% increase in miscarriages is around what I’ve seen quoted) would have resulted in more miscarriages than there are pregnancies – something very much that I doubt…….

    Like

  63. lilady
    December 23, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    VW: Did your OB physically hold you down to inject you with the flu vaccine?

    Go write to your state senators about your supposed miscarriage that you link to a flu vaccine.

    Provide us with citations, from studies published in first tier peer reviewed medical journals that the flu vaccine has been implicated in any poor fetal outcomes…including miscarriages.

    This is a science blog and we all have read those studies. You should try it sometime before you come posting here.

    Like

  64. December 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    VW, having a child at the age of 34 is high risk, always has been, so not sure why you are so surprised that a miscarriage was a possibility.

    I have a friend who actually was pregnant during the H1N1 epidemic, she caught H1N1, had to be hospitalized, and she and her entire family had to be given vaccines to lessen the symptoms and she was closely monitored during the time she was sick and she feels fortunate that she survived and her baby was born unharmed. Your story is implausible, and anecdotal and there are just as many stories out there that can counter yours so really you haven’t convinced anyone of anything.

    It is clear you are in pain, and rightly so, you lost a child, but don’t cast blame where it doesn’t belong, sometimes these things just happen. Usually these things just happen, and there is no actual reason behind it. I got pregnant with twins with my third pregnancy, but I didn’t know I was pregnant so I continued to take the mini pill I was given after my second child was born. I had, very oddly since the mini pill is supposed to suppress the cycle, what I thought was an extremely heavy menstrual period in August. I stopped taking the mini pill in November as my son was over a year old at that time and I thought if I got pregnant then I’d be able to handle it better. A couple nights later, I was awakened by our oldest, who was potty training at the time and needed help getting to the potty in the dark. After getting back in bed, I distinctly felt movement, fetal movement. I made an appointment as soon as I could to see my OB and yes, I was pregnant. He scheduled me for an ultrasound to learn how far along I was, and I was 28.4 weeks based on the fetal measurements, conceived in mid June. Therefore, that heavy period I thought I had in August, was me losing one of my twins. I don’t know if it was due to taking the mini pill or not, but it’s easy to cast blame there. Its also possible that I just wasn’t in a healthy enough state to handle carrying twins. There are multiple compounding factors to consider when a miscarriage happens, and it’s really unfair to pin it on one thing, when you really don’t know, and nobody else could say for certain either. Blaming the vaccine is easy, blaming your doctor for ‘forcing’ you to get a flu shot is a stretch, and if it came to being forced to do something, and you were literally physically restrained so they could administer the vaccine, I’d be more apt to blame the physical restraint as the cause of the miscarriage rather then the vaccine. When your story is considered from a logical stand point, it just isn’t viable. Perhaps your pain is distorting your memory of events.

    Like

  65. January 1, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Hi there to every one, since I am actually keen of reading this weblog’s post to be updated daily. It consists of nice stuff.

    Like

  66. Kristie
    August 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    What’s funny about this? You’re 90% likely to NOT contract the flu during the flu season no matter what. So 91.5% in 6 months really means nothing.

    Like

  67. novalox
    August 2, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    @kristie

    [citation needed]

    Like

  68. October 9, 2013 at 3:52 am

    An interesting discussion is definitely worth comment.
    I do think that you should write more about this topic, it may not be
    a taboo matter but typically people don’t talk about these topics.
    To the next! Best wishes!!

    Like

  69. October 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s