Rebuttal to the New England Journal of Medicine study, finding flu vaccines safe and effective for pregnant women.
Up next, the latest 2013 flu season, flu vaccine scam misinformation; New England Journal of Medicine finds flu vaccines safe and effective for pregnant women. Found safe and effective, for pregnant women. Really?
Lets look at the next three and below articles. You are going to see statements made based on a said new New England Journal of Medicine study; statements that claim that the flu vaccine, even with thimerosal included; that it has now been found in this said study that it is safe and effective for pregnant women. This is of course absolutely preposterous, as we can as well see by all the related information and studies on this page. As well we can go right to the flu vaccine inserts themselves and see that no such safety studies have been done, on anything in relation to that said safety. So without that, and with the lack of those said studies; they have qualified it all as safe, based on this single study. Yet there curiously is as well no mention of Thimerosal, nor Thimerosal safety in the study; and they obviously as well have and are going to as get away with that as well. And everyone is to go on their happy way, believing that all this has been studied and found safe, the so called medical profession as well? You might know that they unquestionably believe anything that is put in front of them by a standard so called respected pharma connected medical journal. As you move on down the page you will as well see more refute of this said claim.
Here is the actual said NEJM study. Done by Center for Health Research-Southeast, Kaiser Permanente, where it seems lately they are sending it in for studies to cover their butts, for everything lately.
Neonatal outcomes after antenatal influenza immunization during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic: impact on preterm birth, birth weight, and small for gestational age birth
Neonatal Outcomes After Antenatal Influenza Immunization During the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic: Impact on Preterm Birth, Birth Weight, and Small for Gestational Age Birth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23378281
So, lets look at this situation and the said study a little further; the said NEJM study. Let’s give it what it really deserves, here.
You a see statements made based on the said new New England Journal of Medicine study; statements that claim that the flu vaccine, even with thimerosal included; that it has now been found in this said study that it is safe and effective for pregnant women. This is of course absolutely preposterous, as we can as well see by all the related information and studies on this page. As well we can go right to the flu vaccine inserts themselves and see that no such safety studies have been done, on anything in relation to that said safety. So without that, and with the lack of those said studies; they have qualified it all as safe, based on this single study. Yet there curiously is as well no mention of Thimerosal, nor Thimerosal safety in the study; and they obviously as well have and are going to as get away with that as well. And everyone is to go on their happy way, believing that all this has been studied and found safe, the so called medical profession as well? You might know that they unquestionably believe anything that is put in front of them by a standard so called respected pharma connected medical journal. As you move on down the page you will as well see more refute of this said claim.
The obvious truth is that these people can spin the numbers any way they choose to, and few people will ever be the wiser; including the so called medical profession itself. Do you actually think they read these studies and make an actual scientific study analysis of this material and data? Rarely if ever.Do they ever actually compare that against any other available, non biased information? Never.
Here is the actual said NEJM study. Done by Center for Health Research-Southeast, Kaiser Permanente, where it seems lately they are sending it in for studies to cover their butts, for everything lately. Neonatal outcomes after antenatal influenza immunization during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic: impact on preterm birth, birth weight, and small for gestational age birth
Background. Influenza infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse fetal outcomes such as preterm birth and small for gestational age (SGA). Maternal influenza immunization may prevent these adverse infant outcomes during periods of influenza circulation.
Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of live births within Kaiser Permanente (KP) Georgia and Mid-Atlantic States (n=3,327) during the period of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus circulation. Primary outcomes were third trimester preterm birth (27-36 weeks), birth weight, low birth weight (LBW, <2500 grams), and SGA.
Results. There were 327 (9.8%) preterm, 236 (7.4%) LBW, and 267 (8.4%) SGA births. Among H1N1-vaccinated mothers (n=1125), there were 86 (7.6%) preterm, 68 (6.4%) LBW, and 99 (9.3%) SGA births, and the mean birth weight was 3308.5 grams (95% CI: 3276.6-3340.4). Among unvaccinated mothers (n=1581), there were 191 (12.1%) preterm, 132 (8.8%) LBW, and 123 (8.2%) SGA births, and the mean birth weight was 3245.3 grams (95% CI: 3216.5-3274.2). Infants of H1N1-vaccinated mothers had 37% lower odds of being born preterm than infants of unvaccinated mothers (aOR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.84). The mean birth weight difference between infants of H1N1-vaccinated mothers and infants of unvaccinated mothers was 45.1 grams (95% CI: 1.8-88.3). There was no significant association between maternal H1N1 influenza immunization and LBW or SGA.
Conclusions. Pregnant women who received H1N1 influenza vaccine were less likely to give birth preterm, and gave birth to heavier infants. The findings validate U.S. vaccine policy choices to prioritize pregnant women during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic.
Neonatal Outcomes After Antenatal Influenza Immunization During the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic: Impact on Preterm Birth, Birth Weight, and Small for Gestational Age Birth.
Richards JL, Hansen C, Bredfeldt C, Bednarczyk RA, Steinhoff MC, Adjaye-Gbewonyo D, Ault K, Gallagher M, Orenstein W, Davis RL, Omer SB.
Source: Center for Health Research-Southeast, Kaiser Permanente.
Background. Influenza infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse fetal outcomes such as preterm birth and small for gestational age (SGA). Maternal influenza immunization may prevent these adverse infant outcomes during periods of influenza circulation.Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of live births within Kaiser Permanente (KP) Georgia and Mid-Atlantic States (n = 3327) during the period of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus circulation. Primary outcomes were third-trimester preterm birth (27-36 weeks), birth weight, low birth weight (LBW, <2500 g), and SGA.Results. There were 327 (9.8%) preterm, 236 (7.4%) LBW, and 267 (8.4%) SGA births. Among H1N1-vaccinated mothers (n = 1125), there were 86 (7.6%) preterm, 68 (6.4%) LBW, and 99 (9.3%) SGA births, and the mean birth weight was 3308.5 g (95% confidence interval [CI], 3276.6-3340.4). Among unvaccinated mothers (n = 1581), there were 191 (12.1%) preterm, 132 (8.8%) LBW, and 123 (8.2%) SGA births, and the mean birth weight was 3245.3 g (95% CI, 3216.5-3274.2). Infants of H1N1-vaccinated mothers had 37% lower odds of being born preterm than infants of unvaccinated mothers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, .47-.84]). The mean birth weight difference between infants of H1N1-vaccinated mothers and infants of unvaccinated mothers was 45.1 g (95% CI, 1.8-88.3). There was no significant association between maternal H1N1 influenza immunization and LBW or SGA.Conclusions. Pregnant women who received H1N1 influenza vaccine were less likely to give birth preterm, and gave birth to heavier infants. The findings support US vaccine policy choices to prioritize pregnant women during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic.
Interestingly, they always make it so that no one can get a copy of the full study, without a paid subscription. They sure want to promote the and that study, but only the abstract? Why?
Here is another Canadian study done with some of the same study authors. This one states, in includes the pneumococcal vaccines, stating. We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Mother’s Gift project, a randomized study designed to test the effectiveness of inactivated influenza and pneumococcal vaccines during pregnancy.
Neonatal outcomes after influenza immunization during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial
Interpretation: During the period with circulating influenza virus, maternal immunization during pregnancy was associated with a lower proportion of infants who were small for gestational age and an increase in mean birth weight. These data need confirmation but suggest that prevention of influenza infection in pregnancy can influence intrauterine growth.
Wow. So having plump and heavy babies was the goal here? How does that actually work? Flu vaccines somehow give you a heavier baby, at birth? Wow, who would have known? And they proved that? What, are there Hulk Hogan steroids in the flu shot, or something? And that is what you actually want?
Lets now go to the real and unbiased information we can find.
Obviously they as well never read THIS study right here, nor ever considered it.
[PDF] Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
Influenza vaccination during all trimesters of pregnancy is now universally recommended in the United States. We critically reviewed the influenza vaccination policy of the CDCs Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) and the citations that were used to support their recommendations. The ACIPs citations and the current literature indicate that influenza infection is rarely a threat to a normal pregnancy. There is no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of influenza vaccination during this critical period. No studies have adequately assessed the risk of influenza vaccination during pregnancy, and animal safety testing is lacking. Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative present in most inactivated formulations of the vaccine, has been implicated in human neurodevelopment disorders, including autism, and a broad range of animal and experimental reproductive toxicities including teratogenicity, mutagenicity, and fetal death. Thimerosal is classified as a human teratogen.The ACIP policy recommendation of routinely administering influenza vaccine during pregnancy is ill-advised and unsupported by current scientific literature, and it should be withdrawn. Use ofthimerosal during pregnancy should be contraindicated.
Those by the way, were not exactly very supporting study statements as for the use of thimerosal containing flu vaccines; nor was it supportive generally of the recommendation made by the CDC, as to the the use of flu shots for pregnant women.
How about some more real life information.
There was a 4,250% increase in miscarriages and stillbirths connected with the introduction of the H1N1 vaccine in 2009, as recorded in the CDC's database . It as to the above study, was egregious enough when in 2010 the CDC, well aware of the increase, told OBGYNs there had been no increase in risk and to begin urging the seasonal flu shot, which by then contained the H1N1 vaccine. To now come out an claim there had actually been a decrease in risk is a an even bolder lie and therefore an injustice to all pregnant mothers and a palpable threat to their health and the health of their unborn babies. This is a crime against humanity. They have as well disregarded a long list of women who stated they believe their miscarriages were the result of the 09-10 H1N1 vaccine. When you read the accounts of that and in regard the time frames, the effects of the vaccine certainly do become all to suspect. The size of the study has been argued by some people, in stating that it that size was to small. However, as far as the CDC is concerned, they entirely ignored the data all together; which actually should have been significant, and fully deserved their attention to it. It received nothing! In fact just the opposite was claimed to that there was no evidence of harm known, whatsoever. VAERS means nothing to them, because they can always claim no matter what that there was no proof that it was the vaccine; and that there were no common links found. They have done exactly the same thing with the known unrecovered outcomes issue and the deaths situation with Gardasil. Nothing would be enough, as to admit any liability, would at this point, finish them. They know exactly how much vaccine truth activism is out there, and they know they remain on perilous ground to admit lack of effectiveness, the excessive harm done, or the failure of ANY vaccine.
Examining the ineffectiveness of flu vaccines... evidence!!!
Reassessing Flu Shots as the Season Draws Near
It’s flu-shot season, and public health officials are urging everyone over 6 months of age to get one. Many businesses provide on-site flu shots, and some hospitals have told staff members that they have to wear masks if they do not get the vaccine. By 2020, United States health leaders want 80 percent of the population to get yearly shots.
For vaccine manufacturers, it’s a bonanza: Influenza shots — given every year, unlike many other vaccines — are a multibillion-dollar global business.
But how good are they?
Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.
“We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. “It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.”
Dr. Osterholm, who says he is concerned that confidence in current vaccines deters research into identifying more effective agents, comes from the world of public health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A bioterrorism and public health preparedness adviser to Tommy Thompson, the former health and human services secretary, he served on the interim management team during a transition period at the C.D.C. in 2002.
“I’m an insider,” Dr. Osterholm said. “Until we started this project, I was one of the people out there heavily promoting influenza vaccine use. It was only with this study that I looked and said, ‘What are we doing?’ ”
Former CDC official blasts flu vaccine as anti-science PR stunt
MB Comment: Michael Osterholm is a rare breath of fresh air in the stultified world of infectious disease specialists who are actually covert drug company puppets. Osterholm doesn’t pull any punches from his perch at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP). He is an opponent of ineffective flu vaccines.
Keep in mind that Michael Osterholm was on the management team that led the CDC until Julie Gerberding kicked many legitimate CDC scientists out before she jumped ship to running the Merck vaccine division. Gerberding stripped the CDC of everyone but pro-drug company stooges before she moved to Merck.
With that background in perspective, read Osterholm’s comments about the bogus flu vaccine that has been thrust upon the US public this season like a lemon by the used-car salesmen at the CDC and in the public health sector.
One final note, Osterholm’s organization CIDRAP concedes that a universal flu vaccine is at least 5-10 years away in the future. Get used to resisting the clarion call to receive the ineffective and toxic annual flu shot in America’s stupid annual ritual to enrich vaccine manufacturers.
Michael Osterholm MinnPost Feb 25, 2013
“The thing that surprises me is why everybody is surprised” that the flu vaccine has been found to be so ineffective, Osterholm said …its protection may wear off within three months …
“What I worry about more than anything is the long-term credibility of science in public health,” he said. “Will people trust us if they don’t think that we’re being honest and forthright with the public data? Are we becoming nothing more than the anti-science people?” …health officials should “be honest about what it is. Stop trying to spin it.” …if we oversell it and make these statements that are just not true about how effective it is. Then we’re doing exactly what the anti-science people are doing.” …
“Public relation wishes and good will isn’t going to get us one. We need a strategic and tactical plan. We have none.
Would THIS make you want to get a flu shot??? Your doctor didn't tell you this? They state that anyone that has an egg allergy shouldn't get the flu shot, right? So, additionally they don't tell you as well is that you can develop a said egg allergy you did not have before; by getting the flu vaccine. Oh is no big deal is it? Just trust the for CDC, and the to much to lose authorities for all you every need to know; right? This is reckless and irresponsible! Cherry picking the big pharma connected science, and disregarding all else.
The study states, quote: [The results obtained indicate possible contamination of vaccine products with allergens of egg origin and a potential risk of allergic manifestation after influenza vaccination.] Both the CDC and the FDA clearly know of the ongoing vaccine contamination problem and that the issue remains unresolved, and that no known purification step process to date has been able to nor can clean these vaccines up. And they have admitted the risk that presents for human health. And what do they do? They white washed it, and the public will never be told nor hear about it, from them. When they are confronted with it, it is always from an external source, as a fact. Then what do they say no matter what? "There is no scientific proof of any harm." They know better.
Serological examination of IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg protein during influenza virus immunization.
N. Yamane and H. Uemura
The concentrations of serum IgE (PRIST) and IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg protein were determined in paired sera taken from students who had received influenza virus vaccine. Although persons who gave a history of allergy to egg or to chicken feathers were excluded, 10-16% of vaccinees possessed higher titres of serum IgE and IgE-specific antibody (RAST) to egg white (F1) allergen before vaccination. The titres of IgG-specific antibody to egg protein (ovalbumin and ovomucoid antigens) were negligible, and did not show any significant response after vaccination. In contrast, IgE-specific antibody to F1 allergen rose significantly in a considerable number of the vaccines. The results obtained indicate possible contamination of vaccine products with allergens of egg origin and a potential risk of allergic manifestation after influenza vaccination.
They simply refuse to comprehend that anything you put in a vaccine can potentially sensitize the personto that substance. Just because a substance exists in the environment, is eaten, or already exists in the human body, does NOT give a green light to inject that in a vaccine without safety testing. Gardasil has been another example of this ineptitude, in regard to their placement without testing, of L-histadine in the vaccine.
August 30, 2008
Polysorbate 80 and Histidine, a marriage of disaster
On the epidemiology of influenza. (Notice the reference to the deficiency of vitamin D)
Cannell JJ, Zasloff M, Garland CF, Scragg R, Giovannucci E.
Source: Department of Psychiatry, Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93423, USA.
The epidemiology of influenza swarms with incongruities, incongruities exhaustively detailed by the late British epidemiologist, Edgar Hope-Simpson. He was the first to propose a parsimonious theory explaining why influenza is, as Gregg said, "seemingly unmindful of traditional infectious disease behavioral patterns." Recent discoveries indicate vitamin D upregulates the endogenous antibiotics of innate immunity and suggest that the incongruities explored by Hope-Simpson may be secondary to the epidemiology of vitamin D deficiency. We identify - and attempt to explain - nine influenza conundrums: (1) Why is influenza both seasonal and ubiquitous and where is the virus between epidemics? (2) Why are the epidemics so explosive? (3) Why do they end so abruptly? (4) What explains the frequent coincidental timing of epidemics in countries of similar latitude? (5) Why is the serial interval obscure? (6) Why is the secondary attack rate so low? (7) Why did epidemics in previous ages spread so rapidly, despite the lack of modern transport? (8) Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause illness in all the volunteers? (9) Why has influenza mortality of the aged not declined as their vaccination rates increased? We review recent discoveries about vitamin D's effects on innate immunity, human studies attempting sick-to-well transmission, naturalistic reports of human transmission, studies of serial interval, secondary attack rates, and relevant animal studies. We hypothesize that two factors explain the nine conundrums: vitamin D's seasonal and population effects on innate immunity, and the presence of a subpopulation of "good infectors." If true, our revision of Edgar Hope-Simpson's theory has profound implications for the prevention of influenza.
Mechanism of action of vitamin D, in relation to resistance to the flu.
The pathology of influenza involves a complex interaction between the virus, acquired immunity, and innate immunity. Macrophages rapidly release cytokines into infected respiratory tissue while virucidal antimicrobial peptides attempt to prevent viral replication . The release of proinflammatory cytokines, as much as the virulence of the virus, may determine the clinical phenotype of influenza infection. Recent research confirms that the clinical phenotype of influenza correlates well with amount of cytokines released [34, 35]. Furthermore, the severity of the illness induced by genetically reproduced 1918 influenza virus also correlates with the ability of the virus to induce macrophage production of cytokines . In avian influenza, the innate cytokine immune response can be overwhelming; levels of such cytokines are significantly higher in those with a fatal outcome [37, 38].
Recently, vitamin D has been found to modulate macrophages' response, preventing them from releasing too many inflammatory cytokines and chemokines [39, 40]. Vitamin D deficiency also impairs the ability of macrophages to mature, to produce macrophage-specific surface antigens, to produce the lysosomal enzyme acid phosphatase, and to secrete H2O2, a function integral to their antimicrobial function [41, 42]. The same authors found that the addition of 1,25(OH)2D increased expression of macrophage-specific surface antigens and the lysosomal enzyme acid phosphatase while stimulating their ‘oxidative burst’ function.
Perhaps most importantly, three independent research groups have recently shown that 1,25(OH)2D dramatically stimulates genetic expression of antimicrobial peptides (AMP) in human monocytes, neutrophils, and other human cell lines [43–45]. These endogenous antibiotics, such as defensins and cathelicidins, directly destroy invading microorganisms . AMP display broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, including antiviral activity, and have been shown to inactivate the influenza virus [47–49]. Not only do neutrophils, macrophages, and natural killer cells secrete AMP, but epithelial cells lining the upper and lower respiratory tract secrete them as well, where they play a major role in pulmonary defence [50, 51].
Dr. Beatrice Golomb, PhD, MD. Dr. Vicky Debold, PhD, RN Dr. Andrew Wakefield Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD, FRCP Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, CCN Dr. Romain Gherardi Dr. Christopher Exley Dr. Richard Deth, PhD Micheal Vonn, Lawyer