Visit our Re-post guidelines
Why does the CDC claim a flu vaccine during pregnancy is a safe and effective when even the H1N1 vaccine insert clearly states this is not true?
According to all official health reports, we are now fully in flu season. It is that time of year when public health officials, physicians pediatricians and pharmacists warn that everyone over 6 months of age and older should protect themselves and get vaccinated. This includes renewed propaganda to influence pregnant women to protect their unborn child and to threaten healthcare workers with job termination if they refuse vaccination.
A recent case that has received widespread media attention across the major networks was the firing of a pregnant nurse, Dreonna Breton, from her job at Horizon Healthcare Services in Lancaster Pennsylvania for refusing the flu vaccine. Having waded through the scientific research about flu vaccine safety, Breton made the decision to reject because she felt the lack of safety outweighed the vaccine's benefits. Hence her employer fired her without giving due consideration to her personal OBGYN's recommendations nor the scientific evidence she provided in support of her refusal. The official dogma, still touted by the mainstream media, is that the flu vaccine is effective, safe and there is no need for pregnant women to avoid vaccination.
The question with all vaccines has always been whether or not the studies support federal official and the medical establishment's claims.
There is a very simple reason why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes on their website that "no study to date has seen an adverse consequence of inactivate influenza vaccine in pregnant women and their offspring." This is because no such study has been accurately designed and performed to determine the flu vaccine's safety in pregnant women. The ACOG and CDC are not legally required to tell the truth about anything. They can spin words and science to their heart's content without legal repercussions for wrong doing or criminal behavior. Nobody takes these associations and the federal agencies to court for cherry picking their studies or conducting remarkably poor clinical trials in order to promote their personal agendas and lies. However, private vaccine makers are required to provide the most accurate information available to vaccine administering physicians and healthcare workers on manufacturing package inserts. This is not only required to educate physicians about the vaccines being given to their patients, but also to provide a rough guideline in the event of vaccine adverse effects and injury. And what do we find on these inserts? Almost categorically, there is the warning that "safety and effectiveness have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers" for these flu vaccines.
There is a single question that needs to be answered: what is the actual gold standard proof to claim that the flu vaccine is safe for pregnant women and will not harm her fetus? There is none. Nor is there any valid evidence that flu vaccines are effective.
In an interview with Dr. Thomas Jefferson, coordinator for the Cochrane Vaccine Field in Rome, Italy, he stated that in 2009 he conducted a thorough review of 217 published studies on flu vaccines and found only 5% reliable. In other words, 95% of published flu vaccine studies are flawed and their conclusions should be dismissed. This is not a great surprise; even CDC officials were forced to confess that "influenza vaccines are still among the least effective immunizing agents available, and this seems to be particularly true for elderly recipients." Dr. Anthony Morris, a distinguished virologist and a former Chief Vaccine Office at the FDA, found "there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza.' Dr. Morris stated, "The producers of these vaccines know they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway."
In 2013, Dr. Peter Doshi at MIT and Johns Hopkins University published a devastating report in the British Medical Journal discrediting the official fear tactics about flu season. In the report Doshi stated, "The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated." He notes that a study published by an Australian team found that "one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for HINI influenza." Separate independent studies conducted in the UK, Finland and Sweden concur that the flu vaccine directly contributed to the rise in cases of narcolepsy following receipt of GlaxoSmithKline's Pandemrix vaccine. The conclusion is that the vaccine triggered an immune reaction against the children's sleep center cells. If these serious events are occurring among children, what are the true adverse effects happening to an unborn developing fetus in the womb when the mother is vaccinated?
The CDC's website states, "if you are pregnant, a flu shot is your best protection against serious illness from the flu. A flu shot can protect pregnant women, their unborn babies and even the baby after birth." Is there any scientific truth to this claim? We would expect that if this were true, then we would find this mentioned on the flu vaccine package inserts. But we don't. For example, for the H1N1 vaccine inserts, we find "It is not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women or can affect reproduction capacity."
Surprisingly few vaccine studies have been performed on pregnant women. And none of them according to Dr. Jefferson are "high quality." While some extremely poor trials have been conducted, the CDC's National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease research into the potential dangers and risks of the flu vaccine to both mom and fetus is negligible. After evaluating all flu vaccine studies on pregnant women, and finding them "artificial" in the way they were designed and carried out, Dr. Jefferson concludes that "I would be very very cautious about vaccinating unborn babies."
The New York Times published an article touting the CDC myth of flu vaccine safety for pregnant women. The Times quoted Dr. Jay Butler, CDC's chief of the swine flu vaccine task force to relieve fears about flu vaccine adverse effects, especially to pregnant women. Dr. Butler said, "There are about 2,400 miscarriages a day in the US. You'll see things that would have happened anyway. But the vaccine doesn't cause miscarriages. It also doesn't cause auto accidents, but they happen." Not very reassuring to expectant mothers across the country, especially since none of the approved H1N1 vaccines used at that time had undergone rigorous clinical safety trials on pregnant women or the potential adverse effects of mercury-laced vaccines and other ingredients, such as spermacide, detergent and cosmetics, on the developing fetus.
In 2012, the National Coalition of Organized Women received documents with statistics based upon the government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) covering the 2009 and 2010 flu season. The CDC's own vaccine injury data collection revealed a 4,250% increase in fetal deaths after the flu shot. The VAERS statistics were confirmed later by Dr. Gary Goldman and published in the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal showing that the HINI swine flu vaccine did in fact cause a 4,250% rise in spontaneous abortions.
The CDC has refused to provide further information under a Freedom of Information Act filing until after a three year period, a direct violation of FIOA law. When confronted and queried about the rise in fetal deaths among vaccinated pregnant mothers, the CDC's Dr. Shimabkuru confirmed the agency knew of this increase.
A study appearing in the journal Vaccine provides a strong warning against administering the flu vaccine to pregnant woman. The study observed a rise in inflammation in pregnant woman that relates directly to preeclampsia and leading to premature births. Commenting upon this study, Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, wrote this should be expected given the "highly inflammatory, neurotoxic and immunotoxic" ingredients found in flu vaccines.
In 2009 during the height of the swine flu, we published a review a safety trials conducted by the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases for pregnant women, persons with asthma, and the co-administration of the H1N1 and seasonal flu vaccines in healthy adults and the elderly. Once again these studies display the power of deceptive science for propaganda use. At that time, results were twisted, kneaded and molded into a smiley face, plastered on the CDC's and pro-vaccine health websites, and aired across the media waves to convince us to rush to our nearest vaccination facility.
Those particular NIAID studies were performed in collaboration with Novartis and Sanofi Pasteur, each a manufacturer of an approved H1N1 vaccine. Novartis' Head of Strategic Immunization Planning, Dr. Clement Levin, and Sanofi Pasteur's President Damian Braga sat as representatives on the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP). The vaccine industrial complex is therefore involved in making our health choices for us. Furthermore, a review of all the clinical sites where the trials will be conducted reveals that most had representation on the ACIP. There was no indication of any independent research entities participating in the trials without financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
The pregnancy study only included 120 women, and one of the exclusion criteria included any woman whose temperature rises to 100 degrees F or higher during the first 72 hours after injection being removed from the study. This last point is a clear example of a confounder intentionally inserted into the study because adverse side effects that may appear in any of these women would not be included in the final data analysis.
The American public has every reason to be suspicious over our health officials vaccination claims and to hold them in distrust and even contempt. Citizens' confidence in the flu vaccine's safety has dropped dramatically across the developed countries. Our tax dollars are spending approximately several billions of dollars annually to mass-vaccinate the American population with a biological product without any scientifically concise proof of safety and efficacy. But our distrust should not be based on the incestuous romance between government and the vaccine industry, although this surely exists. Instead, the policy decisions being ruled by our national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice rely on exceptionally bad science. This is what should alarm Americans because it undermines the very foundation of medicine as an art to prevent disease, pain and suffering. So to our health bureaucrats, "It's the science, stupid!"
 Kidder D, Scmitz R. Measures of costs and morbidity in the analysis of vaccine effectiveness based on Medicare claims. In Hannoun C, et al. Eds. Options for the Control of Influenza 11. Amsterdam: Excerpts Medica, 1993; 127-33.
 Patrick, Jay. "Flu Vaccines 'Worthless' Says Eminent FDA Virologist."
 Hubbard SB. "Johns Hopkins Scientist Slams Flu Vaccine." Vaccine Information Network, May 16, 2013.
 "Glaxo's Swine Flu Shot Linked to Narcolepsy in UK Kids." Bloomberg, February 26, 2013.
 McNeil, Donald. "Don't blame flu shots for all ills, officials say" New York Times. September 28, 2009
 Dannemann E. "4,250% increase in fetal death reports covered up by the CDC" http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2012/12/09/4250-increase-in-fetal-death-reports-covered-up-by-cdc-untested-h1n1-vaccine/