or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the supposed flu-during-pregnancy/autism link
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the supposed flu-during-pregnancy/autism link - Page 2

post #21 of 87

Does anybody know which antibiotics? Is there anywhere a link to the original paper? I'm just curious. I refused antibiotics 6 times with DD (6 sinus infections) because I knew I could heal without them, it was just uncomfy. I'd like to check out which antibiotics are anecdotally linked to autism.

I also find it interesting that this study is basically anecdotal, but the media concludes get your flu shot while pregnant or else... Ahem just sayin'...

post #22 of 87
It's kind of hard to forget having the flu.
post #23 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's kind of hard to forget having the flu.

If you had the real flu - yes.  I have had the flu once and I felt like I was hit by a Mack truck.

 

OTOH,  I have heard lots of people use the flu word interchangeably for a bad virus or cold.


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/19/12 at 3:17pm
post #24 of 87
OK, since none of us have the full study in our hot little hands, I'd say we're as guilty as news media of speculating on and spinning its contents.

Here's what I SUSPECT, but I'm going to track down the full article to confirm this. The researchers determined that getting a fever during pregnancy was correlated with the child becoming autistic. Spin doctors got a hold of it and said that since influenza often causes fevers, and since the flu shot covers some strains of influenza, pregnant women should all rush out and get vaccinated to prevent having autistic children. It's a stretch, yes, but so goes media PR.

It may take me awhile for me to get the article, so if anyone can beat me to the punch, be my guest.
post #25 of 87
I'm not sure how much of a spin machine is really at work. The news accounts I see are not touting this as reason to run out and get a flu shot.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AB04P20121112?irpc=932
post #26 of 87

Simply read the insert, "Category C Vaccine: has not been tested for safety or efficacy in pregnant women.  May cause fetal damage and/or reproduction issues." 

post #27 of 87

I will never forget being told I was going to die from a flu shot.  Or the 24 days I spent in the hospital, the 4 years with no feeling in my legs, the six-figure medical bills, the year of physical therapy.  The list goes on and on.

post #28 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Well, first of all, just because vaxxing leads to autism in some doesn't mean that it leads to autism in everyone.  The important point is, it does lead to autism in some.  The US Department of Health and Human Services has admitted and compensated cases of vaccine-induced brain damage, most including official autism diagnoses.  The most recent and highly publicized US case was that of Hannah Poling. Recently, the Italian government admitted that a child's autism was caused by the MMR vaccine.

 

As far as partially vaxed children, there was a recent study that concluded that infant boys who were given the hep B vax during the first month of life had a THREE-FOLD increase of autism diagnosis. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/new-study-hepatitis-b-vac_b_289288.html

 

As far as genetics are concerned, there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic.  The rate of autism has increased by roughly 10% per year, even though diagnostic criteria has not changed in the last 14 years, so it's obviously not "better diagnosis."

 

There may very well be a genetic predisposition--most likely, a genetic predisposition to vaccine reaction, or a genetic susceptibility or sensitivity to some of the ingredients in vaccines.

 

Mark Blaxill and Dan Olmstead offer a very convincing hypothesis on autism being undiagnosed heavy metal poisoning in their book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Autism-Medicine-Man-Made/dp/0312545622.  The earliest officially diagnosed autistic children all were in a position to have had excessive mercury exposure, some from vaccines, some from other sources.  Although mercury has been phased out of most children's vaccines in the US, the current official rate of autism is based on studies from 2008,on 8-year-olds, who were vaccinated before mercury was phased out.


In addition, as mercury was phased out of US vaccines, nearly twice as many vaccines were added to the pediatric vaccine schedule; nearly all contain aluminum, which seems to have very similar neurological effects.  In addition, pregnant women and children as young as 6 months are now routinely being given thimerosal(mercury)-preserved flu shots, as mercury was not phased out of flu shots. So they are essentially getting an even earlier mercury hit, when they are even more vulnerable


By the way, thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines are still manufactured in the US--and they are sent to developing countries, where autism is now skyrocketing.

 

Autism is likely to be the result of a "perfect storm" of factors.  Vaccines are perhaps the easiest to identify.  Another major factor appears to be vitamin deficiency.  Most autistic children are severely vitamin deficient, particularly in vitamin D.

 

Without sufficient vitamin D, you don't produce glutathione.  Glutathione is used by the body to eliminate heavy metals, but without glutathione, those heavy metals stay in the body--and cross the blood/brain barrier. They also cause autoimmune disorders--which are very common in autistic children, and there are even studies indicating that autistic children tend to have a strong family history of autoimmune disorder. So someone with vitamin D deficiency would be at risk for reacting badly to the heavy metals in vaccines.

 

Wow, wow, wow!!! Thank you SO MUCH Taximom! It's the kind of answer I was looking for. orngbiggrin.gif I'm glad you bit the bullet and shared your opinion. I definitely believe there is a predisposition to autism and funny you should mention it, Vit D def AND autoimmune disease run in the aforementioned person's family on the mother's side. Very, very interesting. Keep on writing mama, cause you've got some good stuff to share. thumb.gif

post #29 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by noflushot View Post

Simply read the insert, "Category C Vaccine: has not been tested for safety or efficacy in pregnant women.  May cause fetal damage and/or reproduction issues." 

 

Bolding mine. Not tested is not the same as saying it's dangerous. Testing medicines on pregnant women is considered unethical so is never done. And we all know the last statement is to cover themselves from liability, not a scientific statement of something which is likely. 

post #30 of 87

I couldn't get the full text article either, but there's a skeptical review of the study on Discovery News here: http://news.discovery.com/human/flu-fever-pregnancy-autism-121112.html

 

And a quote from it where the authors admit to possible methodological problems: 

 

 

 

Quote:
A week-long fever indicated a tripled risk. But, as the authors themselves point out, "misreporting of influenza is likely to be considerable," and "The results may be due to multiple testing; the few positive findings are potential chance findings."

 

So it certainly seems like we shouldn't be drawing any big conclusions from just this one study. 

post #31 of 87
Yeah, every single news article I've seen has quoted the authors as saying this study is very preliminary and not at all conclusive, and even if they were a pregnant woman they wouldn't do anything differently based on this study.
post #32 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Bolding mine. Not tested is not the same as saying it's dangerous. Testing medicines on pregnant women is considered unethical so is never done. And we all know the last statement is to cover themselves from liability, not a scientific statement of something which is likely. 

Not tested means "we don't know."  When we do suspect a Category C drug  is safe it is because a large group of pregnant women have turned themselves into guinea pigs and used the drugs despite the lack of testing.  

 

OT rant:  I was trying to figure out just how dangerous the flu was in pregnancy, so I went to a few sites.  This is what the March of Dimes had to say about flu vaccine safety during pregnancy:

 

Is it safe to get a flu shot during pregnancy? 
Yes. The influenza vaccine is safe at any time during pregnancy. Almost all women who are or will be pregnant during flu season can get the shot. Getting the flu shot can help protect you from getting influenza and spreading it to others.

 

banghead.gif  No.  Most of the pro-vax world thinks the pros outweigh the cons.  That is not the same as saying (without any hesitation) - yes, it is safe.  It is still listed as a class C drug, and no (as far as I know) placebo  - as - control based drug trials have been done on pregnant women.  I understand March of Dimes is probably pro-vax, but whitewashing issues is so.friggin.annoying.

 

They do not even bother to mention that pregnant women should not recieve a flu vaccine with thimnerosal in it.  Protecting babies from birth defects is important - but apparently protecting fetuses from mercury is not.  Grrr…..  


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/20/12 at 6:41am
post #33 of 87
Kathy while you're correct this is the same standard that almost all medications used in pregnant women are held to. It is not some special thing unique to vaccines. Pregnant women are not precluded from getting a vaccine with thimerosal, where's the evidence showing its dangerous to the fetus? When I tried to get a flu shot at my pharmacy when I was pregnant on their little mini health history it does ask if you may be pregnant and when I said I was the pharmacist explained tht their shots had thimerosal and the risks to me, though. Fwiw.
post #34 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

They do not even bother to mention that pregnant women should not recieve a flu vaccine with thimnerosal in it.  Protecting babies from birth defects is important - but apparently protecting fetuses from mercury is not.  Grrr…..  

Protecting fetuses from mercury--even protecting children and adults from mercury-- is not important to those who profit from vaccines.

 

March of Dimes may not be profiting from vaccines, but if their entire education concerning vaccine safety comes from the pharmaceutical industry or their representatives, then they will unwittingly continue the sales propaganda, including the whitewashing you mentioned.  They are almost certainly completely unaware that there ARE safety issues concerning vaccines, and they probably believe the oft-repeated lie that "thimerosal has been removed from US vaccines." (It has not, in case we have any new readers reading along.)

post #35 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Protecting fetuses from mercury--even protecting children and adults from mercury-- is not important to those who profit from vaccines.

 

March of Dimes may not be profiting from vaccines, but if their entire education concerning vaccine safety comes from the pharmaceutical industry or their representatives, then they will unwittingly continue the sales propaganda, including the whitewashing you mentioned.  They are almost certainly completely unaware that there ARE safety issues concerning vaccines, and they probably believe the oft-repeated lie that "thimerosal has been removed from US vaccines." (It has not, in case we have any new readers reading along.)

 

How can you know what's important to people who profit from vaccines?

 

In any case, there's no evidence that thimerosol actually causes any damage, and it has been removed from all childhood vaccines, and flu vaccines except those sold in multi-shot vials. 

 

Here's some information on thimerosol I have collected to share here when it comes up. :) 

 

 

The FDA has a website on thimerosol in vaccines in which they discuss their opinions on it (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228)

 

For example they say: 

 

"FDA has been actively addressing the issue of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines. Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA conducted a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Conducted in 1999, this review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions (Ball et al. 2001)."

 

despite the lack of any evidence of danger in that review the FDA and other government agencies related to health/children still recommended that it be removed/reduced in all vaccines in 1999/2000 "just in case" they had missed something. 

 

"As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000)."

 

That link has a discussion on the effectiveness of that recommendation and there is not thimerosol in almost all routinely recommended childhood vaccinations in 2012 (table at that link).  I was interested to note that the table also says that many formulations never had any thimerosol. 

 

Finally they also comment on their ongoing study of thimerosol in vaccines and in other products: 

 

"The FDA is continuing its efforts to reduce the exposure of infants, children, and pregnant women to mercury from various sources. Discussions with the manufacturers of influenza virus vaccines (which are now routinely recommended for pregnant women and children 6-23 months of age) regarding their capacity to potentially increase the supply of thimerosal-reduced and thimerosal-free presentations are ongoing."

post #36 of 87
Rachel, I'm referring to the MSNBC article on Pek64's link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Bolding mine. Not tested is not the same as saying it's dangerous. Testing medicines on pregnant women is considered unethical so is never done. And we all know the last statement is to cover themselves from liability, not a scientific statement of something which is likely. 

First, the testing of this vaccine on pregnant women--and the entire public--is going on as I type this. The CDC and WHO refer to it as gathering "post-marketing surveillance data."

Second, this has been stated on this forum but bears repeating: US. vaccine manufacturers are shielded from liability, so they have no need to cover themselves.

ETA: As to the notion of dangerous v. not tested, I tend to consider a pharmacologic intervention dangerous until it is fully tested. The burden of proof must rest on the promoters to prove that it's safe--especially since it's often mandated--and not on the consumer to prove that it's dangerous.
post #37 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by noflushot View Post

I will never forget being told I was going to die from a flu shot.  Or the 24 days I spent in the hospital, the 4 years with no feeling in my legs, the six-figure medical bills, the year of physical therapy.  The list goes on and on.

I'm so sorry. Was it GBS? Were you taken seriously? Or was it dismissed as a coincidence?
post #38 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Second, this has been stated on this forum but bears repeating: US. vaccine manufacturers are shielded from liability, so they have no need to cover themselves.

 

So I wanted to read about this supposed lack of liability in a place which doesn't have an non-vaxing agenda. Mostly because I'm getting confused by this being brought up at the same time as people using numbers about how many vaccine injuries have been compensated for. Those two things seems contradictory to me at least. 

 

I found a news article from NJ on it: http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/02/us_supreme_court_rules_that_fe.html

 

This explains that the Supreme Court Ruling was made because there is a separate independent vaccine court (funded by the pharmaceutical companies) in which vaccine injury cases are heard. 

 

 

 

Quote:
The vaccine court has paid out more than $1.9 billion to more than 2,500 people who claimed a connection between a vaccine and serious health problems.

 

 

And this from Justice Scalia explaining the decision

 

 

 

Quote:
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said Congress set up a special vaccine court to handle such claims as a way to provide compensation to injured children without driving drug manufacturers from the vaccine market. The idea, he said, was to create a no-fault system that spares the drug companies the costs of defending against parents' lawsuits.

 

 So I'm getting confused between liability and compensation. Vaccine companies can pay compensation to individuals who claim to have vaccine cause injuries without admitting liability, and the fact that they list possible injuries on the inserts etc. is what removes their liability. This happens in all sorts of places in the US right - that's why T&C are so long for things that most of us never read them? 

post #39 of 87

Also wikipedia page about the court decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruesewitz_v._Wyeth

post #40 of 87
I have to go clean for Thanksgiving guests, so I'll make this quick. Vaccine manufacturers don't pay a penny in compensation. We do. The VICP is taxpayer funded. Look up the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986...ideally the primary source.

I'm not sure if you celebrate it (maybe you do, based on your bi-cultural ties) but Happy Thanksgiving!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › the supposed flu-during-pregnancy/autism link