Originally Posted by dymanic
reading the cited literature, one gets the distinct impression that the IgG hypothesis was considered, and largely rejected in favor of the cytokine hypothesis.
Reading your posts one gets the distinct impression that you're unfamiliar with the research. You also seem to be unfamiliar with the breadth of immune reactions, which you keep mistakenly pigeon-holing as inflammatory responses. Do you have any evidence that absolutely no cytokines, interferons, etc. are stimulated by the flu vaccine? Of course you don't. How many cytokine molecules does it take to damage a fetal brain? Of course you don't know. No one knows.
No one knows for sure why or what it is about the maternal immune response that damages the fetus. It only came to light very recently that it was indeed the immune response and not the virus itself that was causing the damage. But somehow you think you've proven the vaccine is safe?
Your argument for the safety of flu vaccination in pregnant women is not only based on the supposition that the vaccine stimulates absolutely nothing but antibodies -- it's also based on the contingent supposition that those antibodies play no part whatsoever in damaging the fetus . Holy crud, fella -- it is currently unknown what aspects of the maternal immune response damage the fetus! You can't claim the vaccine is safe unless you know for certain that antibodies aren't involved! And nobody knows that right now. That's what those papers say. Did you read them? SOMETHING about the maternal immune response to flu virus damages fetal brains. No one knows for sure what that SOMETHING is. There were no footnotes in any of those papers that referred to Dymanic at MDC because 'he's figured it all out'. Please forgive those pregnant women who choose to forego the flu shot until the safety of the vaccine regarding fetal damage is established. Your claims of having logically worked it all out to the contrary, the potential for the flu vaccine to damage fetal brains has not been determined.