for babies less than a year?
This study makes me really wonder if there was real informed consent.
I am appalled at how many moms think this is a great idea....i posted this piece elsewhere, and the replies were truly disgusting. Ranging from, 'side effects will be rare', to ' great, now my newborn will be protected as will the family, we all get flu shots every year', and 'this will be great for preemies, too'...smh...
Ugh. I know someone who will run right out and shoot up her kid. I final snapped and commented on a FB post she had about looking for a good, cheap photographer to do baby pics but they have to have had their flu and DTaP for at least 2 weeks! At first I was like ok, that's none of your business, then omg how freaking ballsy - do you plan to question store employees and your mail carrier as well???? So my post was short and sweet: "Cochrane review - flu shot doesn't prevent transmission...just sayin". I mean come on! Of course there were plenty willing to divulge that they'd been shot up for both - one who's about to give birth any day and was more than glad to share all the shots she's had, clearly while pregnant!! PS this kid is only a month old and already on antibiotics and was 'switched to formula' bc mom had a surprise unknown hospital stay shortly after he was born so hey any shots you put yourself at risk for while preggers, guess what?! They do no good if you don't attempt to breastfeed. I just can't stand this shit.
There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...
Good eye. So you know this vaccine turned out to be all B.S. if it is not yet on the market and being poked into every kid they can get their hands on.
But look at the hype and bells and whistles that show how promising this new vaccine is.
And I wonder what an adverse event was and how severe it was to be considered an adverse event to be even counted in this study.
So, if the placebo - whatever it was - was given with the standard recommended infant vaccines that are on the AAP and CDC schedule, and the child suffered a reaction, who knew what the child was reacting to?
And we're already unable to determine which vaccines in combination might be causing additional adverse reactions.
I'm also wondering if they used thimerosal-preserved flu shots in this test on 6-week-old infants.
I've scoffed at some of the more "out-there" conspiracy theories in the past, but what better way to cover up past thimerosal damage than to introduce both thimerosal-preserved flu shots to pregnant mothers, thimerosal-preserved flu shots to 6-month-olds, and, if the autism rate still seems to be going down, thimerosal-preserved flu shots to 6-week-olds?
No flu vaccine is approved for use in infants less than 6 months old, even though children in this age group are at high risk for flu and related complications.
Oh gee, but that couldn't have anything to do with all those adults running out to get vaxxed, lowering their own immune systems making them more prone to bringing things home to these infants....or the fact that sick people just can't seem to stay home...or the whole transmission issue of being an asymptomatic carrier and not even knowing you are spreading illnesses...
But it's ok, we'll just vax them even younger and of course all the while promoting moms to get vaxxed in pregnancy so they get a double whammy!
And I do love the "nearly half" reference...as though less than 50% is SUCH a spectacular rate!