It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Effectiveness of Maternal Influenza Immunization in Mothers and Infants

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
An article published today by the New England Journal of Medicine, a new study encourages pregnant women to get flu shots as a way to protect their infants.


"Our study shows that a newborn's risk of infection can be greatly reduced by vaccinating Mom during pregnancy. It's a two-for-one benefit," Steinhoff says in a news release. "Infants under six months have the highest rates of hospitalization from influenza among children in the U.S."

U.S. guidelines advise pregnant women to get flu shots, but only 12% to 13% do. Obstetricians have been slow to pass the recommendation on to women, even though most agree that getting the flu during pregnancy is dangerous.

The study enrolled 340 mothers who had not received a flu shot for at least three years. The study showed that vaccinating pregnant women:

Cut infants' risk of getting lab-confirmed flu by at least 63%
Cut both infants' and mothers' risk of respiratory disease with fever by one-third
Prevented respiratory disease with fever in 14 infants and seven mothers for every 100 women vaccinated
Prevented one case of lab-confirmed flu for every 16 women vaccinated
webmd


Abstract from NEJM


Background Young infants and pregnant women are at increased risk for serious consequences of influenza infection. Inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended for pregnant women but is not licensed for infants younger than 6 months of age. We assessed the clinical effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine administered during pregnancy in Bangladesh.

Methods In this randomized study, we assigned 340 mothers to receive either inactivated influenza vaccine (influenza-vaccine group) or the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (control group). Mothers were interviewed weekly to assess illnesses until 24 weeks after birth. Subjects with febrile respiratory illness were assessed clinically, and ill infants were tested for influenza antigens. We estimated the incidence of illness, incidence rate ratios, and vaccine effectiveness.

Results Mothers and infants were observed from August 2004 through December 2005. Among infants of mothers who received influenza vaccine, there were fewer cases of laboratory-confirmed influenza than among infants in the control group (6 cases and 16 cases, respectively), with a vaccine effectiveness of 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5 to 85). Respiratory illness with fever occurred in 110 infants in the influenza-vaccine group and 153 infants in the control group, with a vaccine effectiveness of 29% (95% CI, 7 to 46). Among the mothers, there was a reduction in the rate of respiratory illness with fever of 36% (95% CI, 4 to 57).

Conclusions Inactivated influenza vaccine reduced proven influenza illness by 63% in infants up to 6 months of age and averted approximately a third of all febrile respiratory illnesses in mothers and young infants. Maternal influenza immunization is a strategy with substantial benefits for both mothers and infants. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00142389 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)


My understanding of flu shots is that they are ineffective at best and extremely harmful at worse. I can't imagine administering a flu vaccine into the system of a fetus.
Sounds like a bad idea all around.




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Well, ya gotta wonder whose money paid for this study... Pharmaceutical companies...? I would bet that if one dug deeply enough, that is what they would find.

Yes, vaccinations are one avenue they are bilking us and poisoning us simultaneously.

EDIT to add: Ah, yes. WebMD. The shills. They are masquerading as being there for us. They are there to tow the party line.

And now I add much greater probability that Big Pharma paid for this study.

I must ask...

HOW DOES ONE KNOW that disease is prevented!?! Proving a negative, it is.

What a load of bulls...pit.

[edit on 9/17/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Well, ya gotta wonder whose money paid for this study...


I found the answer for you:


The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Vaccine Program Office, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the Thrasher Research Fund, Aventis Pasteur, the International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research, and the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.


medpagetoday



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Well, ya gotta wonder whose money paid for this study...


I found the answer for you:


The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Vaccine Program Office, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the Thrasher Research Fund, Aventis Pasteur, the International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research, and the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.


medpagetoday


Awesome. Thanks. I don't fully trust Bill & Melinda, m'self. [shrug] But I noticed Wyeth Pharmaceuticals there. Other "questionable" entities as well.

Seems some might have ties with interests, eh?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I guess my question would be: The evidence as to the benefits of most vaccines for children and adults is spotty at best, in fact there is much evidence that vaccines are in fact ineffective and potentially harmful.

How can anyone predict how they might affect the development of a fetus?

A mother is not supposed to smoke, drink, go bear certain medications, etc, all because what she ingests becomes part of a fetus. To introduce a flu vaccine, which is essentially a disease in small doses, seems completely unreasonable to me.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Agreed. I wonder if they evaluated infant development - particularly mental skills... What if the flu was averted (and it really was said to be a small overall difference) but the ability to learn was severely hindered in the infants who were subjected to this through the mothers...

I bet that, even if they did do an evaluation, we are unlikely to hear about it, as they don't even want our thoughts to stray in that direction. Keep us focused on disease and only disease.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


It's amazing. They always do these studies in countries like Bangladesh, where pharma companies treat people as disposable and take advantage of their poverty to conduct these "studies".

How many pregnant women would agree to have a flu vaccine in the US?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I got to thinking... What if they subdivided their test subjects such that the "control" group was overall impoverished, undernourished, and otherwise at a higher risk to begin with than the test group...

Stack the deck before the testing began, in other words.

No way to know what they did, really. They could claim a lack of bias and who would know?



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join