“The flu vaccine gets the most-useless-vaccine-of-all-time award. Now the CDC is recommending the vaccine for children under two years old and all adults over 50.
Don’t fall for it.”Says Dr. Randal Neustaedter. The following is excerpted from a new edition of his book, The Vaccine Guide (North Atlantic Books 800 337-2665)
Writes Dr. Neustaedter – Everyone knows about the flu and the flu vaccine. What people do not know is that flu vaccines are nearly useless in preventing flu, they will cause the flu, and they often result in nervous system damage that can take years for the body to repair. Other nations chuckle at Americans’ infatuation with the flu vaccine. The joke would indeed be funny, if it weren’t for the damaging effects caused by the vaccine.
Children are the next frontier for the lucrative flu vaccine campaign. Vaccination is currently recommended for children over six months of age with high-risk medical conditions, but is not recommended for healthy children. Experts in the field suggest that parents of children age six months to two years “be informed that their children are at risk for serious complications of influenza, and allowed to make individual informed decisions regarding influenza immunization for their children” (Neuzil et al., 2001). This statement was made by Marie Griffin (and others), the same author who was implicated in the flawed study that supposedly exonerated the pertussis vaccine of nervous system damage. She is also a paid consultant to one of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturers, Burroughs Wellcome. The children’s market is the next big hope for vaccine campaigners. A 1998 working group began investigations to not only support, but also to “recommend” flu vaccine for young children.
One of the most bizarre twists on the flu vaccine saga is the CDC recommendation of 2001 that all pregnant women receive the vaccine in their second or third trimester. This recommendation even has doctors confused, since the vaccine remains a category C drug (unknown risk for pregnancy). No adequate studies have been conducted to monitor safety of the vaccine for mother and fetus. The only studies of adverse effects in pregnancy were conducted in the 1970s (Heinonen et al., 1973; Sumaya & Gibbs, 1979). Some flu vaccines still contain mercury as a preservative, despite a 1998 FDA instruction to remove mercury from all drugs. According to the CDC, two groups are most vulnerable to methylmercury, the fetus and children ages 14 and younger. An article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1999 stated, “the greatest susceptibility to methylmercury neurotoxicity occurs during late gestation” (Grandjean et al., 1999). How did CDC committee members determine that flu vaccines were safe for pregnant women? They did not. The committee, despite its own recommendation, states, “additional data are needed to confirm the safety of vaccination during pregnancy” (CDC, 2001b).
The next big change in flu vaccines will be the introduction of a live intranasal flu vaccine, a dose that is actually sprayed into the nose. This vaccine has already been tested on young children. Live intranasal vaccine was found 93 percent effective in preventing influenza in children age one to six years old (Belshe et al., 1998). Unanswered questions about the live vaccine include the possibility of transmitting other, more dangerous viruses through the vaccine, the possibility of enhanced replication of the attenuated virus in individuals with compromised immune systems, and the possibility of bacterial super infection if the replicating live virus disrupts nasal membranes (Subbarao, 2000). This vaccine waits in the wings for its chance as the next big gun in the vaccine arsenal aimed at our children.
Study of 793 children shows no decrease, says Dr. Alan Greene, MD. While earlier studies suggested that flu vaccine prevents ear infections in children, Dr. Greene points out that “An unpublished, yet news-making, study of 793 children 6 to 24 months, presented at the May 2002 meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, reports no decrease in ear infections, doctors visits, ER visits, antibiotic prescriptions, ill family members, or missed work, school, or daycare in those that received the vaccine. However, all children in the study, whether they had the vaccine or the placebo, had doctors visits every 2 weeks throughout the season. These visits may themselves have exposed kids to infections, decreased other doctors visits, and skewed the results.”
Dr. Alan Greene on flu shot: July, 2002
Flu Shot No Better than Placebo in Preventing Asthma Attacks
Stockholm, Sweden, September 16, 2002.
A new Swedish study has found that flu vaccine is “possibly no better than placebo in preventing exacerbations in asthmatic children.” Reporter Cameron Johnston reports that “Asthmatic children and other groups are usually encouraged to receive the flu vaccine each year as winter approaches. However, according to one study, the flu vaccine may be no better than placebo for preventing influenza-induced asthma exacerbations among children.
The study by practitioners at Erasmus University Medical Center, in Rotterdam, the Netherlands was presented in a poster session here on September 15th at the 12th Annual Meeting of the European Respiratory Society (ERS).”
The study involved enrolled 696 asthmatic children ages 6 to 18 years. The study was randomized, double blind, and placebo-controlled. One group of 347 subjects received a parenterally administered, inactivated influenza vaccine (flu shot), while 349 received a placebo throughout the winters of 1999-2000, and 2000-2001. Primary outcomes were number, duration and severity of asthma exacerbations associated with virologically proven influenza infection.
Average exacerbation lasted 3.9 days longer in the placebo group, although there were no differences in the severity of the exacerbations recorded between the two groups. According to Dr. Herman Bueving, of the Erasmus Department of Family Medicine, these findings suggest that while the flu shot does not reduce the number or severity of exacerbations in asthmatic patients, it can lead to exacerbations of a shorter duration.
The data also suggests that extra care should be taken each year when winter approaches because not all asthmatics will have a favourable reaction to the flu shot, and some might even be better off avoiding this form of prophylaxis altogether.
Japan Abandons flu Shots for Children
Large scale studies of compulsory flu vaccination in Japan of school aged children showed the vaccine to be ineffective and conducive to lawsuits due to adverse side effects. Two large studies one in 1980 and the other in 1985, involving four cities with vaccination rates between 1% and 90% showed little difference in flu incidence. In 1987, the Japanese government changed the flu vaccine from compulsory to voluntary. By 1989, even though only 20% of the population took the flu vaccine, the incidence of influenza did not increase. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/flu7.html
Sources for more flu vaccine information:
- Vaccination Liberation flu index – some great articles: http://www.vaclib.org/basic/fluindex.htm
*** Please remember through all the flu vaccine hype, only 10-15% of flu-like illnesses are actually Influenza the rest involve other pathogens that can cause identical symptoms. ***