End federal flu shot recommendation during pregnancy
You probably heard the news, a CDC study released last week showed 200% or more increases in miscarriages among women who received a flu shot while pregnant. Women who got the H1N1 flu shot and a regular flu shot showed a 700% increase. And we know from a CDC study released in 2016 that flu shots cause a significant increase in autism among children whose mothers received the flu shot in the first trimester.
The vaccine industry is trying to downplay the significance of these findings even though every flu vaccine package contains the following warning, “Safety and effectiveness of (this flu shot) have not been established in pregnant women or children less than 6 months of age.” Which means that pregnant women have been getting flu shots as a standard procedure before we had the most basic safety information.
Please make it possible for the Autism Action Network to continue providing you with information and the means to take action on the issues that impact you and your family by supporting our one fundraiser of the year at the following link: https://www.grouprev.com/2017AutismCommunityWalk-autismacti…
And please click on the Take Action link to send messages to your Representatives in Washington and the White House calling for an immediate end to the federal recommendation that all pregnant women receive flu shots.
Here are the studies mentioned above:
Association Between Influenza Infection and Vaccination During Pregnancy and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27893896
Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/www.ncbi.nlm…/pubmed/27893896
Please share this message with friends and family, and please post to social networks.
This critique appears below the first study:
“Bonferroni is a ‘multiple comparisons adjustment’ for reducing the risk of false-positive findings when engaging in statistical ‘fishing expeditions’ among many unrelated associations. It is appropriate only when any of the following are true: 1. those associations are equally important, likely, and expected to be zero (absent) based on external (a priori) considerations; 2. the cost of any false negative is minor compared to the cost of any false positive; and 3. the associations are independent (unrelated) to one another. In return for the reduce risk of false positives, multiple comparison adjustments, like Bonferroni, dramatically increase the risk of missing real associations (false negatives). So, even if there were no other objections, Bonferroni as used by the authors (with N = 8) is simply erroneous. Using Bonferroni in this study was wrong for several other reasons: First, the authors specifically wanted to test if influenza vaccination during pregnancy was a risk factor for ASD—this was not a ‘fishing expedition” as assumed by Bonferroni (violating ‘1’ above). Second, the overall association of influenza vaccination anytime during pregnancy depends completely on the associations within each trimester, so violates the Bonferroni assumption of independence (violates ‘3’ above). Third, the first trimester is expected to be the period of greatest vulnerability for the developing fetus, and so is a pre-specified hypothesis. (In other words, before the study, the stakeholders expected (a priori) an association, which also violates ‘1’) Finally, we need to be confident that vaccines are safe: the costs of wrongly concluding that the influenza vaccine is safe rivals the costs of wrongly concluding that it causes harm, which violates the Bonferroni assumption (‘2’) that wrongly concluding harm is more costly than wrongly concluding safety.”