Link between flu vaccine and miscarraiges

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phil.Stein

Active Member
Oct 28, 2018
223
194
Texas City
✟13,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Show me the risk for getting autism, miscarriages, etc from the vaccine. Before you site miscarriage, you must also include the number of miscarriages that are not related to getting the flu vaccine since miscarriage risk is highest in the first trimester for a million different reasons. I think the risk of birth defects from getting the flu or any disease that causes high fevers is significant.
As you already stated, 80% - 95% of people don't catch the flu anyway. Why add risk of miscarriage, autism, etc. to avoid a disease the odds say you aren't going to catch anyway?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

blackribbon

Not a newbie
Dec 18, 2011
13,388
6,674
✟190,401.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
I don't know that vaccination appreciably decreases the risk of catching the flu. There are a myriod of reasons as to why people still get the flu after being vaccinated against it, and for the marginally decreased risk of getting flu (if there even is a decreased risk at all), I wouldn't consider it worth the risks of autism, miscarriages, etc. associated with the vaccination itself.

Maybe for those sick people you refer to, who make up the 5 - 20% who seem to catch the flu every year, the risk would be more favourable for them (again, if the vaccine does decrease the risk of flu, which I've yet to be convinced of).

I suspect that hospital workers would be at higher risks for getting the flu and get it at higher rates than the normal person since we are exposed to it on a regular basis...if the vaccine didn't work.

If a person does catch the flu after being vaccinated, it is a lighter case and easier to recover from. That does not mean it didn't work.

What is the basis of your doubt?

And where is the statistical evidence that it causes increased risk of autism, miscarriages, and etc...? Miscarriage risk is significant high in the first trimester with or without the flu vaccine. It has not been shown to be higher for those who have gotten the flu vaccine.
 
Upvote 0

Phil.Stein

Active Member
Oct 28, 2018
223
194
Texas City
✟13,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I suspect that hospital workers would be at higher risks for getting the flu and get it at higher rates than the normal person since we are exposed to it on a regular basis...if the vaccine didn't work.

If a person does catch the flu after being vaccinated, it is a lighter case and easier to recover from. That does not mean it didn't work.

What is the basis of your doubt?
I work with some folk who get vaccinated against flu, and they catch it at the same rates - probably higher rates - than others. The vaccine seems to do less for flu prevention than a magic charm.

And where is the statistical evidence that it causes increased risk of autism, miscarriages, and etc...? Miscarriage risk is significant high in the first trimester with or without the flu vaccine. It has not been shown to be higher for those who have gotten the flu vaccine.
Precautionary principle. A few people have posted here saying there's a link. Let's see the studies proving no such link, before we go injecting vaccines into us to prevent something as rare and insignificant as a sniffle.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

blackribbon

Not a newbie
Dec 18, 2011
13,388
6,674
✟190,401.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
As you already stated, 80% - 95% of people don't catch the flu anyway. Why add risk of miscarriage, autism, etc. to avoid a disease the odds say you aren't going to catch anyway?

No, not of all people because a significant number of those people did get the flu vaccine. Pregnant women have lower immunity and are more likely to catch the flu. There is no statistical evidence saying that it harms pregnant women. However, there is evidence that the flu does.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Not wanting to make anyone fearful; but to be forewarned is to be forearmed. I found this rather disturbing and suggest extreme caution if you are pregnant and want to get the flu shot.

Of those references (one of which is broken), the two I would credit are to a study that showed a slight increase in risk. The sample size was small enough that's not clear it was even statistically significant. There are plenty of others studies showing no risk. So even if the study actually did reflect an increased risk, it's not clear that it applies to anything beyond that specific year's vaccine.
 
Upvote 0

blackribbon

Not a newbie
Dec 18, 2011
13,388
6,674
✟190,401.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
[QUOTE="Phil.Stein, post: 73589317, member: 414216"

Precautionary principle. A few people have posted here saying there's a link. Let's see the studies proving no such link, before we go injecting vaccines into us to prevent something as rare and insignificant as a sniffle.[/QUOTE]

There were flaws in that study that make it difficult to say that the flu vaccine was the cause of the miscarriage.

Earlier Studies That Support the Safety of Flu Vaccination in Pregnant Women
A review of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) (Moro et al, 2011) found no unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting for pregnancy complications or adverse fetal outcomes among pregnant women and flu shots.
A study using VSD data (Irving et al, 2013) found no increased risk of miscarriage among pregnant women who received flu vaccines in the 2005-06 or 2006-07 flu seasons.
A large study using VSD data (Kharbanda et al, 2013) found no increased risk for adverse obstetric events (like chorioamnionitis, pre-eclampsia, or gestational hypertension) for pregnant women who received the flu vaccine from 2002 to 2009 when compared to pregnant woman who were not vaccinated.
A VSD study (Nordin et al, 2014) compared pregnant women who received the flu shot with an equal number of pregnant women who did not receive the flu shot during the 2004-05 and 2008-09 flu seasons. The study found no differences between the two groups in the rates of premature delivery or small for gestational age infants.
A large August 2017 study using VSD data found that the babies of women who received the flu shot during their first trimester had no increased risk of having children with major birth defects.


I work postpartum nursing. Interesting enough, a great majority of my new mothers were vaccinated and have healthy beautiful babies. How do I know they were vaccinated? Because I have to ask them.

How do you know that your co-workers are vaccinated or have the flu? Many people call a lot of winter time illnesses "the flu" but they are not. My mom thought she had the flu after getting her vaccine...a couple questions made it obvious that she had food poisoning and not the flu. There are plenty of flu-like viruses out there, most do not ever need hospitalization except in the most vulnerable populations but they make you feel ill.

The incidence of flu has gone down since we are able to vaccinate against it. However, it is not a mild disease and killed at least 50 million people in 1918 before we were able to treat it. Healthy people can get it and get over it without going to the hospital but that doesn't mean it is safe for the unborn child or that the baby got over it too.

The risk of both is not high....and each pregnant mother needs to make her own decision. But not getting the vaccine is not necessarily the safer thing to do. And one study that was set up to not show the best statistical comparisons is not enough evidence to base all your decisions on.
 
Upvote 0

blackribbon

Not a newbie
Dec 18, 2011
13,388
6,674
✟190,401.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Of those references (one of which is broken), the two I would credit are to a study that showed a slight increase in risk. The sample size was small enough that's not clear it was even statistically significant. There are plenty of others studies showing no risk. So even if the study actually did reflect an increased risk, it's not clear that it applies to anything beyond that specific year's vaccine.

It also picked women who had miscarriages and compared them equally to women who did not. Well, 50% of the known pregnancies do not end in miscarriages...so that does not represent all known pregnancies.
 
Upvote 0

barefeetonholyground

CF member for 15 years!
Oct 26, 2003
10,341
507
37
Kitsap County, Washington
✟34,761.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Between 5 to 20% catch the flu each year. Subtract those that didn't get it because they were vaccinated....why do you say that it unlikely to catch it in the first place.

And you can NOT catch the flu from the vaccine. That is a myth. If someone gets the flu within a couple days of the vaccine, it means the were exposed before the vaccine and were in the innoculation period when they got the vaccine. They were already sick just the symptoms didn't show yet.

We are talking about pregnancy here. Most pregnant women do avoid things that can potentially harm their baby...even if there is only a slight risk.
If you look at the efficacy rates of the flu vaccine year by year, it's usually about 20-40%.
If it's only that effective, I'm sure a lot of people would rather chance it with their God-given immunity.
Also, if people catch the flu after the vaccine, it isn't necessarily because they were exposed before getting the vaccine.
The flu mutates each year.
In order for the vaccine to work, it has to be administered before the flu hits.
In order to have the vaccine ready in time, the manufacturers guess which way the flu mutates.
In many cases, the guess is incorrect.
The flu ends up mutating in a different direction than the guess.
So you end up getting vaccinated for a different strain of flu.

Regarding things that could potentially harm the unborn baby, there are risks both ways.
It's foolish to think that there is such a thing as medication without risk.
The difference with taking the risks of getting an adverse reaction from a vaccine is you decide to take that risk.
Even a vaccine isn't foolproof in guarding yourself against any disease.
 
Upvote 0

blackribbon

Not a newbie
Dec 18, 2011
13,388
6,674
✟190,401.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
If you look at the efficacy rates of the flu vaccine year by year, it's usually about 20-40%.
If it's only that effective, I'm sure a lot of people would rather chance it with their God-given immunity.
Also, if people catch the flu after the vaccine, it isn't necessarily because they were exposed before getting the vaccine.
The flu mutates each year.
In order for the vaccine to work, it has to be administered before the flu hits.
In order to have the vaccine ready in time, the manufacturers guess which way the flu mutates.
In many cases, the guess is incorrect.
The flu ends up mutating in a different direction than the guess.
So you end up getting vaccinated for a different strain of flu.

Regarding things that could potentially harm the unborn baby, there are risks both ways.
It's foolish to think that there is such a thing as medication without risk.
The difference with taking the risks of getting an adverse reaction from a vaccine is you decide to take that risk.
Even a vaccine isn't foolproof in guarding yourself against any disease.

I said that. It is up to the mother to make that decision but it is better if she is given information on the risks and benefits of both decisions so she can make a decision from the point of education and not fear.

No one provided any evidence that the vaccine harms the baby, only that it could possibly slightly increase the risk of miscarriage. Medication does come with some risks....so does food, as a number of foods and spices can induce miscarriage or carry a higher risk of infection for a pregnant women. The point is that nothing is completely safe and it is important to make a decision based on what you believe is best for you based on good information and your chosen doctor's recommendation and not be scared by someone else's agenda.

Most babies come out fine in spite of what the mother does.
 
Upvote 0

Saricharity

Follower of Christ
Mar 24, 2014
1,419
1,072
Canada
✟75,597.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The point is that nothing is completely safe and it is important to make a decision based on what you believe is best for you based on good information and your chosen doctor's recommendation and not be scared by someone else's agenda.

I agree.
Don't blindly believe what you are told. Do your own careful research.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Since this zombie thread has been resurrected, I feel it only proper to give an update (as the OP).

I am by training an engineer, and was a tool and die design engineer for 20 years. For the most recent 20 years, I have been a nautical cartographer. BOth fields have research and changes that need to be brought to bear on what we do.

The study I posted at the beginning is now a decade old and has been tested again and again with new studies. The field of medicine changes rapidly in some areas; and the efficacy of vaccinations is one of them. While I believed I was giving current information, more has come to my attention in the mean time, and I would like to post them:

It is Safe to Receive Flu Shot During Pregnancy - ACOG

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014...MDEpgQJWo2YWyJ9tnPyKX1KQJeSheMrWBFYovVRwFjOoE

Is a flu shot during pregnancy safe?

Apparently they have determined the chance of a miscarriage from the flu itself is worse than the vaccines. And the vacs have improved in the last 10 years as well.
 
Upvote 0

Phil.Stein

Active Member
Oct 28, 2018
223
194
Texas City
✟13,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I am by training an engineer, and was a tool and die design engineer for 20 years. For the most recent 20 years, I have been a nautical cartographer. BOth fields have research and changes that need to be brought to bear on what we do.
Oooh. Very interesting. I bet you would have some good insights on the "flat Earth" subject. But material for another thread.

Apparently they have determined the chance of a miscarriage from the flu itself is worse than the vaccines. And the vacs have improved in the last 10 years as well.
Yes. And the chance of death from getting hit by a bus is greater than the chance of death from getting hit by a car. But that doesn't mean I go out looking for cars to get hit by so as not to get hit by a bus. If you don't catch the flu, and don't get the vaccine, you're obviously in the safest position of all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saricharity
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No! He was actually researching vaccines and gut health when he discovered the autism link.
No! Almost right, but not right. Wakefield had been studying autism and gut health when he was actually hired by the lawyers of parents of autistic children to find a vaccine link so they could sue.

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed
Unknown to Mr 11, Wakefield was working on a lawsuit,7 for which he sought a bowel-brain “syndrome” as its centrepiece. Claiming an undisclosed £150 (€180, $230) an hour through a Norfolk solicitor named Richard Barr, he had been confidentially 8 put on the payroll two years before the paper was published, eventually grossing him £435 643, plus expenses.9

Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children’s blood samples
Dr Wakefield’s comments at a press conference announcing the paper, where he linked the MMR vaccine to a risk of autism, led to a public health scare that saw uptake of the vaccine dip below 80%. The Lancet later repudiated the paper, after it emerged that Dr Wakefield had extensive financial ties to lawyers and families who were pursuing the manufacturers of the vaccine in the courts and that most of his research participants were litigants.
I actually just heard on the radio a couple days ago, I think it was John Carlson (local guy), how some people from the CDC have even come forward to talk about how they purposefully discredited Dr. Wakefield's research and were even silenced by the government when they tried talking about it. I don't understand how people don't see what a conspiracy this is
Without more evidence than you heard on a radio show that "some people", unnamed, unknown, did something nefarious to a known and proven fraud (Wakefield), it is a conspiracy theory in the worst sense rather than an actual conspiracy.

No kidding! I knew a guy, I actually set him up with his wife, and they have a boy with autism yet they jumped down my throat when they found out that I didn't vaccinate.
Huh - "yet".
I also know a girl I homeschooled with who is an avid vaccine supporter (she even claims that GARDISIL is one of the safest vaccines on the market) and her kids get vaccinated for everything. There was one point where she was posting regular updates on her Facebook page about how her son had been in the ER multiple times after waking her and her husband up every night for over THREE WEEKS because he kept throwing up.
I can honestly count on one hand how many times my child has been sick, apart from a cold here and there. She even went two years without getting sick, not even a cold, and she's only five!
You believe that there is a correlation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saricharity

Follower of Christ
Mar 24, 2014
1,419
1,072
Canada
✟75,597.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How about we listen to an interview with the man and let him speak for himself instead of posting out of date information.
Real documents and proof if you want.
I dare you to take the time to watch it and examine the REAL truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil.Stein
Upvote 0

Phil.Stein

Active Member
Oct 28, 2018
223
194
Texas City
✟13,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
No! Almost right, but not right. Wakefield had been studying autism and gut health when he was actually hired by the lawyers of parents of autistic children to find a vaccine link so they could sue.

Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children’s blood samples
He told a joke, and they accuse him of fraud? No wonder a real judge exonerated Wakefield's co-accused when the case went to a real court, instead of the kangaroo-court of doctors which condemned Wakefield. Taken from your linked article titled "Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children's blood samples".

'
The doctor whose study triggered a collapse in public confidence in the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine told a disciplinary panel last week that he made up details of his son’s birthday party—at which he took blood samples from several children—when giving a speech in California.

Last week the GMC panel saw video footage of a speech Dr Wakefield gave in 1999 at a meeting of parents of autistic children called by the Mind Institute of the University of California, Davis, where he jokingly described children fainting and vomiting after giving blood.

“Two children fainted, one threw up over his mother,” he told his laughing audience in the clip. “People said to me, you can’t do that—children won’t come back to your birthday parties. I said we live in a market economy; next year they’ll want £10.”
'
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He told a joke, and they accuse him of fraud? No wonder a real judge exonerated Wakefield's co-accused when the case went to a real court, instead of the kangaroo-court of doctors which condemned Wakefield. Taken from your linked article titled "Wakefield admits fabricating events when he took children's blood samples".
He did tell a joke, but he also committed fraud; the two are not mutually exclusive. Wakefield's case was heard by a real court, same as his co-accused.


The doctor whose study triggered a collapse in public confidence in the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine told a disciplinary panel last week that he made up details of his son’s birthday party—at which he took blood samples from several children—when giving a speech in California.

Last week the GMC panel saw video footage of a speech Dr Wakefield gave in 1999 at a meeting of parents of autistic children called by the Mind Institute of the University of California, Davis, where he jokingly described children fainting and vomiting after giving blood.

“Two children fainted, one threw up over his mother,” he told his laughing audience in the clip. “People said to me, you can’t do that—children won’t come back to your birthday parties. I said we live in a market economy; next year they’ll want £10.”
'
The scandal attached to that wasn't that he joked about it, but that he paid the children money for blood. That is was at his son's birthday party is just an additional appalling detail.
 
Upvote 0

Phil.Stein

Active Member
Oct 28, 2018
223
194
Texas City
✟13,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
He did tell a joke, but he also committed fraud; the two are not mutually exclusive. Wakefield's case was heard by a real court, same as his co-accused.
The fraud they accused him was is the joke. Please show a link to Wakefield's case in a real court, as I don't believe this is true.

The scandal attached to that wasn't that he joked about it, but that he paid the children money for blood. That is was at his son's birthday party is just an additional appalling detail.
Oh, this is just medical establishment hypocrisy. The children consented. The medical establishment would've turned a blind eye, if Wakefield supported their vaccination agenda.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The fraud they accused him was is the joke. Please show a link to Wakefield's case in a real court, as I don't believe this is true.
No, his license was revoked because of the fraud he committed.

Oh, this is just medical establishment hypocrisy. The children consented. The medical establishment would've turned a blind eye, if Wakefield supported their vaccination agenda.
No, it was unethical for the researcher to pay the children for their blood and pretty questionable to solicit them at the birthday party.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.