Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.

Among the 115 participants who were followed up, the median duration of follow-up was 272 days (interquartile range, 264–285 days), with no statistically significant differences in age, sex, household size, or duration of follow-up between TIV and placebo recipients (Table 1). We identified 134 ARI episodes, of which 49 met the more stringent FARI case definition. Illnesses occurred throughout the study period (Supplementary Appendix Figure 1). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of ARI or FARI between participants who received TIV and those who received placebo, either during winter or summer 2009 (Table 2).

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Flushot More Deadly Than COVID-19 – According to Manufacturer Studies

Flushot More Deadly Than COVID-19 – According to Manufacturer Studies

The CDC recently revealed that the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of COVID-19 is much less than we had previously been told. The World Health Organization originally claimed that a staggering 3.4% of people with the infection would die from it. The CDC has now come out and admitted that the true CFR is just 0.26%, 1300% lower than the original claim from the World Fearmongering Organization.

A Department of Defense study showed flu vaccine recipients were at 36% increased risk of coronavirus infection, the same family of viruses as COVID-19. A concerning finding considering Reuters is reporting that fears of a second wave are pushing pharmacies and drugmakers to gear up for a major flu vaccine push this year.

Fluzone Quadrivalent High-Dose

Within 6 months post-vaccination, 156 (6.1%) Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 93 (7.4%) Fluzone recipients experienced a serious adverse event (SAE). No deaths were reported within 28 days post-vaccination. A total of 23 deaths were reported during Days 29 – 180 post-vaccination: 16 (0.6%) among Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 7 (0.6%) among Fluzone recipients. The majority of these participants had a medical history of cardiac, hepatic, neoplastic, renal, and/or respiratory diseases. These data do not provide evidence for a causal relationship between deaths and vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose.

Elderly who generally suffer from comorbidities and have been especially hard hit by COVID-19 are dying at twice the rate of the average COVID-19 CFR following flu vaccination. When considering the apparently increased risk of coronavirus infection, as well as the normally significant death rate of the elderly who receive regular flu vaccination it appears that a major flu vaccine push could result in the dreaded “second wave” we’ve been hearing about for months now.

Department of Defense Study – Flu Shot Increased Risk of Coronavirus Infection 36%

“Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.”

Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season

Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders

Vaccination before 1 year of age was associated with increased odds of developmental delays (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.47–3.24), asthma (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.04–9.88) and ear infections (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.63–2.78). In a quartile analysis, subjects were grouped by number of vaccine doses received in the first year of life. Higher odds ratios were observed in Quartiles 3 and 4 (where more vaccine doses were received) for all four health conditions considered, as compared to Quartile 1. In a temporal analysis, developmental delays showed a linear increase as the age cut-offs increased from 6 to 12 to 18 to 24 months of age (ORs = 1.95, 2.18, 2.92 and 3.51, respectively). Slightly higher ORs were also observed for all four health conditions when time permitted for a diagnosis was extended from ⩾ 3 years of age to ⩾ 5 years of age.

In this study, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations, higher ORs were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. Further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with childhood vaccination.”

SagePub

The History of the Idea of Allergy

“About 100 years ago, a young paediatrician understood that the function of the immune system should be rationalized not in terms of exemption of disease but in terms of change of reactivity. He coined a new word to represent such an idea: ‘allergy’: the first contact of the immune system with an antigen changes the reactivity of the individual; on the second and subsequent contacts, this change (or allergy) can induce a spectrum of responses from protective (literally, immune) to hypersensitivity ones. The idea was at first hardly understood by the scientific community because it undermined the essentially protective nature of the immune response as it was defined. Nevertheless, in the next years, the growing clinical evidence led to the acceptance of this new point of view, but not of the new word, at least not unconditionally. The original significance of the neologism ‘allergy’ became perverted and limited to describe hypersensitivity conditions. Perhaps because of the corruption of the term, today ‘allergy’ does not have a well delimited significance among health professionals. Furthermore, the word has long ago escaped from physicians and gone to the streets, where it is popularly used also as synonymous with antipathy and rejection. This vulgarization of the term ‘allergy’ has significantly increased its imprecision.

On June 25 in the same year, the French immunologist Nicolas Maurice Arthus published an eye-opening experiment: after the fourth subcutaneous injection of horse serum in rabbits, a local oedematous reaction occurred; after the fifth, it became purulent; and after the seventh gangrenous. In other words, an increased specific sensitivity followed repeated injections of a foreign protein that was primarily nontoxic. More importantly, Arthus recognized the relationship of the increased sensitivity with the anaphylaxis of Charles Richet, published the year before.”

European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

“Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.”

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

 

Pin It on Pinterest