Irresponsible Claim That Flu Vaccines Increase Birth Weight

by Heidi Stevenson

1 November 2009

They never quit with phony studies, especially when it comes to swine flu! The latest hype is from the Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) claiming studies show that babies born to women who've had flu vaccinations are bigger and healthier. Close inspection, though, shows the claim is based on junk science bought and paid for by Big Pharma.

The Claims

The claims are made based on three different studies. Most reports appear to have come from a teleconference of Thursday, 29 October⁽¹⁾. The most thorough information was found in Medscape⁽²⁾ Very little information was provided about any of them, but enough was available to easily discount the claims.

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Study

The Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center study was performed in association with a team in Bangladesh. They followed 340 women who had been given either a flu vaccine or a pneumococcal (pneumonia/meningitis) vaccine during pregnancy. They said that the flu-vaccinated women had given birth to babies that were half a pound heavier during flu season.

A comparison was made between women who'd been given different vaccines. One resulted in higher birth weights than the other. How dumb do they think we are? They've compared one vaccine with another, and then they've extrapolated that to imply that pregnant women who get the flu vaccine have bigger babies than those who get no vaccine.⁽³⁾

There is only one thing that could possibly cause someone to make such a blatantly nutsy claim bundled inside scientific mumbo-jumbo: money. And that's precisely what the Cincinnati Children's Medical Center gets for its studies, piles and piles of it. $6.7 million⁽⁴⁾, in fact, from Bill Gate's Foundation—the same foundation dedicated to promoting vaccinations and GMOs.

When the grant was announced, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center's director, Mark Steinhoff, MD, stated:

This new, larger field study will help us demonstrate the full effect of the flu vaccination in low-resource areas.⁽²⁾

That's a most interesting viewpoint. He had clearly what result he intended to obtain. As discussed here, his claims clearly echo his predetermined goal.

Emory University Study

A study by Emory University of 6,410 births between 2004 and 2006 in the state of Georgia found that vaccinated women were 80% less likely to deliver prematurely, and that they were 70% less likely to deliver small babies. Though the ages, insurance status, race, and prepregnancy weights were considered, the wealth and health were not factored in. Were those who had vaccinations wealthier? Were they healthier to begin with? Either could easily have explained the different results.

Yale University School of Medicine Study

A Yale University study purported to show fewer "flu-related hospitalizations" of infants whose mothers had been vaccinated during pregnancy.

According to Medscape:

The study consisted of 119 cases of infants between 0 and 12 months hospitalized with laboratory-documented influenza and 172 controls matched by age and date of hospitalization who did not have influenza.*

*Note that different references report a somewhat different number of control subjects. This does not, though, affect the point being made here.

Let's take a look at that statement. It didn't look at a group of infants whose mothers had been vaccinated and compare them with those whose mothers hadn't been. Instead, it sampled infants who were already hospitalized, and compared those who were diagnosed with influenza against those who were not so diagnosed. From that, it presumes to make the claim that babies whose mothers had been vaccinated were less likely to be hospitalized for flu. That's like comparing apples and oranges.

The Hype

The push to herd people into vaccine clinics is growing ever more frantic. Steinhoff, who clearly has a financial interest, stated:

When you prevent flu in a pregnant mother, you benefit the woman, and you also benefit the fetus.

That sounds good, but it fails to acknowledge that the benefits of his study may be nothing more than a chimera, and those of the others cited have not proven any better. Worse, though, it fails to note the very real risks of flu vaccinations. The ingredients of the various swine flu vaccines carry grave risks. The fact is that there are only two varieties without both mercury and squalene. One, the nasal spray FluMist, is absolutely contraindicated for pregnant women and babies. The other is a completely new variety, Celvapan. It has no real-world experience, was fast-tracked, was not tested on any children and the limited testing was done with another flu virus, not the H1N1 swine flu.

It is likely that most pregnant women who submit to swine flu vaccinations, and virtually all who submit to seasonal flu injections, will be subjected to mercury and, in many cases, squalene. Any claims that there's no connection between injected mercury and the autism epidemic are based on the same sort of junk science claiming that babies benefit from their mothers' being injected with these toxic substances and inactivated flu viruses.

In the Medscape article on this report⁽²⁾, Paul Offit is quote as saying:

When asked which is worse, the vaccines or the virus, the clear answer is the virus.

He also claimed "no relevant financial relationships". This is the man who has benefitted to the tune of millions of dollars for his rotavirus vaccine. He has even stated that patients should not be fully informed on vaccines.⁽⁵⁾

The more the powers-that-be press for vaccinations, the more hype that's produced in the media, the worse the junk science supporting their case becomes. As documented in yesterday's article, Swine Flu Emergency in US Is Faked by CDC, the case for fear is manufactured. It's all being done to line the pockets of Big Pharma and Big Med.

There may be some in the industry who are true believers—but enough money can make a believer out of nearly anyone. Just take a look at Paul Offit and watch the careers of those who support this insanity. In one way or another, they're either making money out of it or they're on their way to it through lucrative contracts, both employment and business, with the corporations that, ultimately, profit the most.