Flu Vaccine Results in Tripling of Children's Hospitalization for Influenza

by Heidi Stevenson

26 June 2009

Three times as many asthmatic children who receive the inactivated flu vaccine end up hospitalized for flu-like symptoms as those who are not vaccinated. That is, the children who are generally most pressed to have flu vaccinations, those with chronic respiratory illnesses, are three times more likely to be hospitalized. Nonetheless, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunity (ACIP) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (APA) recommend influenza vaccinations for children beginning at age six months.

The study, performed under the auspices of the Mayo Clinic by Avni Joshi, MD, and others, was of 263 children with asthma from ages 6 months to 18 years. All of them had received the trivalent inactivated flu vaccination (TIV). They all suffered from laboratory-confirmed influenza between 1996 and 2006. They claimed a p value of 0.006, indicating that it was very likely repeatable. They eliminated factors, like insurance and asthma severity, that might affect the outcome.

The result was that three times as many children with asthma had to be hospitalized because of influenza vaccinations.

Yet, Dr. Joshi has stated, "While these findings do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations." Huh? What is that supposed to mean? Children with asthma were three times more likely to require hospitalization for influenza when they received the TIV. The researchers eliminated any other potential causes for the difference. Yet, the lead researcher says there was no cause and effect?

Dr. Joshi has further said, "While these finding do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations. More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity, but also the efficacy of different influenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects."

Let's try to understand this. Dr. Joshi says that there is no cause and effect demonstrated, although his study eliminated all other factors he and his team could think of. He states that the results may be related to the vaccine's lack of efficacy. That sounds plausible, until you look at it carefully. If the problem was that the vaccine didn't work, then that should mean there would be no difference in the number of hospitalizations between those who had the vaccine and those who didn't. That's obvious. So, what caused the tripling in the rate of hospitalizations in the children who had the vaccine? It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that it was lack of efficacy.

This sounds like double speak. Gardasil and Cervarix are vaccines claimed to prevent cervical cancer, in spite of the fact that no cause and effect connection between herpes and cancer has ever been shown. Yet, it is being pushed, and even forced, on girls, in spite of severe reactions to the vaccine, including death. In the case of the flu vaccine, it's demonstrable that there must be a cause and effect connection, since everything else has been eliminated—yet the opposite is being claimed.

Why would this be, other than to soften the blow and allow Big Pharma to sell influenza vaccines poison?

Clearly, it's important to see what a study actually documented, not simply accept the conclusions stated by its researchers. All too often, studies' results do not match the claims made for them.

If you look at the first two references listed below, you'll find that they're nearly identical, including the false conclusions stated by the researcher. This is because most news reports of medical discoveries and studies are little more than rehashed press releases. In other words, they can't be trusted.

Sadly, it's highly unlikely that the results—the real results, not the claims—will bring about a change in the directives of the APA or ACIP. Physicians will take their marching orders, leaving children and adults at the mercy of ever more aggressive campaigns for questionable vaccinations and treatments.