Live Flu Vaccines Increase Infectious Bacteria Counts 100-Fold in Mice

donnay

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
42,534
Live Flu Vaccines Increase Infectious Bacteria Counts 100-Fold in Mice

Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder

If presumably safer "attenuated" flu vaccines are supposed to protect against influenza and its sometimes deadly complications, then why do vaccinated mice have up to 100-fold higher levels of flu-associated pathogenic bacteria than non-vaccinated mice?

A concerning new study published in mBio, an open access journal of the American Society of Microbiology, titled, "Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Enhances Colonization of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus in Mice," reveals that live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) lead to the rapid and sustained overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria in the upper respiratory tract of mice at colonization densities up to 100-fold higher than non-vaccinated mice.

This is the first study of its kind to demonstrate that vaccination with a live attenuated viral vaccine can dramatically alter the colonization behavior of human bacterial pathogens in a manner very similar to that following infection from 'wild-type', i.e. naturally circulating, flu infections.

Influenza infection is well known to contribute to serious health complications, but this is the first time that a vaccine strain of flu has been found to induce similar alterations in disease-linked bacteria.

Continued...
 
LOL - these are the same guys that got you all fired up by misinterpreting that abstract of an unreleased pesticide study. Can't wait to see what they butchered here.

But right off the bat, the use of the word "safer" in parentheses indicates they are not even pretending to be unbiased. I don't think I have ever seen any legitimate source imply that the live virus vaccines are "safer."

More effective, maybe. But the fact that they aren't advised for patients with compromised immune system would seem to indicate they aren't "safer."


From the actual study:

Following infection with an influenza virus, infected or recently recovered individuals become transiently susceptible to excess bacterial infections, particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus. Indeed, in the absence of preexisting comorbidities, bacterial infections are a leading cause of severe disease during influenza epidemics. While this synergy has been known and is well studied, what has not been explored is the natural extension of these interactions to live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs).

You're still better off not getting the flu, and you can reduce the odds of getting the flu by getting the vaccine. Nothing to see here.
 
Last edited:
The strep virus was injected into the rats the same time as the flu vaccine was given. The article notes that:

LAIV does not increase severe bacterial disease or mortality.

It also notes that after three to five days from the vaccination, there was no difference in bacteria counts.
 
Last edited:
Sigh...

Perhaps the most important finding from our study, with regard to the health of the public and potential concerns regarding vaccination, is that LAIV did not enhance lower respiratory tract infections, morbidity, or mortality following bacterial infections, which are, by most accounts, the most significant issues to be concerned with in terms of respiratory tract bacterial disease. Indeed, this finding is consistent with numerous epidemiological reports all failing to detect any serious adverse sequelae of LAIV vaccination in humans (51, 54). Furthermore, this finding is consistent with significantly diminished LAIV virus replication within the lower respiratory tract, suggesting that viral replication is a requirement for the synergistic response seen between WT influenza viruses and bacterial LRT infections.

In other words, getting the seasonal flu is correlated with bacterial pneumonia -- being vaccinated with the attenuated strain is not.

These bacteria are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract and are usually harmless. Perhaps a mild case of sinusitis or an ear ache, but nothing as dangerous as the flu. If what you suggest is true, then most who receive the annual flu shot should develop pneumonia -- they are not.
 
Sigh...



In other words, getting the seasonal flu is correlated with bacterial pneumonia -- being vaccinated with the attenuated strain is not.

These bacteria are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract and are usually harmless. Perhaps a mild case of sinusitis or an ear ache, but nothing as dangerous as the flu. If what you suggest is true, then most who receive the annual flu shot should develop pneumonia -- they are not.


...that the statistics almost always lump the flu and pneumonia together. It’s assumed that influenza and pneumonia are strongly linked so that’s why there are often grouped together for data reporting, but that association is often lost when claims are made that 36,000 people die each year from the flu. For example this is from the American Lung Association:

Many confuse the flu with the common cold, but in actuality, the flu is much more serious. In the United States, the flu is responsible for 226,000 hospitalizations and an average of 36,000 deaths annually.[17]

But what they actually mean is “flu-related” deaths not from the flu itself and that complication is pneumonia.

…according to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), “influenza and pneumonia” took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributed to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was flu virus positively identified. Between 1979 and 2002, NCHS data show an average 1348 flu deaths per year (range 257 to 3,006).[18]

So in actuality the number of lives lost to the flu by percentage is less than 1%, and only a few were actually positively identified as the flu. So where does this 36,000 flu deaths figure come from? It comes from a model and not actually verified numbers.

CDC’s model calculated an average annual 36,155 deaths from influenza associated underlying respiratory and circulatory causes. Less than a quarter of these (8,097) were described as flu or flu associated underlying pneumonia deaths. Thus the much publicized figure of 36,000 is not an estimate of yearly flu deaths, as widely reported in both the lay and scientific press, but an estimate—generated by a model—of flu-associated death.[19]

Remember that the “flu” isn’t always caused by the flu virus (7% of ILI is the influenza virus) and since no one is really looking to test for the influenza virus association to pneumonia (the biggest part of the killer statistic) it is just an assumption. So how can the flu vaccine help prevent the lion’s share of the deaths when the association is more with ILI? According to Cochrane Reviews when they went to find how well vaccination helped people prevent pneumonia or death – they couldn’t find any.

After reviewing more than 40 clinical trials, it is clear that the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, perhaps 1 adult out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group. To put it another way we need to vaccinate 100 healthy adults to prevent one set of symptoms. However, our Cochrane review found no credible evidence that there is an effect against complications such as pneumonia or death.[20]
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...-at-by-roman-bystrianyk/#sthash.725Ng1f6.dpuf
 

Once again, the study in your OP debunks the article's claim.

Infection with influenza viruses increases susceptibility to severe lower and upper respiratory tract (LRT and URT, respectively) bacterial infections resulting in complications, such as pneumonia, bacteremia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media (11). Bacterial infections may be a primary cause of mortality associated with influenza virus infection in the absence of preexisting comorbidity (12, 13). Primary influenza virus infection increases acquisition, colonization, and transmission of bacterial pathogens (14), most notably the pneumococcus Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus (11, 15).

Although the underlying mechanisms, while well studied, are not entirely defined, they likely include a combination of influenza virus-mediated cytotoxic breakdown of mucosal and epithelial barriers (16–18) and aberrant innate immune responses to bacterial invaders in the immediate postinfluenza state, characterized by uncontrolled pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine production, excessive leukocyte recruitment, and extensive immunopathology (11, 19–22). When coupled with diminished epithelial and mucosal defenses, such an environment becomes increasingly hospitable for bacterial pathogens to flourish and invade in the days and first few weeks following influenza virus infection.

Do you even read what you post?
 
Once again, the study in your OP debunks the article's claim.



Do you even read what you post?

Yeah I read it, I was pointing out that they lump flu and pneumonia together when using statistics. So when they say 36,000 deaths a year from flu it is; A) An estimate B) they are lumping many things together.

It also makes the point of how ineffective the flu vaccine really is.

"After reviewing more than 40 clinical trials, it is clear that the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, perhaps 1 adult out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group. To put it another way we need to vaccinate 100 healthy adults to prevent one set of symptoms. However, our Cochrane review found no credible evidence that there is an effect against complications such as pneumonia or death.[20] "
 
Yeah I read it, I was pointing out that they lump flu and pneumonia together when using statistics. So when they say 36,000 deaths a year from flu it is; A) An estimate B) they are lumping many things together.

Because the pneumonia is brought on by the flu for reasons I posted above.

It also makes the point of how ineffective the flu vaccine really is.

After reviewing more than 40 clinical trials, it is clear that the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, perhaps 1 adult out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group. To put it another way we need to vaccinate 100 healthy adults to prevent one set of symptoms. However, our Cochrane review found no credible evidence that there is an effect against complications such as pneumonia or death.[20]

We get it...sickness equals being healthy to you. Assuming those numbers are accurate -- unlikely -- 1 in 100 people is still equal to 3,000,000 additional people put at risk just in the U.S. alone.
 
Flu vaccination drives do not usually target healthy adults, because they acknowledge under normal conditions the benefits are minimal. They go for children and elderly, and people who work around them.
 
Last edited:
Flu vaccination drives do not usually target healthy adults, because they acknowledge under normal conditions the benefits are minimal. They go for children and elderly, and people who work around them.



What’s more is that same article reported that only approximately 5% of winter deaths are related to influenza. The often stated 50% of senior deaths could be prevented by vaccination are incorrect and that belief has arisen out of a selection bias in previous studies.

…there was no evidence that the vaccine prevented more deaths in the influenza period than in surround time periods… But much of the evidence for vaccine effectiveness from observational studies in seniors over 70 years of age is unreliable, and the remaining evidence suggests that vaccination is far less effective than previously thought… there are only a few well-controlled observational studies at this point; these studies suggest low vaccine benefits for seniors, with point estimates ranging from 0% to 29%.[2]

It’s important to note that 90% of influenza and pneumonia related deaths occur in seniors older than 70 years of age. Data from the National Vital Statistics[3] in 2001 shows the death rate per 100,000 for all age groups with clearly the biggest problem in seniors over 75 and over 85 at 148 and 685 rate per 100K respectively. Also, if you’re between the ages of 1 and 65 when you look at other causes of death (some are listed in the TABLE) the flu and pneumonia are not as nearly as high as a lot of other risks in life.

2Age1.jpg


So a less than stellar 0 to 29% effectiveness in seniors isn’t all that we are led to believe in advertisements and public announcements. The authors of this study harshly conclude:

…the idea that influenza vaccine can prevent up to 50% of ALL winter deaths is preposterous.[4]

A 2009 review by the Cochrane Collaboration identified, retrieved, and assessed all studies evaluating the effects (efficacy, effectiveness and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults. This study also came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence for the use of widespread vaccination for the flu.

There is not enough evidence to decide whether routine vaccination to prevent influenza in healthy adults is effective… The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.[5]

A February 14, 2005 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine examined the influenza related deaths in the entire US elderly population. The authors expected that since influenza vaccination had greatly increased over the last 25 years that there should be a reduction in mortality by about 35% to 40%. What they found instead was no reduction in death despite increased vaccination.

…the 50-percentage-point increase in vaccination coverage among the elderly after 1980 should have reduced both excess P&I [Pneumonia and Influenza] and excess all-cause mortality by about 35% to 40%. We found no evidence to indicate that such a reduction had occurred in excess P&I or excess all-cause mortality in any elderly age group.[6]

Again, the authors conclude that previous observational studies must have been biased to overestimate the benefits of the flu vaccine.

…these estimates, which provide the best available national estimates of the fraction of all winter deaths that are specifically attributable to influenza, show that the observational studies must overstate the mortality benefits of the vaccine.[7]

In a recent article Peter Doshi, Ph.D reiterated this position. He declared that:

The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated… This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.[8]

He also stated that public officials only need to claim that the vaccine saves lives and that most people, including doctors, assume there is solid research behind the claim and unfortunately that is not the case. So in seniors – the group that has the greatest need – there really isn’t any good science to backup the use of the flu vaccine.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...man-bystrianyk/#sthash.725Ng1f6.gjmKb3e1.dpuf
 
A Shot Never Worth Taking: The Flu Vaccine

~ by Kelly Brogan, MD

Deep into my 6th year of researching and investigating the damning science that condemns vaccine efficacy and safety – yes, all of them – I am beginning to turn my attention more to the societal memes and the individual belief systems that protect and perpetuate tragically flawed and unacceptably dangerous collective behaviors.

The information is OUT THERE, brilliant scientists, physicians, and researchers without financial ties and agendas have weighed in and presented their concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, however, the average citizen resists and clings to a hyper-simplified, seemingly “safe” stance. “Well, I’m not against vaccines, I mean, they’ve done a lot. I’m sure there are some risks, but they’re extremely rare.”

I understand, now, that, my collection of PubMed articles substantiating concerns about inefficacy, neurological, autoimmune, and fatal risks of these poorly conceived and anachronistically relevant immune modulators is not meaningful to someone who is not interested. The questions raised by this information are not provocative to someone who needs, above all, to believe that the government, the CDC, and doctors mean well, are doing their due diligence, and that they are holding themselves to a basic standard of ethical delivery of healthcare. They are not meaningful to someone who needs to outsource their power.

Instead of debating the science, what it may take to change to bring awareness to this egregious misuse of medical authority is, one of two, non-scientific, anecdotal exposures:

1.They see it doesn’t work, and may even cause illness I have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the CDC. “Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a 1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?”

Only after they have a personal template within which to fit the science affirming their observations, do they have room to hear it. But what of all of the children they have brought this ineffective and dangerous intervention to?

2.They know someone harmed

It is basic human psychology that what is out over there is irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. What is near and familiar is what is true. Few of us seek to bridge gaps between what we are surrounded by and what may be out there to learn. The difficulty of appreciating the scale of harm brought to the population by vaccination practice is related to the insidious nature of immune and neurologic insult.

The CDC can report, as they do, that brain inflammation and death are known side effects of every vaccine, but most do not appreciate what brain inflammation looks like. That this can look like ADHD, autism, learning delay, and that autoimmune disorders can take years to manifest. Tracing the thread back to the vaccine exposure can only be done with studies that assess vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. These have not been done.

Tragically, we all know, now, of someone who has died from the flu vaccine, just this past week. CHANDLER WEBB, a healthy 19 year old, was given a “routine” and “recommended” flu vaccine at his physical, one day before he became violently ill, and one month before he died. He died from vaccine-induced encephalitis, a known risk of this intervention. In addition to feeling remorse for the pain that this family is experiencing, I feel rage for what I believe to be manslaughter. This is a medical intervention, delivered without any regard for its objectively determined lack of efficacy, and its potential to maim and kill healthy adults.

The propaganda surrounding this CDC and government-endorsed practice is so thick that doctors treating this young man were blind to even the most obvious of causative insults. If doctors cannot appreciate a documented adverse event that occurs within 24 hours, you cannot expect the system to acknowledge more complex disturbances to the immune system and neuorologic development that will land you and your loved ones on medications and in therapies for life. And, remember, that this family cannot sue the physician who pushed the needle or the pharmaceutical company who created the lethal product.

I think about the Cliff’s Notes version, a distillation of why the flu vaccine is evidence that our government and regulatory bodies have forgotten us, and are following an objective that may leave you lying dead on the side of the road. I know that few of you will read the papers that I have read, attend lectures, seminars, and dialogue with concerned experts. If nothing else, digest these important points, and then wait until this issue gets close enough to you to change your mind on it…hopefully before it’s too late.

•It’s not indicated: I’m sure you don’t know a single person who has died of the flu, and if you think you do, I can almost guarantee you that the diagnosis was not confirmed in a way that ruled out the 150-200 infectious pathogens that cause flu-like syndromes, none of which would be “covered” by the vaccine. Despite the astronomical figures the CDC flashes before us of “flu deaths”, there were 18 (yes, 1-8) confirmed in 2001, for example. Access to these figures is suspiciously concealed, but in the end, forget the stats, and use some common sense to see the fear mongering and sales marketing for what it is.

•It doesn’t work: The Cochrane Database – an objective, gold-standard assessment of available evidence has plainly stated, in TWO STUDIES, that there is no data to support efficacy in children under two, and in adults. Even the former Chief Vaccine Officer at the FDA states: “there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza.” Liking the idea of being protected from the flu does not equate to being protected from the flu. That’s essentially what your vaccine-promoting doctor (or pharmacist) is engaging in – promoting an idea.

•Should there ever be a medical intervention appropriate for everyone?
It’s being pushed on demographics where it is known to be ineffective, or is unstudied and likely unsafe including children, adults, elderly, and pregnant women as reviewed on THIS WEB SITE and GREENMEDINFO. I write about how this offends my sensibilities as a perinatal physician HERE.

•We just don’t know what we are doing: The grave possibility of undetectable viral proteins in the chick embryos used to culture vaccines is just an example of how the immune roulette of vaccine development and rampant implementation has resulted in death and lasting injury. C. jejeuni contamination, for example, IS THEORIZED TO PLAY A ROLE in documented risk of Guillain-Barre paralysis after flu vaccine. Producing antibody response to virus and associated toxic preservatives is not immunity. We know that now.

As those of us who shake our heads in pain and frustration watching the sheep get herded off the cliff, we refrain: these agents cannot be considered “safe and effective” and also “unavoidably unsafe” as the government agencies would have us accept. They are avoidably unsafe, in fact, when you don’t use them as part of your healthcare.

~Kelly Brogan, MD

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...th-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top