By TLB Contributor: Christina England
World governments are advising pregnant mothers that receiving the flu vaccine during pregnancy is not only beneficial to their health, but the health of their unborn child. However, mounting evidence suggests that the flu vaccine is not only ineffective when administered during pregnancy but can also lead to fetal death and devastating disabilities.
Telling Fact from Fiction
The CDC guidelines state:
“Influenza (the flu) is a serious illness, especially when you are pregnant.
FACT: The flu can cause serious illness in pregnant women.
Getting the flu can cause serious problems when you are pregnant. Even if you are generally healthy, changes in immune, heart, and lung functions during pregnancy make you more likely to get seriously ill from the flu. Pregnant women who get the flu are at higher risk of hospitalization, and even death, than non-pregnant women. Severe illness in the pregnant mother can also be dangerous to her fetus because it increases the chance for serious problems such as premature labor and delivery.
The flu shot is the best protection for you – and your baby.
FACT: Getting a flu shot is the first and most important step in protecting yourself against the flu.
When you get your flu shot, your body starts to make antibodies that help protect you against the flu. Antibodies can be passed on to your unborn baby, and help protect the baby for up to 6 months after he or she is born. This is important because babies younger than 6 months of age are too young to get a flu vaccine. If you breastfeed your infant, antibodies may also be passed in breast milk.
It takes about two weeks to make antibodies after getting flu vaccine. Talk to your doctor, nurse, or clinic about getting vaccinated as soon as you can.”
The CDC continues their recommendation by stating:
“The flu shot is safe for you and for your unborn child.” 
However, despite the CDC’s continual advice and reassurance regarding flu vaccines, more and more studies are proving that these vaccines are neither safe nor effective.
Latest Reports State that Flu Vaccines are a Waste of Time
According to a recent article published in the Daily Mail, the flu vaccine has been proven to be ineffective this year, protecting just three percent of patients vaccinated.
The Daily Mail stated:
“Researchers at Public Health England assessed the effectiveness of the jab by looking at saliva samples from 1,314 patients with flu. They found that only 3 per cent had the H3N2 strain of the virus, the remainder had a mutated form.” 
In other words, this year’s flu vaccine has been proven to be totally ineffective. Bearing this mind, we need to ask ourselves why the CDC is continuing to advertise this vaccine as safe and effective, when reports are stating the complete opposite.
Unborn Babies at Serious Risk of Disability and Death from Flu Vaccines
In a paper written by Dr. F. Edward Yazbak, titled Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Very Bad Idea, Dr. Yazbak, outlined a study that he and Dr. David Ayoub wrote in 2006.
Speaking of their findings, Dr. Yazbak stated:
“The ACIP’s citations and the current literature indicate that influenza infection is rarely a threat to a normal pregnancy. There is no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of influenza vaccination during this critical period. No studies have adequately assessed the risk of influenza vaccination during pregnancy and animal safety testing is lacking.
Thimerosal, a mercury based preservative present in most inactivated formulations of the vaccine has been implicated in human neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, and a broad range of animal and experimental reproductive toxicities including teratogenicity, mutagenicity and fetal death. Thimerosal is classified as a human teratogen.
Conclusions: The ACIP policy recommendation of routinely administering influenza vaccine during pregnancy is ill advised, unsupported by current scientific literature and should be withdrawn. Use of thimerosal during pregnancy should be contraindicated.”
Dr. Yazbak continued by outlining a selection of reports filed with the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) website in December 2005.
“It should be pointed out that the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who created VAERS, like to stress that filing a report with VAERS does not necessarily mean the administered vaccine actually caused the adverse event reported.
The following four VAERS reports – all filed on December 28, 2005 – may suggest otherwise. All four patients were from North Carolina, all received the same brand of injectable influenza vaccine and two received doses from the same lot.”
Reflecting on his findings, Dr. Yazbak stated:
All four North Carolina cases were reported to VAERS on Dec. 28, 2005
The mother in the first report was vaccinated on Oct. 25, 2005
The three other mothers were vaccinated on Oct. 26, 2005
They all received Fluzone by Sanofi Pasteur
Case No. 1 and No. 3 received vaccines from the same lot
All fetal deaths occurred within three to four weeks of maternal vaccination
Two of the mothers may have been sisters
Another unclear and rather confusing report submitted on Jan. 1, 2006 suggests that there actually could have been a fifth incident of fetal demise somehow connected to the above four cases.”
Concerned by his findings, Dr. Yazbak continued by outlining six crucial findings and asked why these issues had been ignored:
“1. The tone of the report suggests that it was called in by a health professional
2. A “cluster” of five females is mentioned
3. The women received the same brand of influenza vaccine
4. The administered vaccines came from only three vaccine lots
5. The vaccines were administered at/by the local health department
6. At least four reports were filed with VAERS on the same day
All of these facts did not seem to ring any bells or to raise any eyebrows either at the “local health department” in North Carolina or at the VAERS intake office where they were received.
One can only imagine the commotion if there had been five cases of measles or hepatitis A diagnosed at the same North Carolina local health department and reported simultaneously. Sirens would have sounded, the CDC would have landed field investigators and thousands of doses of vaccine (or immune globulin) would have been airlifted. There would have been news reports around the clock and, in the case of hepatitis A, a fast food restaurant would have been closed for a week and scoured thoroughly by people in hazmat suits. And, yet, we had five incidents of viable fetuses dying and nothing was done and not much was said.” (own emphasis) 
Dr. Yazbak is absolutely correct. Why have these reports remained ignored and hidden for all these years?
Yet More Concerns Are Raised
In 2006, Dr. Yazbak and Dr. Ayoub wrote a further paper titled RE: DELIVERING INFLUENZA VACCINE TO PREGNANT WOMEN. Their findings were shocking, to say the least.
“Finally, all seven references cited in support of vaccination safety have significant limitations. Englund et al. and Yeager et al. reported only immediate maternal vaccine reactions. Black et al. examined rates of cesarean section and preterm delivery only. None examined fetal development or viability. Munoz et al. could not have reported fetal deaths because they included only those cases that resulted in infants seen at a well-baby clinic. Heinonen et al. recorded birth defects, but not fetal viability and …
actually reported an increased risk of several specific birth defects (cleft palate, microcephaly, pyloric stenosis) associated with prenatal influenza vaccine exposure as well as increases in malformations following exposures to the vaccine preservative thimerosal.
Because of small size, the study by Deinard and Ogburn was limited in detecting less frequent, adverse outcomes.
Because of the recent expanded recommendations, it is imperative that safety studies are adequately designed.
To date, no such study is known to exist.
This is critical; the majority of injectable flu vaccines contain thimerosal, and several studies have reported dose-dependent fetal deaths in various animal models exposed to thimerosal or its by-product, ethyl mercury Even thimerosal’s Manufacturing Safety Data Sheet discloses teratogenic and reproductive toxicity. A recent review of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System showed a temporal-geographic cluster of late-trimester fetal deaths following flu vaccination, some with shared vaccine lots).
In light of all these shortcomings, Naleway et al.’s eagerness to promote an untimely vaccination without adequate safety testing and of unproven effectiveness to prevent a disease rarely significant to the uncomplicated pregnancy is perplexing.” (Own emphasis) 
However, despite these doctors’ recommendations, the CDC and the FDA have continued to ignore these issues, preferring to laud the vaccination a resounding success.
Others Join the Fight
Another professional who has become increasingly concerned is Dr. Suzanne Humphries. In 2013, she wrote a paper titled The Attack on Pregnant Mothers Escalates. Her feisty and no-nonsense paper outlined a study funded by both the pharmaceutical industry and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Voicing her concerns, she wrote:
“Problem number one: This study is headlined as a “randomized controlled trial.” Most unsuspecting doctors, upon seeing the title will think that this study met bench-mark gold-standard design criteria for validity. After all, we’ve been told that the best way to test an intervention is through this type of study.”
This information is absolutely true; however, in reality, this idea could not be further from the truth.
Dr. Humphries explained by stating that:
“The problem with calling this study ‘controlled’ has to do with what is used as the control. Hold onto your hats folks, because you are going to love this…the control injection for the other half of this study population was a 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine given to mothers in their third trimester. This is the period of gestation when heart valves, thyroid, adrenal glands, muscles, lungs, brain, eyes and nervous systems are maturing, and testicles are descending. By now most of us are not shocked, because this is part-and-parcel with the smoke-and-mirrors pseudo-science of vaccinology, and the integrity of those involved.”
In other words, the pregnant mothers used in the study received one of two vaccines. They either received the flu vaccine, which was known to contain mercury, or the pneumococcal vaccine, which was known to contain aluminum.
As no unvaccinated children took part in the study, parents should question how viable and balanced this study really was, especially when Dr. Humphries continued by dropping yet another bombshell.
Problem number two: The study was, for some reason done in Bangladesh, and it was a secondary analysis of data generated from the ORIGINAL STUDY to evaluate the immunogenicity of pneumococcal vaccination on pregnant mothers and infants.
At baseline, almost a quarter of babies (24%) in Bangladesh are born with LOW BIRTH WEIGHT. In contrast, in the USA approximately 8.2% of pregnancies result in low birth weight. In the developing world, low birth weight stems from deficiencies in maternal health and nutrition, and only rarely – from influenza infections. There is no Bangladesh-specific reference for gestational age, so… the authors note, “we used a North American standard.” Most thoughtful people would consider that Bangladeshi infants are overall smaller than American, European, Canadian etc. infants, and that a standard used on them ought to be their own, not a North American standard. Granted, as of 2011, Bangladesh has a very high Infant mortality rate, ranked at number 47, compared to 167 in the USA. Bangladesh is the eighth most populous country in the world and, after only a few microstates and small island nations, has the highest population density. In such a densely populated country, it should be easy to enroll enough mothers to have a true control group, don’t you think? It seems to me that there are far more benevolent and effective means to help the Bangladeshis, especially given that we know nothing of the longer-term effects on the child for these vaccines – and that nobody is planning to look.”
Dr. Humphries continued:
“There are some other noteworthy issues in this study. Namely, it states that there were NO differences in the numbers of stillbirths between the groups. But clearly listed in Figure 1, there were 3 stillbirths in the influenza-vaccinated group and none in the pneumococcal-vaccinated group. That’s three stillbirths out of 172 or 1.7 percent”.
“In addition, there were eight infants excluded from data evaluation in the influenza group and one in the pneumococcal group.” (Own emphasis) 
This leaves us all with unanswered questions: if there were three stillbirths in one group and no stillbirths in the other, why did the authors state that there were no differences in the numbers of stillbirths between the two groups?
More importantly, why were eight children excluded from the study? Was this yet another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes? After all, this would not be the first time that researchers have skewed results by excluding certain children from a study to obtain the desired results. 
It is obvious to the majority of us reading these studies that flu vaccinations are not only useless but are potentially toxic to a growing fetus. Why are pregnant women reluctant to take medication or alcohol during pregnancy, but appear to have a blind spot when it comes to vaccination?