October 8, 1999
Flu Vaccine: Stay Out of My Womb!
Commentary by Dawn Richardson
Pregnant women everywhere know the feeling of making it to the milestone of
their second trimester. For most, queasiness starts to subside, energy
returns in spurts, and of course there is that indescribable feeling of
becoming aware of your developing baby's movements.
You've altered your diet, exercised, stayed away from over the counter
medications, your true hair color is revealing itself, and that wonderful
bottle of wine with the Surgeon General's warning will continue stay buried
in the back of the refrigerator awaiting the skinnier days ahead.
You ask yourself, "Is there anything more that I can do for me and my baby
during the remainder of my pregnancy?" Well, according to the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) and the federal government's Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP) there is - get the flu vaccine before this
year's flu season hits. According to the CDC and ACIP, it was estimated
that an average of 1 to 2 hospitalizations among pregnant women could be
prevented for every 1,000 pregnant women immunized. (Prevention and Control
of Influenza: Recommendations of ACIP. MMWR - May 1, 1998; 47)
My initial pregnant maternally protective hormonal response to this was utter
disbelief. How could a biological pharmaceutical product be recommended for
routine use for all healthy second and third trimester pregnant women? As I
looked into this further, I became outraged and inspired to share the truth
with pregnant women so they could make up their own minds. Here is what I
found.
There are four drug manufacturers for this year's flu vaccine. The product
package inserts published by the manufacturers state the disclaimer that
"Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with influenza virus
vaccine. It is also not known whether influenza virus vaccine can cause
fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman...Although animal
reproductive studies have not been conducted, the prescribing health-care
provider should be aware of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices...The ACIP states that, if used during pregnancy,
administration of influenza virus vaccine after 14 weeks of gestation may be
preferable to avoid coincidental association of the vaccine with early
pregnancy loss..."
Additional reading and phone calls to the manufacturers confirmed that all
four flu vaccines contain thimerosal, a mercury derivative preservative
banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in over-the-counter (OTC)
drug preparations because of questions over safety. (Federal Register: April
22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 77)][Page 19799-19802].
On July 7, 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United
States Public Health Service (PHS) issued a joint statement that because of
the "neuro-developmental effects posed by exposure to thimerosal",
"thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible." The
PHS and AAP recognized that because of thimerosal in vaccines, some children
would be exposed to "a cumulative level of mercury over the first six months
of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines on methyl mercury."
Hospitals around the country responded this summer by halting the
administration of the thimerosal containing vaccine for hepatitis B at birth,
deferring vaccination until the baby is older and more developed. What about
my beloved little baby that isn't even developed enough to live outside the
womb yet?
A quick internet search showed that even the CDC, in a revealing
self-contradiction at another location, posted: "Q. Who is most vulnerable to
mercury? A. Two groups are most vulnerable to methyl mercury: the fetus and
children ages 14 and younger."
(http://www.cdc.gov/nip/Q&A/genqa/Thimerosal.htm) More searching on the
National Library of Medicine site almost effortlessly produced hundreds of
articles and studies in medical and scientific journals clearly documenting
the damaging effects of prenatal exposure to mercury. The results of one
recent study published in the August 1, 1999 issue of the American Journal of
Epidemiology stated that "the greatest susceptibility to methylmercury
neurotoxicity occurs during late gestation, while early postnatal
vulnerability is less" which is the precise point in time that ACIP and the
CDC is recommending we get the shot.
I then decided to call the CDC's Influenza Division myself, as a pregnant
mother baffled by this scientifically unfounded and potentially unsafe
recommendation. Maybe I was missing something that an "expert" could reveal
for me. I was told that there was no scientific proof that the flu vaccine
caused fetal harm. Well of course not, the manufacturers are right up front
when they state that this hasn't been studied - isn't that convenient. I was
also told that the CDC had no intention to change the recommendation for
pregnant women because of thimerosal. The doctor blamed the recent concerns
on "politics" rather than science. What a shame.
Even though the CDC does claim that a single study of a small number of
pregnant women have demonstrated no adverse fetal effects associated with
influenza vaccine; they continue and say, "however, more data are needed."
Maybe this scientifically unsubstantiated recommendation is how the CDC plans
on getting that data. So much for the Nazi war criminal trials at Nuremberg
outlawing human experimentation without informed consent.
While I would absolutely hate to be one of the 1 in 1000 pregnant women
needing to go to the hospital for the flu this winter, at this point, I feel
far more threatened by the public health bureaucrats recklessly willing to
experiment on me and my unborn child with a flu vaccine not
proven safe for my baby. To receive email updates on vaccine safety and
informed consent issues,
write to prove@vaccineinfo.net
Permission to distribute and print in whole and unedited given by,
Dawn Richardson
President, PROVE (Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)
prove@vaccineinfo.net (email)
http://vaccineinfo.net (web site)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/?newsid=16045#
6% US Women of Childbearing Age Have Worrying Mercury Levels
08 Nov 2004
About 6% of U.S. women of childbearing age have blood mercury levels high
enough to harm a developing fetus, according to a study published in the Nov.
5 issue of CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution reports (Wahlberg, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/4).
Mercury accumulates in the environment, in the flesh of fish and in the
bodies of humans and other animals that eat fish. High levels of mercury in
pregnant women and women of childbearing age have been shown to contribute to
birth defects, and several studies have demonstrated a subtle loss of mental
acuity in the offspring of women who consume fish during pregnancy.
As a result, FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency have released
guidelines recommending that women of childbearing age, pregnant women, women
who are nursing and young children limit their intake of certain types of
fish that have been found to have high mercury content (Kaiser Daily
Reproductive Health Report, 10/22).
CDC researchers studied blood samples taken from more than 3,600 women ages
16 to 49 between 1999 and 2002. Among the women studied, 8% had unsafe blood
mercury levels in 1999-2000, compared with 4% in 2001-2002. However, CDC said
the recorded decline between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 could be a sampling
error and cited 6% as the "best estimate" of the percentage of U.S. women of
childbearing age who have unsafe blood mercury levels (Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, 11/4).
Last month, the interim results of a nationwide study commissioned by the
environmental advocacy group Greenpeace showed that about 20% of women of
childbearing age in the United States have blood mercury levels that exceed
government-recommended guidelines (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report,
10/22).
Robert Jones, a research chemist at CDC's National Center for Environmental
Health, said, "The good news is the vast majority of childbearing-aged women
in this country have low levels of mercury in their blood and bodies." He
added that the CDC findings should "assure" most women that they "are not at
much risk" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/4).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_repro.cfm#26613
Brain food or brain poison?
This is an interesting study that found benefits of pregnant women eating fish
(and receiving rich Omega 3s) became harmful as certain mercury levels were
surpassed.
Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a US
Cohort http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8041/abstract.html
Emily Oken, Robert O. Wright, Ken P. Kleinman, David Bellinger, Chitra J.
Amarasiriwardena, Howard Hu, Janet W. Rich-Edwards, Matthew W. Gillman.
Abstract
Fish and other seafood may contain organic mercury but also beneficial nutrients
such as n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. We endeavored to study whether maternal
fish consumption during pregnancy harms or benefits fetal brain development. We
examined associations of maternal fish intake during pregnancy and maternal hair
mercury at delivery with infant cognition among 135 mother-infant pairs in
Project Viva, a prospective US pregnancy and child cohort study. We assessed
infant cognition by the percent novelty preference on visual recognition memory
(VRM) testing at 6 months of age.
Mothers consumed an average of 1.2 fish servings per week during the second
trimester. Mean maternal hair mercury was 0.55 parts per million (ppm), with 10%
of samples > 1.2 ppm. Mean VRM score was 59.8 (range 10.9-92.5). After adjusting
for participant characteristics using linear regression, higher fish intake was
associated with higher infant
cognition. This association strengthened after adjustment for hair mercury
level: for each additional weekly fish serving, offspring VRM score was 4.0
points higher (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3, 6.7). However, an increase of
1 ppm in mercury was associated with a decrement in VRM score of 7.5 (95% CI:
-13.7, -1.2) points. VRM scores were highest among infants of women who consumed
>2 weekly fish servings, but had mercury levels = 1.2 ppm.
Higher fish consumption in pregnancy was associated with better infant
cognition, but higher mercury levels with lower cognition. Women should continue
to eat fish during pregnancy, but choose varieties with lower mercury
contamination.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fish20jun20,1,5368540.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Calculated, Risk Is Worth Benefit of Eating Fish
Pregnant women's diet can make babies smarter, as long as mercury consumption is
minimized, a Harvard study shows.
by Marla Cone
Times Staff Writer
June 20, 2005
Because fish can be healthful as well as hazardous, medical experts have
grappled for years with what advice to give people, particularly pregnant women,
about how much is safe to eat. A new study by Harvard University doctors
concludes that pregnant women can boost their baby's intelligence by eating fish
a couple of times a week, but only if they avoid varieties with large
concentrations of mercury.
Fish is full of omega-3 fatty acids, which help young brains develop and seem to
protect against heart disease. But it also is tainted by mercury, a potent
neurotoxin that interferes with the building of brains. The new study of 135
Boston-area babies is considered important because it quantifies and compares
the risks and benefits of a fish diet. The researchers concluded that pregnant
women should eat fish because their babies are likely to score higher on
intelligence tests. But they also reported that the benefits of the nutrients
disappear and the babies' intelligence scores drop substantially if the fish
contains high levels of mercury.
Nearly all fish contains traces of mercury, but large marine species such as
swordfish, shark and albacore tuna accumulate the highest levels. About 630,000
babies a year are born with mercury exposure that could reduce their mental
abilities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Mercury can harm
adults - hampering memories, causing hair to fall out and perhaps raising the
risk of heart disease - but fetuses are considered the most vulnerable because
neurological effects have been found at low levels.
Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of
Southern Denmark and Harvard University who has studied the effects of mercury
on children for 20 years, said the new findings added to the mounting evidence
that women should eat fish but follow warnings to limit the types and amounts
they consume. Previously, Grandjean and others presented similar findings for
school-age children, reporting that their mental skills, particularly memory,
vocabulary and attention, were reduced if they had been exposed in the womb to
relatively low levels of mercury.
Grandjean, who was not involved in the latest study, said infant intelligence
was highly variable so it was "surprising that the authors were able to detect
both a positive effect of fish intake and an adverse effect of mercury. That
would suggest that these effects [on the infants] are quite strong." The women
in the study ate fish on average once a week during the second trimester of
their pregnancy. The highest intelligence scores were among the babies whose
mothers had consumed more than two helpings of fish per week but whose mercury
levels remained under 1.2 parts per million, according to the report published
online last month in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. For each
additional weekly serving of fish, the babies' intelligence scores increased by
4 points, or an average of almost 7%. But for every increase of 1 part per
million of mercury, the babies' intelligence scores dropped by 7.5 points, or
12.5%. A woman could raise her mercury level by 1 ppm if she ate an
average-sized serving of swordfish once a week, said Dr. Emily Oken of Harvard
Medical School, the study's lead researcher.
"The range of fish intake in our study was from zero to 5.5 servings per week,
so these were not women who were eating fish daily or multiple times a day,"
said Oken, who specializes in pregnancy and nutrition. The study does not
provide details about which fish or how much fish pregnant women should eat. But
its findings support the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's guidelines, issued in 2004, which recommend that pregnant
and nursing women and those who might become pregnant eat up to two meals, or 12
ounces, of fish a week and that they avoid certain types of fish entirely. Young
children are advised to follow the same guidelines because their brains are
still developing. The FDA entirely rules out swordfish and shark as well as king
mackerel and tilefish, found on the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico, for
pregnant and nursing women and young children. Some white and albacore tuna,
canned and fresh, also have high mercury levels. Generally, the darker the fish
meat, the higher the mercury content. Sardines, herring, canned light tuna, cod,
haddock, tilapia, sea bass and shrimp are considered good, low-mercury choices.
Small fatty fishes such as sardines and herring are especially beneficial to
babies because they contain a lot of fatty acids.
Salmon is generally low in mercury and high in fatty acids, but some farmed
salmon contains high concentrations of other contaminants, PCBs, which are also
risky for babies. In California, grocery stores and restaurants selling fish are
required to post mercury warnings for women and young children. The EPA also has
issued localized advisories for some species caught by recreational fishermen,
particularly in the Great Lakes and the San Francisco Bay. Despite the warnings,
many pregnant women - and their doctors - are confused. "Based on personal
experience with colleagues, it seems to me that many doctors are as confused
about this issue as patients are," said Oken, who practices medicine at Harvard
Pilgrim Health Care in Boston. Some women say their obstetricians do not tell
them about the FDA guidelines or give them specific advice about fish. Many are
unaware they should avoid swordfish and limit tuna and other fish. Others stop
eating all fish during pregnancy, which means their babies do not get its
brain-enhancing effects.
"Women may indiscriminately reduce fish consumption in response to concerns
about mercury exposure, perhaps substituting fish with other less healthful
foods," the Harvard researchers said in their report. In addition to fatty
acids, fish is high in protein, iron, vitamin E, selenium and other nutrients.
Scientists disagree on how much mercury is safe. The EPA based its conclusions
on studies of about 1,700 first-graders on the Faroe
Islands, in the North Atlantic. However, some scientists debate the risks of
fish because whale was the source of the mercury there and similar tests on
children in the island nation of Seychelles found no effects related to fish. In
tests designed by neuropsychologists to study early signs of intelligence and
memory, the Boston-area babies were shown photographs of new faces and ones they
had been shown before, and the researchers recorded how much time they spent
studying each one. Babies score higher on the test if they move quickly from the
familiar face, indicating recognition, to exploring the new face. Dr. Jane
Hightower, a San Francisco internist who has detected excessive mercury levels
in many of her patients, particularly those who eat swordfish, said consumers
might have to resort to omega-3 supplements to get the benefits of fish without
the risks. "The fact is we need good protein sources that are beneficial and low
in saturated fat and without contaminants," Hightower said. "If the polluting
industries, the fishing industry, government officials and our political
representatives cannot resolve this mercury problem in our air, water and fish,
the supplement industry will be left to resolve it for the consumer."
Mercury is a natural element found in the Earth's crust, but when released into
the air through smokestacks, it spreads globally and accumulates in tissues of
animals, particularly fish. Coal-fired power plants, largely in Asia, are the
largest sources of man-made mercury emissions. The FDA's recommendations on fish
consumption are available at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/admehg3.html .
Posted on Thu, Oct. 28, 2004
The details on inhaled FluMist, mercury
Q: I won't get the flu shot this year because I'm not high-risk, so I'm
thinking of using the FluMist nasal spray. Could you provide more information
about it?
A: Due to the acute shortage of flu shot vaccine, the CDC has asked that
healthy adults forgo the shot this season to make more vaccine available for
high-risk individuals such as the elderly, young, and those with chronic
diseases.
The only option for others is FluMist, the nasal spray form of the vaccine
that first became available last year.
The spray is indicated for healthy individuals 5 to 49 years old, but not
pregnant women.
Unlike the shot, which uses killed viruses, the spray contains live, but
weakened, viruses.
The viruses in the spray are sensitive to temperature. They grow well in the
nose and throat, but grow poorly in the warmer area of the lungs where the
flu sets up shop.
The idea with the spray is to actually cause a mild infection in the upper
respiratory tract that does not produce body-wide symptoms. This stimulates
the immune system to protect you against the flu.
Symptoms associated with the nasal spray are mild and include temporary sore
throat, runny or congested nose and fever.
If case demand is heavy for FluMist, you'll want to know that, as of early
October, there were only about 1.5 million doses available.
Q: Last year you wrote about the mercury content of the flu shot vaccines. I
realize this is a secondary concern now with the current vaccine shortage,
but could you print this information again?
A: That column was about the use of the mercury-containing preservative
thimerosal in children's vaccines, and I also listed the amount of mercury in
flu shot vaccines.
Mercury is neurotoxic at certain levels.
The United States gets its flu shot vaccine from only two manufacturers,
Aventis Pasteur and Chiron. Both products use mercury as a preservative.
You might recognize Chiron as the manufacturer that was forced to stop
shipment of its product, an event that caused this season's vaccine shortage.
What hasn't been publicized is that the Chiron product is the only one that
offered an adult dose containing only a trace amount of mercury (1 mcg).
The Aventis Pasteur product (the only currently available flu shot vaccine)
comes in a pediatric dose containing a trace amount of mercury (0.5 mcg), but
the adult dose contains a traditional amount (25 mcg).
An adult dose is recommended for children 3 years or older as well as adults.
So this season pregnant women and others who get an adult dose of the flu
shot will not have the option of staying below the EPA daily safe upper limit
for mercury (0.1 mcg per kg of body weight).
By the way, the FluMist nasal spray flu vaccine is mercury-free. The catch is
that it's not recommended for pregnant women, high-risk adults, and children
under 5 years old.
Let's hope all bases are covered starting next year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Harkness is a consultant pharmacist and specialist in natural
therapies. Write him at 1224 King Henry Drive, Ocean Springs MS 39564; or
rharkn@aol.com. Selected questions will be used in the column.
Back to page
