Serious flu risk could be identified with genetic test | Science | The Guardian

Your ability to sail through flu infections (as most of the population seems to) has nothing to do with:

1- Your diet;

2- Your lifestyle choices (do you drink to excess, smoke, take pharmaceutical drugs);

3- Exercise status;

4- Living conditions.

No, none of this really matters so don’t even worry about them. New anti-viral$ will be developed by Big Pharma to help ‘treat’ your flu infection$. I’m $ure they will be every bit a$ $afe a$ Tamiflu was. Ohwait a minute…

So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Don’t be concerned with the choices you make regarding your health – there is nothing you can do to improve it outside of the needles and pills your doctor pushes at and into you. 

Western medical practitioners and researchers – the Calvinists of ‘science’!

Findings show that the severity of infection can be partially governed by a person’s genetic make-up, and opens the door to new types of anti-viral drugs

Source: Serious flu risk could be identified with genetic test | Science | The Guardian

Apparently “…there’s nothing to debate”

by Greg Beattie

Queensland’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeanette Young, has refused to participate in a panel discussion on vaccination at this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles expo on the Sunshine Coast, saying “there’s nothing to debate”. In the wake of this, disturbing details have now emerged of a cover up by her office regarding the death of a child following vaccination.

sopa-censorship-billBrisbane two-year-old, Ashley Jade Epapara, died shortly after a flu vaccination on April 9, 2010, just two weeks before the vaccine was withdrawn nationally in a blaze of publicity due to severe reactions. Police attending the scene of the death told reporters there were no suspicious circumstances apart from the vaccine. But Queensland Health staff acted quickly to quash that suggestion, instructing police to “ensure no further statements of the nature were made”, and securing agreement from media outlets to not pursue the story.

With the story suppressed, the vaccine continued on a path of destruction, particularly in Western Australia where an aggressive campaign was underway to vaccinate every child in the state.

It was not until April 22 that the vaccine was withdrawn from use in children. During and immediately following this period, many children endured severe reactions including Saba Button, who remains profoundly disabled. One wonders whether Saba’s parents, or those of the many other children affected, would have taken their child for the shot had they known about the tragedy in Brisbane. Unfortunately few knew about the vaccine connection in the Brisbane tragedy because of the cover up.

The following email excerpts were recently forwarded to us by a concerned third party. They are part of a Right to Information (RTI) release. They demonstrate clearly that health department staff deliberately and successfully prevented Australian parents from being warned about the potential for danger with this vaccine. (You can read the entire RTI by clicking this link for part 1 and this link for part 2.)Government Censorship

APRIL 9
“…someone involved (think it was a police officer) told the journalist the death may have been linked with a flu vaccination given to the child 24-hours before its death, and an autopsy will be performed Monday to rule it out.

“I have spoken to police media, who followed up with the area to make sure no further statements of the nature were made and spoke to the CH 10 News Editor about the unlikeliness of a link, and the possible panic such a story could cause.”
– Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.

————————————-

“I’m keen to hear if this blows up. Certainly has the potential to seriously undermine the confidence in the program and I’d like to jump on it before it does blow up (if possible).

“…and thanks Samantha for setting the coppers straight.
Neil, Media Unit, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.

————————————

APRIL 13
“Channel 9 is asking about a link between the Sudden Unexpected Death of a 2-yr-old girl on Friday and the child’s vaccination against swine flu 24 hours before her death.

“Channel 10’s editor gave me his word he would not run anything on Fri – then ran a short 3 par ‘live read’ (no vision or interviews).

“ABC and Courier Mail agreed not to run anything after I discussed the public health ramifications of children not being vaccinated with them.”
– Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.

There were many more emails exchanged, as can be seen in the RTI release, and Dr Young was kept informed the whole way. Within two weeks, a disaster had evolved forcing an urgent national withdrawal of the vaccine. When Dr Young was again approached by the media she issued a press release, feigning ignorance:

APRIL 25
“Until now, neither Queensland Health, nor the relevant national body had been advised of, or were aware of, any death allegedly related to a 2010 seasonal  flu vaccine in Queensland”.
Jeanette Young, Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health – April 25, 2010

The problem with the current approach
In the following days, we will be publishing a detailed series of articles regarding a more in-depth account of these events. One thing is clear: the current approach of our health authorities sometimes involves withholding, or suppressing vital information. In this case, the approach had clearly devastating consequences for some families.

Free SpeechWhat’s not immediately apparent is that this is actually the general ‘modus operandi’ of health authorities when dealing with vaccination. Whenever possible, they avoid discussing concerns raised by the media or consumer groups. Even worse, they openly state that these concerns are unjustified or dangerous in and of themselves. In short, “there’s nothing to debate”.

The refusal by Dr Young to provide a spokesperson for this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles Expo is an example of this modus operandi. Her comments that the organisers should have exercised due diligence and not allowed anyone from the AVN to speak is another. Accusing the AVN of spreading ‘misinformation’ and ‘debunked theories’ is something Dr Young should be prepared to defend publicly. Her reluctance to do so is simply in keeping with this approach.

Parents are entitled to all information that may matter to them. If the police, or the media, or any other group feel the information is important, then it is. The AVN speaker at the expo, Ms Meryl Dorey, will be raising issues that are of concern to all potential consumers of vaccines. The public deserves to have these issues addressed at the forum and they rightly request the presence of a representative from their taxpayer-funded health department to explain why such concerns should not be considered important.

Suppression of vital information when parents are faced with making informed decisions about their children’s health is clearly not the answer. Responsible health officials tend to prefer education over coercion when it comes to health choices. It is essential that any information which matters to consumers is never actively withheld from them, and that any discussion this prompts is welcomed by our publicly funded health officials.

Please read the attached Right to Information documents (part 1 and part 2) to follow the trail of suppression by health officials in both the Queensland and the Commonwealth governments.

Further analysis will be available on this blog in coming days.

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 1 – Did Incompetence, Lies and a Government Cover-up Lead to Deaths?

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 2 – The Cover-Up Deepens

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 3 – Lessons Go Unlearned

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries

Flu ShotWhy are governments around the world still recommending influenza vaccinations across the board when the largest retrospective study of the vaccine found that:

“100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited..”

How many billions of dollars need to be wasted? How many innocent lives must be lost or ruined before governments decide that their health policies regarding this vaccine are not based on science?

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries.

A very successful seminar tour of WA

I’m just leaving Cervantes after the last seminar in my 7-seminar series. 7 talks – 4 the same and 3 completely different – in 15 days. It doesn’t sound that hard but I have to tell you, I’m tired!

Geraldton was the perfect place to finish up this West Australian tour though. Nestled into the Coral Coast with a shire that extends way back into the hinterland area to the East (and it is so confusing thinking East for inland and West for the sea), it is a fairly big town with the feeling of a village. Everyone smiles here – everyone is kind. It is really a warm place and I don’t just mean the climate.

Thursday’s talk was no different. We only had a smallish turnout, but everyone was so interested and they didn’t just take in the information from the talk – they shared lots of stories with me of things that are going on in the local hospital and the Geraldton community today.

One woman in the audience is a nurse here and she said that the Hep B vaccine, which is supposed to be given 72 hours of birth, is often given within 10 minutes because it is often more convenient for the staff to administer it with the Vitamin K shot then to come back a few days later and give it separately. Now what difference that makes to the child, I’m not really sure. But it is interesting that the schedule is taken so lightly by practitioners who obviously consider vaccines to be perfectly safe so it wouldn’t matter if a shot were given sooner rather than late

Another woman told me that she had gotten between two cats that were having a fight (never a good idea) and had been pretty badly scratched up. She went to the hospital and was offered a tetanus vaccine. She was told that she had the choice of a tetanus and diphtheria shot (ADT) or a tetanus and whooping cough shot (there is no such thing). I told her that there is no shot that has just tetanus and whooping cough in it – there is only Boosterix which has tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough together but she insisted that those were the two options she was offered. Whether she misunderstood what she had been offered or the staff member had no idea what was in the vaccine, I’m not sure. But if she had been misinformed, it would not have been the first (or hundredth) time someone had told me a similar story.

In fact, another woman – a midwife – told me that one of her clients was in her 22nd week of pregnancy and during her routine blood test, it was discovered that her rubella antibody levels were low so her doctor just gave her a rubella vaccine on the spot. First of all, rubells is only a risk for women in their first trimester of pregnancy (the first 12 weeks) so there was no need to panic about rubella levels for someone who was already 22 weeks pregnant. Second, this vaccine has never been tested for safety during pregnancy and except in the case of an emergency, it should not be used at that time. Last, there IS no rubella vaccine in Australia – there hasn’t been for ten years or more since the monovalent rublla vaccine, Meruvax, was withdrawn and rubella is now only available as part of the combined MMR shot. This woman was vaccinated without being given any of this information and was told outright that she was getting a monovalent vaccine when in fact, she received a three-in-one shot!

One woman came to represent another who couldn’t be there. This person received the AH1N1 vaccine 2 years ago. Within days, she was hospitalised with total paralysis and was on a ventilator. She tried to ask the staff if this could be related to the flu vaccine and they all insisted that there was no link. She was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre – a form of paralysis that is listed in the flu package insert (as well as the inserts of many other vaccines ) as being causally linked. This link has been known since 1976 when the flu vaccine was first brought into disrepute. During a  swine flu vaccination campaign in the US, hundreds of people got Guillain-Barre paralysis with more than 25 of them dying from. For staff today to be either so ignorant of this link or, even worse, to lie about it and cover it up, is unforgivable.

This woman spent 6 months in hospital receiving rehabilitation therapy to learn to walk again and to this day, cannot walk without the aid of a cane. She has received no compensation and her case has never been reported.

This is why the information that the AVN gives out is so important – and why so many in the medical community and the government want to make sure that we are silenced. It is not in their best interests for people to be fully informed about the true state of affairs relating to vaccinations. A compliant, ignorant population is what many doctors crave. One that won’t ask too many inconvenient questions and will just follow orders.

We are here to ensure that parents who are seeking for information to balance that given by their doctors on this issue are able to find it. If we were not there – where would parents go?

Oh, on that note – I can let you know that the QEII Centre where this event was held – one of the nicest venues we have ever rented for a talk – was put under pressure by the usual suspects who wanted them to cancel our talk. Thankfully, they believe strongly in the right of people to participate in an open and democratic debate and oppose censorship as well as stating that providing a venue for a seminar does not mean endorsing the subject matter – they are simply providing a venue.

I am very grateful to the Board and management of the QEII and can say that if anyone ever needs a great facility for a meeting or event in Geraldton, they will find one there.

In addition – a simply thank you for Tony and Dineke of the Cervantes Lodge would not nearly be enough to express my gratitude. They not only put me up in a beautiful apartment right off the beach, but they organised venues, advertising and publicity for both the Geraldton and Jurien Bay events.

In the meantime, here’s to friendly places, smiling faces and successful journeys for all.

Junk Science at it’s Best (Worst?)

Every once in a while, an article appears that is so blatantly biased – so obviously just printed directly from a press release – it needs to be highlighted. There will be many credulous people out there – health professionals amongst them – who will look at the title and think they know the story. But let’s look through this piece of medical marshmallow fluff and see where this article has gone so badly wrong.

Kids Benefit from Flu Vaccine Via Shot or Spray Study Finds

There you have the title. And if you were to just read that much, as many people do, you would be under the impression that a REAL study was done which found REAL results showing that children were protected from influenza whether they got an injected vaccine or the live-virus nasal spray option. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please read on.

Study data suggests that children younger than 3 years old receive roughly the same amount of protection from the flu vaccine regardless of whether the two recommended doses are administered by injection, nasal spray, or one of each, as reported in MSN.

The language is so important in cases such as this. Study data ‘suggests’. Now I can make a suggestion to you and you will take it as just that – a suggestion. But study data should not suggest – it should find or prove. Also, look at the source – there is no reference for this study through the entire (short) article. It keeps referring to MSN  as being the source of this data but there is no primary reference nor, on searching the web, can I see where this ‘study’ has been published. There are just several other reports in the media which obviously came from the same press release. Journalism should be something more than just reporting what you have been told no matter the source.

NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci noted that “this study provides initial evidence that the prime and booster doses for these young children can be different types of flu vaccines and still provide adequate protection against matching seasonal flu strains.”

NIAID is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – a division of the National Institutes of Health in the US. A search of their website finds a link to the press release that all of these stories must have been taken from – you can read it by clicking here and the actual study report can be found by clicking here, though keep in mind that the results have never been published to the web, as far as I can see. I will get back to the study design in a little while, but for now, I want to discuss more of this lousy excuse for an article.

For the study, researchers examined 53 children ranging in age from 6 months to 35 months over the course of two years, during which children received the doses in one of the following manners: two injections of flu vaccine; two doses of the live, attenuated nasal spray; nasal spray followed by an injection; injection followed by the nasal spray.

You have GOT to be kidding me! There are tens of thousands of infants and children in that age range who get either the nasal flu or the injected flu vaccine every year in the US. Are they honestly trying to convince people that a study of 53 children is going to prove either safety or effectiveness? If this weren’t so sad, it would be laughable.

The investigators found that all four groups of children were safe and produced similar amounts of protective antibodies, but young children who receive at least one dose of the nasal spray vaccine had the broadest immune response, which could boost their protection against many diverse flu strains.

This is not surprising. The nasal spray is a live virus vaccine that delivers the dose over the mucous membranes in much the same way that we would contract the flu (or a cold or many other viral illnesses). It makes sense that antibody production would be highest in this group. Also, keep in mind that they said that all 4 groups of children (divide 53 by 4 and you find out that there could not have been more than 14 children in any one group – a statistically insignificant number to anyone who is actually trying to find out how safe or effective a treatment is as opposed to someone who is just trying to get a good headline to push their own agenda) were safe using these protocols. We will come back to that.

However, the study pointed out that the live, attenuated flu virus has been linked to wheezing in the youngest recipients, so the researchers concluded that the best regimen for children younger than 24 months might be one injected dose followed by one live, attenuated dose of the seasonal flu vaccine.

The medical definition of a rare side effect is one that happens in fewer than 1:10,000 doses of a treatment. We have a total study group of 53 children and in such a small group, they found an increase in wheezing and this is not a cause for alarm? But of course not! We can’t say that the wheezing caused by this live virus vaccine is associated with an increased risk of asthma because ALL vaccines are good and safe – just some are better and safer. Instead, we are told that we can still use both injected and nasal spray vaccines – we just use one a bit earlier and one a bit later.

The drug companies are happy; the government is happy; and the parents don’t know any better and would never blame their child’s breathing problem on the vaccine their child received. After all, if it weren’t safe, the government would not have allowed it to be released, right?

Now, for the actual study. Remember, this is 53 children in total who received one of several different combinations of vaccines. This was supposed to show that not only was the vaccine effective but it was safe as well. In order to prove safety, we should have one group that gets a treatment and another that gets a placebo which by definition is a totally inert substance (eg saline solution). For anyone who has been following this issue for any time at all, you will not be surprised to hear that there was no control group. All 4 groups of children involved got 2 different types of vaccine. There was also no blinding of the groups so parents and researchers were aware of who was getting what treatment. Despite this, and despite the increase in wheezing, the vaccines were all declared to be safe. Bravo! Now for the inclusion criteria. These are the children who were ‘allowed’ to participate in the study.

  • Twelve to 35 months of age at enrollment.
  • Minimum weight of 8 kg.
  • In good health, as determined by parent/guardian verbal medical history and physical examination by clinical investigator.
  • Parent/guardian available by telephone for safety data collection through 6 months post-dose 2.
  • Ability of parent/guardian to understand and comply with the requirements of the protocol.
  • Signed informed consent document and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorization by the parent/guardian prior to performance of any study procedures.
One can only imagine what the parents would have been told prior to their agreeing to put their children into this study. You can bet they weren’t told that all flu vaccines were found by the Cochrane Collaboration to be absolutely useless in children aged under 2 years old. Nor would they have been informed that even after 2 years old, children who are vaccinated against flu are no less likely to be hospitalised with influenza or to have the disease for a shorter duration. In any case, these are the children who ARE allowed into the study. Those who are NOT allowed in are much more interesting. Please keep in mind when reading this list that vaccination is a one-size-fits-all treatment. The only true contraindication to vaccination in the real world is an anaphylactic (severe, life-threatening allergic response) reaction to a previous dose. yet here, in a study that is supposed to show us that the vaccines are safe for all, are the kids who were not allowed in. I wonder if they only got 53 children in the final study because with so many vaccinated kids, it was hard to find children healthy enough to meet the criteria?
Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of hypersensitivity to any component of LAIV or TIV, including egg or egg products.
  • History of hypersensitivity to gentamicin.
  • Known or suspected immune deficiency diseases or immunosuppressed or have altered or compromised immune status as a consequence of treatment with immunosuppressive therapies.
  • Known close contact with a severely immunocompromised person, such as someone currently in isolation secondary to a bone marrow transplantation (LAIV recipients should avoid close contact with severely immunocompromised individuals for at least 7 days after vaccination).
  • History of chronic underlying medical conditions such as chronic disorders of the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, chronic metabolic diseases (including diabetes), renal dysfunction, or hemoglobinopathies.
  • History of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
  • History of asthma or reactive airways disease.
  • Acute febrile (>99.6 degrees Fahrenheit axillary) and/or respiratory illness, within the 72 hours prior to enrollment.
  • Use of aspirin or aspirin containing products in the month prior to enrollment or anticipated use during the study.
  • Administration of any intranasal medication within 2 weeks prior to enrollment or expected receipt during this study.
  • Previous receipt of an influenza vaccine.
  • Administration of any live virus vaccine within 4 weeks prior to enrollment or (other than study vaccine) planned receipt of another live virus vaccine before completion of the 2 weeks after the last vaccination in this study*
  • Administration of any inactivated vaccine within 2 weeks prior to enrollment or planned receipt of another inactivated vaccine before 2 weeks after the last vaccination in this study*
  • Participation in another investigational trial or administration of any investigational drug within 1 month prior to enrollment or during this study.
  • Any condition that in the opinion of the investigator would interfere with the interpretation or evaluation of the vaccine.
    • Routine immunizations can be resumed after the memory aid period following dose 2.
So in the ‘study’ that is supposed to be looking at how safe this vaccine is for the general population, people who would normally get the vaccine in real life are excluded, selecting a group that is less likely to react, therefore making the shot appear safer. And even the reaction that did appear – wheezing – was downplayed despite the fact that wheezing might be a precursor to asthma and there is at least 1 child or adult who dies from asthma each day in Australia and many more times that number in the US.
Lastly, this study purports to have looked at the effectiveness of the vaccine and found that both the flu shot and the flu nasal mist were effective at preventing flu. Did they do this by exposing these children to influenza and seeing whether they got sick or not? Did they do this by following them for a long period of time to determine whether or not the vaccine kept them safe against influenza and for how long?
Of course not!
The only indicator of ‘effectiveness’ they have is the development of antibodies. This is despite the fact that antibodies do not indicate immunity – even immunologists would have to admit that. Antibodies are stimulated by one small part of the immune system. They indicate exposure – not immunity. You can have very high levels of antibodies in your bloodstream and still contract the disease you have been told you are serologically immune to. Alternatively, you can have low or no circulating antibodies, be exposed to and harbour live virus or bacteria in your body and have no symptoms of disease.
So, the safety aspects of this study are non-existent and fraudulent. And the effectiveness aspects are no better.
Yet this news-by-press release is reported as though it were true. It is reported without question. And gullible parents, health professionals and journalists read the headline and think they know the whole story.
This precautionary tale is repeated every day in every single medical journal. The studies are designed to make the vaccines look effective. They are constructed to convey the impression of safety. But no truly scientific conclusions can be drawn from these studies because they are simply invalid.

Can children be considered collateral damage

How many children are we willing to sacrifice before the altar of vaccination in order to ‘protect’ society? Is even one child an acceptable cost and if you answer yes to that question – acceptable to whom?

Saba Button’s future was forfeit to a vaccine experiment gone horribly wrong. That isn’t anything new – it happens all the time. We just don’t hear about it because usually, these ‘studies’ are generally run in developing countries where annoying things like ethics committees don’t cause unnecessary bother with all of their nasty rules and regulations.

Enter Western Australia – testing ground of choice for this part of the world, thanks in part to the aggressive commercialisation activities of the Telethon Institute in Perth. The head of this Institute and a former Australian of the Year, Prof Fiona Stanley, was quoted in a recent media interview as saying:

“But there’s been a really good  we’ve had a very good relationship with big pharma, some of which has just been, ‘Here’s the money. We’re interested in anything you produce.’ That’s a very good relation that Pat Holt has had with GlaxoSmithKline.

“We’ve had a lot of funding from the big pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines  we’ve had about, oh, probably 80 vaccine trials since the 1990s, where we’ve done everything from the evaluation of new vaccines to looking at whether the vaccines can be given together, to look at novel ways of delivery of vaccine. We’re doing trials on HPV as well as bird flu  you know, it’s huge. Peter Richmond heads up a lot of that, but we always try to add some scientific questions to our vaccine trials.”

Saba Button was part of a flu vaccine trial – but her parents had no idea that their little girl was being used as a guinea pig. They were kept in the dark about the experimental nature of this vaccine just as the other 240 parents whose children were admitted to hospital in WA had no idea. And these were only the reactions we know about. Since only between 1 and 10% are reported, chances are the number of children in WA who were injured by this shot is far higher.

Last week, in response to the government’s push to introduce mass vaccination of all children 6 months of age and older against influenza despite last year’s disaster, Saba’s parents went public for the first time about their experience. The AVN issued a media release afterwards and it was picked up by several outlets – amongst them, Howard Sattler from radio 6PR in Perth.

Howard has interviewed me before and has always made his stance on this issue very clear – he is pro-vaccination but believes wholeheartedly in the right to freedom of speech in a democracy. He also trusts his fellow Australians to be able to listen to both points of view on issues and then, make up their own mind.

Below, with the kind permission of 6PR, I have included audio files of my interview with Mr Sattler followed by his interview with David Mountain, head of the Australian Medical Association of WA.

Your comments are welcome.

[buzzsprout episode=”23351″ player=”true”]

[buzzsprout episode=”23353″ player=”true”]

 

Flu vaccines protect against heart attacks?

Lowered heart attack risk-flu vaccination link called into question | Vaccine News Daily

When you read the actual study (if you want to call it that) showing that flu vaccination protects against heart attack, you find that the researchers actually saw that there was an INCREASED risk of heart attack in flu vaccine recipients – not a surprise since this has been noted for over 40 years. Not satisfied with that result however, they massaged the numbers, adjusted for this, that and the other thing and by the end – hey, presto! Flu vaccination protects against heart attacks…for some strange reason…we can’t really understand…but really, it does.

Below is a quote from an article from the VaccineNewsDaily blog describing why the results from this study should not be taken as gospel truth – or even gospel suspicion.

Wakefield is struck off for an hypothesis – but these jokers get to make front page news for publishing this rubbish. It’s really a strange world, ain’t it?

“Lone Simonsen, a research director in George Washington University’s Department of Global Health, found similar problems and agrees with Jackson. She pointed out to CIDRAP News that adjusting for confounds skewed the results. Unadjusted data should have no effect or even a negative effect of vaccination on the risk of heart attacks.

“Given the recent elegant demonstration of how that sort of analytic adjustment can actually move unadjusted data away from the truth and create profound mismeasurement, it is clear that this paper may have been profoundly affected by the same problem,” Simonsen told CIDRAP News.”

AMA – Hypocrisy defined

Photo

AMA meeting: No flu shot mandate for doctors; hand sanitizer pushed

The AMA will study if there’s any benefit from requiring all health professionals to receive influenza vaccine.

The AMA House of Delegates rejected a proposal to mandate vaccinations for health care professionals but approved other policy to prevent the spread of seasonal flu and influenza A(H1N1).

A resolution by the Infectious Diseases Society of America said the AMA should back universal seasonal and H1N1 flu immunizations unless health professionals have medical contraindications or religious objections. In October, New York state announced that it was requiring all health professionals to get the H1N1 immunization, but the mandate was suspended later that month due to vaccine shortages.