Paradoxical Logic?

Every now and then, we receive a health newsletter from our insurance provider, OSF. One arrived on our doorstep in the fall, shortly before "flu season" with a snippet at the bottom of the front page regarding getting flu shots while pregnant. Here is a sampling of the short notice:

If you're going to be pregnant during flu season, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that you get a flu shot. Pregnant women are at high risk for serious illness. And the flu can cause life-threatening complications, such as dehydration or bacterial pneumonia.

What's more if you get sick, treating the flu could be risky. That's because the antiviral medicine usually prescribed haven't been tested for safety in pregnant women, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (emphasis mine)

Okay, so let me get this straight. Flu shot = proven safe for pregnant women, antiviral medicine = safety unproven. Now, putting aside my own personal issues w/ ACOG, this just makes me scratch my head. When considering the list of ingredients found within the flu vaccine, how can ALL of those be proven safe for mothers and unborn babies??? (BTW, my general rule of thumb is if I can't pronounce it, I don't need it circulating in my body. Despite this rule, I have a very difficult time finding 100% acceptable food products at the store that aren't raw veggies and fruits.) If you are unaware of some of the flu shot contents, here is a funny look at what is being injected into thousands of people each year:




In Marsden Wagner's book "Born in the USA: How a Broken Maternity System Must be Fixed to Put Women and Children First", he mentions two opposing principles to the practice of medicine. One is precautionary: "assumed unsafe until proven safe" and the other is anti-precautionary: "assumed safe until proven unsafe". I would say that in general, American medicine likes to practice with precautionary principles. We are often throwing out the latest research to help us prove our point. However, especially in regards to maternity care in America, we unfortunately tend to fall in the anti-precautionary camp most of the time. Many careproviders think there isn't a problem, simply because they have not had any catastrophic results yet. One prime example of this is the use of Cytotec (generic name: misoprostol) for inducing/augmenting labor in women. Despite being manufactured for use in adults with stomach ulcers (who first thought it would be a good idea to shove this into a woman's birth canal???), many obstetricians use it to stimulate the cervix and uterus. Please keep in mind that the drug "manufacturer was well aware that one possible side effect of the drug was severe uterine contractions, so it stated on a label that it should never be given to pregnant women" (Wagner 75). Ahhh, now it makes sense . . . a drug label says DON'T, so an intelligent medical school graduate says "Why not? Let's give this a shot!" Cytotec has killed moms AND babies and yet, it probably is still being used in some hospitals today. I am glad there are some warnings out there. But I digress, back to the flu shot.

I was pleasantly surprised to see a few published studies evaluating the benefits of giving the flu shot to pregnant women. Here is one. While it appears that infants in the study group (i.e. mothers who received flu shot) had lower rates of influenza, respiratory illness and fever than the control group (i.e. mothers who only received the pneomococcal vaccine), there are some issues. First, there was no comparison group of mothers who did not receive any vaccines at all. So, you're basically evaluating the effectiveness of vaccine 1 versus vaccine 2, not the effectiveness of vaccine versus no-vaccine. Second, in the summary they concluded that the flu vaccine has "substantial benefits" for both mothers and infants. However, I would argue whether or not the range of reducing symptoms by 29-63% really constitutes "substantial benefits," meaning a large degree of benefits. Lastly, I personally would also want to see rates of how many of those moms were exclusively breastfeeding, as breastmilk contains high amounts of immunities for a nursing baby. Would the breastfed babies be healthier overall than formula-fed or supplemented babies? Furthermore, how many of the babies were in day-care (meaning increased exposure to viruses) and how many were at home with mom?

I think there are other variables that contribute to the health of moms and babies, besides whether or not they receive the flu vaccine. It would also be nice to see more of natural ways to boost your immunity during the flu season. A well-balanced diet with limited processed foods, for instance, not only enhances your overall health but will help determine how well your immune system can fight off infection. Reducing stress is another "free" way to help increase your immune system function. Some things our family has been doing is supplements of vitamin C, vitamin D (which I do think has made a difference, at least for Heath and I this year), and probiotics. But you never see these suggestions in the newspaper (or if you do, it is a rarity). Rather, there are posters everywhere reminding us to get our annual flu shot.

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying if you eat well, limit stress (is that possible?) and follow a supplement regimen, you will not get sick. But it may reduce your chances. For me, I would much rather take this route than step into a clinic, roll up my sleeve and consent to a shot with (in my opinion) unproven benefits for myself and baby. Here's hoping we can survive the rest of the flu season unharmed!