We’ve looked at media reports on SCARLET FEVER in the UK, the use of the nasal influenza vaccine in those locations, and research that shows there are biological mechanisms that could connect the two. What may need to happen is laboratory research to look specifically at these connections in an honest and scientific manner.
In the United States, there are some considerations to this situation:
Firstly, the CDC does not track SCARLET FEVER:
Image found here and our thanks.
Secondly, the use of FluMist was stopped for two years but is set to resume in Fall, 2018.
ACIP votes down use of LAIV for 2016-2017 flu season, June 22, 2016
CDC panel again advises against FluMist (2017-2018), Wed June 21, 2017
ACIP: LAIV OK to Use During 2018-19 Flu Season, February 26, 2018 03:59 pm
Thirdly, FluMist will NOT be the first and only choice but an option, and it was NEVER administered in schools as it is in the UK.
AAP: Give children IIV flu shot; use LAIV as last resort, May 21, 2018 : The Academy recommends pediatricians give children inactivated influenza vaccine in the upcoming season and use live attenuated vaccine only as a last resort….Quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4, FluMist), which is given by intranasal spray to healthy patients ages 2 through 49 years, was a popular option for those reluctant to get a shot. While it performed relatively well against influenza B strains, there was modest effectiveness against A/H3N2 strains and no overall effectiveness against A/H1N1 strains. LAIV4 has not been recommended by the AAP and CDC for the past two influenza seasons.
However, FluMist manufacturer MedImmune has changed to a new H1N1 strain (A/Slovenia) that it suggests will produce better antibody responses than the previous H1N1 strain (A/Bolivia). In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reviewed MedImmune data as well as a meta-analysis on vaccine effectiveness and voted to reintroduce LAIV4 as an option for the 2018-’19 season. However, the data on whether or not it will be effective are not definitive.
“There is potential that if we happen to have an H1N1 predominant year and the vaccine turns out to not perform as maybe some are anticipating ….
NPR - Shots, 2016
CDC data consistently showed the live nasal vaccine to be very effective in children until 2013, when the vaccine went from including three strains (trivalent) to including four strains (quadrivalent).
And therein lies the rub: The new Canadian study used the trivalent vaccine, while ACIP analyzed data using the quadrivalent vaccine, and among U.S. children.
"Many of us felt very strongly that the [live attenuated influenza vaccine] was a better vaccine than the inactivated for children, and the data supported that," says Pedra Piedra, a professor of virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine and one of the investigators involved in the nasal vaccine clinical trials in the late 1980s. "But something happened when it became a quadrivalent vaccine….."
And therein lies another interesting piece of information. The live nasal flu vaccine is genetically modified:
Fluenz Tetra nasal spray suspension Influenza vaccine (live attenuated, nasal) https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/3296/smpc : ** produced in VERO cells by reverse genetic technology. This product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Add that means both UK and US versions, as they are seemingly, the same: Only one LAIV vaccine is available, marketed as Fluenz Tetra for the UK and EU market, and FluMist Quadrivalent for the US market. Fluenz Tetra and FluMist Quadrivalent are the same product but in different packaging .
Researchers attempt to modify the problem. Interestingly, TYPE A H1N1 virus can be a target of the bacteria that can cause SCARLET FEVER - Streptococcus Pyogenes
POPULAR VACCINE ON HIATUS SECOND FLU SEASON IN A ROW IN U.S. DUE TO DIMINISHED EFFECTIVENESS
Researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have discovered a genetic mutation in the FluMist intranasal flu vaccine that has the potential to be altered to enhance the vaccine’s protective effect...“Only one component of FluMist – the one targeting the Type A H1N1 virus – has been failing in the U.S. recently,” says Andrew S. Pekosz, PhD, professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology. “It’s not clear exactly why it has failed but this mutation we identified could be used to make that component of the vaccine a little stronger, thereby improving vaccine efficacy. We now see the possibility of altering this mutation and perhaps others in the vaccine to optimize the vaccine’s protective effect, perhaps for different age groups.”
Live nasal, quadrivalent flu vaccines are relatively new. There seems to be issues. Issues with the genetically modified organisms may be important.
Despite major therapeutic advances, infectious diseases remain highly problematic. Recent advancements in technology in producing DNA-based vaccines, together with the growing knowledge of the immune system, have provided new insights into the identification of the epitopes needed to target the development of highly targeted vaccines. Genetically modified (GM) viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector vaccines possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards. For all these vaccines, safety assessment concerning unintended and unwanted side effects with regard to targeted vaccinees has always been the main focus. Important questions concerning effects on nontargeted individuals within the same species or other species remain unknown. Horizontal transfer of genes, though lacking supportive experimental or epidemiological investigations, is well established. New hybrid virus progenies resulting from genetic recombination between genetically engineered vaccine viruses and their naturally occurring relatives may possess totally unpredictable characteristics with regard to host preferences and disease-causing potentials. Furthermore, when genetically modified or engineered virus particles break down in the environment, their nuclei acids are released. Appropriate risk management is the key to minimizing any potential risks to humans and environment resulting from the use of these GM vaccines. There is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications. The objective of this article is to highlight the limitations in environmental risk assessment and raise awareness of the potential risks involving the use of genetically modified viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector vaccines.
More research is desperately needed but there should be gratitude to those who have dared to study and write about the negative effects of a vaccine. The importance of “effects on nontargeted individuals within the same species or other species” is becoming more obvious as more researchers dare to look. Numerous studies have been done regarding serotype replacement and pneumococcal bacteria but there may be more to come and with other vaccines. For decades, INFLUENZA was solely blamed for the thousands of deaths around the world in 1918 but research has caught up to the actual science and it turns out it was a one, two punch. Influenza coupled with bacteria was the culprit :
The upper respiratory tract has been shown to host a diverse microbiota, within which a number of bacterial pathobionts may be found, i.e.,....Streptococcus pyogenes
........There are many published examples of co/secondary bacterial infections during the 1918 influenza pandemic...Further lung tissue from fatalities of this pandemic were re-examined in 1919; S. pyogenes longus was found in 36% of cases, S. pneumoniae in 29% of cases and H. influenzae in 25% . Additional post-mortems of lung tissue suggest that at least 90% of samples showed evidence of bacterial infection. Overall 95% of deaths were due to co/secondary bacterial pneumonia ……..
Knowing all of this may warrant an investigation of S. Pyogenes and the LAIV (Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine).
Maybe the investigation could ask these questions:
- Can LAIV solely cause a change in S. Pyogenes bacteria?
- Could administration in schools fuel a bacterial change amongst pupils?
- Could there be a secondary partner in crime, like timing of vaccine, age, or proximity to receiving another vaccine?
- Could LAIV unintentionally cause a domino effect with non-vaccine targeted pathogens?
- Could it be that being the only GMO vaccine used in the UK, the LAIV is at risk for increasing prevalence and disease in an off-target pathogen (S. Pyogenes)?
These are unanswered questions for now but let’s hope they will be taken seriously.
--- “A bend in the road is not the end of the road…Unless you fail to make the turn.” -- -------- Helen Keller -------