It is exceptionally risky for any pharma co to carry out any clinical trials of any drug in pregnant women. The ability to obtain insurance against the liabilities that arise if something affects unborn foetuses is minimal/nil. Post-thalidomide, drug companies just won't take the risk of carrying out clinical trials in pregnant women. The liabilities can be massive when you add up the lifetime costs of care for a large number of affected individuals with reasonable life expectancy. Because nobody is prepared to risk financial and reputation all suicide carrying out trials in pregnant women, however minuscule the perceived risk is, such medications are never licensed or approved for use in pregnant women. That isn't the case with some older medications or some injectable vaccinations which are manufactured from deal viruses. It is a commercial issue rather than one relating to the vaccine. I have some experience with clinical trials regulation.

As far as transfer of the virus is concerned, need to understand the difference between virus shedding/transfer and actually infecting someone else with flu. These are worlds apart and what the document you referred to explains is that whilst evidence of attenuated virus shedding and subsequent transfer to another person has been recorded, they have not seen any evidence of a vaccinated individual "infecting" another person with the flu virus and than person becoming symptomatic as a result. Essentially what they are able to pick up is evidence that the attenuated virus cells are detectable by lab testing in the body of another person.

Further down in that same document you referred to it does explain that you cannot get flu from the attenuated nasal vaccine and it also explains why. I appreciate that you have very firm views about vaccines and I am merely answering the questions that you asked in (what seems to be a slightly confrontational way) but I am not trying to influence your opinion.