A key preservative that
has been in the influenza
vaccines for decades is thimerosal which is 49.9% mercury.The vaccine contains 25mcg of thimerosal.It is basic scientific knowledge that mercury
crosses the blood-brain barrier.Mercury as
fat soluble.The brain is 60% fat.It is here that mercury settles.Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, MD., conducted a study on
Alzheimer’s Disease in 1970-1980.He
irrefutably concluded that individuals who received the influenza vaccine 5 times were ten
times more likely to acquire the disease than had they only received one, two or even no
vaccines.He attributed this to the mercury
component in the vaccine. It was recorded even in the 1950's and in the British
Medical Journal that mercury was found to be an ineffective germicide for vaccines.
This may explain why formaldehyde is also used. This year's recommended
Fluarix vaccine contains mercury, as do other influenza vaccines.
Feb.
15, 2006 Health Care officials went before the senate debating on the safety of mercury in
vaccines. DenverHealthMedicalCenter and Kaiser Permanente blasted a bill that
would prohibit medical personnel from admistering influenza vaccine containing mercury.
Their argument was that such a prohibiting law would dangerously send a
message that vaccines to be unsafe and harmful. Well, they are right in that such a
message would be sent out. However, the danger comes in suppressing the dangers of
the vaccine contents. Senator John Evans states the fact that mercury is
accumulative and, "It stays in your system for
life, and we don't know the long-term effects. It's better to error on the side of
safety." Marti Sharp, President of the Colorado Children's Immunization
Coalition argues that this could send a message to the public that [all] vaccines are
unsafe. I must agree that potential vaccine recipients should be educating
themselves on the "benefits" and all studied risk factors of all vaccines and
their toxic ingredients.
One must ask why in the
world the vaccine contains germicides such as mercury and formaldehyde. As
previously described, this vaccine is an animal byproduct. The vaccine product
insert specifically states that chicken embryos were used in the production. The
chicken eggs are laid by commercial chickens that have been fed on chicken and other
animal renderings. It has been recorded for the final product to contain residual
components of the chicken embryos. Naturally, contamination is also a high risk.
Formaldehyde
in the vaccine(s) is also a high risk. For decades formaldehyde has been a known
carcinogen (causes cancer) in both animals and humans. Beall and Ulsamer found that exposure to
formaldehyde through injection, inhalation or injestion caused liver toxicity and damage
to the liver.
It is a suspected gastrointestinal toxicant,
immunotoxicant, neurotoxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant, and skin or
sense organ toxicant. The hazardous ranking is incredibly high (worst 10%) to human
health.
It has been
found to be ineffective in
inactivating viruses.
For example, Cases of paralytic polio were "found" after vaccination with the
Cutter vaccine. There were active live viruses in the "killed virus"
vaccine manufactured by Cutter.
Molecular
evidence has been shown that formaldehyde-inactivated Venezuelan equine encephalitis
vaccines were the probable cause of the outbreaks of the disease during the 1969-1972
pandemic in Central America. Similar problems with the veterinary foot-and-mouth vaccine
and almost all recent outbreaks in Western Europe were caused by vaccines because the virus was not inactivated. All but one of those vaccines were
"inactivated" with formaldehyde.
So, if formaldehyde and mercury are both failing to
inactivate vaccine viruses it
is very likely that all inactivated vaccines are not exactly inactivated. They are not
exactly killed. They are STILL LIVE. Could this be an explanation for influenza
related deaths among those vaccinated for the flu?
Gillian
Barre Syndrome (Acuteinfectivepolyneuritis) has been documented in
the medical journals as an “event” after influenza inoculation.Upper respiratory muscles are involved in severe
cases. According to Dr. J. Seal, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases: “Any and all flu vaccines are capable of causing Gillian-Barre.” A
possible cause is the Campylobacter virus which infects the chicken eggs.Dr. Chenof
CDC’s immunization safety branch states that forty to fifty percent of the eggs used
for the manufacturing of the vaccine are infected with Campylobacter which is difficult to
eradicate.I’m assuming he meant that
it’s difficult to eradicate and inactivate in the manufacturing process.Dr. John Griffin of Johns Hopkins University School
of Medicine states, “But the
robust associations are really restricted to Campylobacter and to herpes viruses, and they
include HIV, where there is likely to be an altered immune state…” Oh, wait a
minute!Should we now also point the
finger to the polio vaccine which carries the herpes virus?
The incidence
of GBS rapidly increased October
1976 through December. There were fifty-eight reported fatal cases from 1976 to
1977during the National Swine Influenza Vaccination Program.According to CDC, the ultimate number reported that year was 581 cases with
forty-five million people inoculated. Coincidentally,
the numbers dropped when the program was halted.
1979 Alexander Langmuir reported the risk of
acquiring GBS within the six
weeks following the swine flu inoculation were ten times the "pandemic
expectations". He also stated that the information from which he made this
conclusion were from hospital records, making it difficult to interpret due to the lack of
accurate estimates. Yet, he also concluded that the vaccine contained a
"trigger element" resulting in clinical diagnosis of GBS: 1 in 100,000 swine
influenza inoculated population.
Japan: After receiving the
influenza vaccine between January 2000 and April 2002 there were five cases of GBS reported by the ministry of
health.These reported few lead to the order
for pharmaceutical companies to state clearly that the disease is a possible adverse
effect of vaccines.This order given by the
Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry of Japan.
Disturbing statements
are made from Ehrengut &
Allerdist in which they mentionvaccination,
the frequency of this reaction is up to 3,12 cases per million vaccines 4, raising the
risk factor for vaccines to 18,35.
In an article, "The
Influenza A/New Jersey (Swine Flu) Vaccine and Gillian-Barré Syndrome:
The Arguments for a Causal Association", the authors conclude ,"Despite
the lack of a definitive biological explanation for the association between the swine flu
vaccine and GBS, there is strong evidence for a causal relationship. In the multiple
studies performed immediately following the discontinuation of the National Influenza
Immunization Program (NIIP) as well as in those done almost a decade later, and using at
least three distinct sources of data, there were consistent findings of increased numbers
of GBS cases during the six weeks following vaccination. A peak onset at two to three
weeks post-vaccination was clearly shown. Study after study reported an excess risk of GBS
of approximately 1 in 100,000 vaccinees." Epidemiologic
studies have shown an increase in the incidence of cases of Gillian-Barré syndrome
(GB) following influenza vaccination in recipients sixty-five years of age and older.
According to Health Canada, nearly one thousand
Canadians were reported to experiencing adverse reactions from the vaccine by December
2000. The claim is made that this was eighty times the number reported the previous
year. Admitted by the director of public health for Manitoba Health, Dr. Greg
Hammond, there is a serious lack of immunization registries resulting in the unknown
number of administered doses. There is also the impossible task of tracing
individuals should serious problems with the vaccine arise due to the absence of bar-code
numbering. The continuing domino effects on the Canadian community prevents public
health officials from issuing timely warnings for such events as Oculo-respiratory
syndrome that is characterized by conjunctivitis (red eyes), coughing, soar throat,
wheezing and facial rash occurring hours after the inoculation. An effect common
enough to cause concern amongst health officials. Dr. Eleni Glanis of Health Canada state
there to be 921 cases identified between October 2000 and December. Yet, the U.S.
only has 200 reported cases after inoculation in the past ten years. One would
rightfully inquire as to how many are not reported. All reactions were reported to
have occurred after the Fluviral vaccine manufactured by BioChem Pharma Inc. of Laval,
Que.
The only analyzed cases
of GBS during the swine influenza vaccine campaign were those reported on or before the
end of January (1976). This is when the GBS surveillance ended. According to
the powers that be, cases of GBS were gathered by public health officers who “have
not been trained” to diagnose the syndrome.Claim
is made the reports based on medical records are not adequate.In order for cases to have been accepted by the
CDC, GBS had to be diagnosed by a physician accompanied by evidence that muscles were
involved. The "suspecting" cases reported to CDC had validation by
the state health department. During that investigative period of four months there
was a total of 1,098 reported cases to CDC. However, even some of those cases
accepted by CDC failed to meet the criteria of the syndrome and the publicity over the
plausible link was considered biased reporting of GBS. Lawsuits
resulted in a court order in 1981 for the CDC to release data. A panel that was
formed to evaluate the data excluded information regarding vaccination status. Files
were also impounded at CDC making it difficult to verify and investigate.
DOES
IT EVEN WORK? NO
The flu shot has proven itself ineffective for
every age group. Back in the 70's, A former chief vaccine control officer of the
FDA, J. Anthony Morris, said: "There is no evidence that any influenza
vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of
influenza. The producers
of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway."
How do they sell it? The only way to get as many as people as possible to
take up the millions of doses made is to hype the influenza season every year.
"I'd
like the flu shot to actually work and be safe. This is where things start to fall apart.
Surprisingly, even though the flu vaccine is one of the few immunizations recommended for
most of the population, we're
still not certain about its efficacy, and only a few
large-scale studies have been done on its safety in small children. Scientists have even
raised questions about whether U.S. death figures from the flu are accurate because of the
confusion between flu and flulike illnesses." - Julie Deardorf, Baltimore Sun
Dr. Yazbak, a
pediatrician, makes several discoveries in his quest to find information on just how
effective the vaccine is for children under age two: Jefferson, Smith and Demicheli
et all contributed to the Feb. 25, 2005 issue of The Lancet by analyzing every available referenceon the subject that they could find in the Coltrane
Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE Biological Abstracts and Science Citation Index to June 2004
in any language. They
contacted vaccine manufacturers and authors of all the relevant studies and they went
through every published study comparing the efficacy of the vaccine.
Looking through
CDC's information on the vaccine, the authors also found the following:
Antibody response among children at high risk for
influenza-related complications appears to be lower than among healthy children. In other
words, children who were
more likely to be hospitalized had less antibody response and less benefit from the
vaccination.
First study: During year two, vaccine efficacy among
375 children, was --7% against culture-confirmed influenza (95% CI = --247%--67%; attack
rates: 3.6% and 3.3% among vaccine and placebo groups, respectively) and there was no reduction in ear infections. During year 1, vaccine efficacy was better. The study did not examine complications or hospital
admissions.
Second study: One dose of influenza vaccine was
totally ineffective. Children who received two injections of vaccine had a 49 percent
reduction in “clinically diagnosed” pneumonia or “influenza.” Because these were not culture-confirmed cases, the clinical illnesses may not have been due to
the influenza virus or may
have been due to a different strain of virus than that in the vaccine. In either case, vaccination would not have influenced the course of
the illness — one way or
the other.
After searching
world wide through all available data they could find, the authors found absolutely no support for CDC's vaccination recommendation to
children under the age of two.
New York Times: (September 22, 2005) alerts readers of two new
studies. "The studies published today reinforce the shortcomings of our efforts to
control influenza," wrote Dr. Guan Yi, a virologist at the University of Hong Kong.
"The runaway 100 percent effectiveness that's touted
by proponents was nowhere to be seen," said Tom Jefferson, a researcher in Rome with the
Cochrane Vaccine Fields project, an international consortium of scientists who perform
systematic reviews of research data.
"There
is a wild overestimation of the impact of these vaccines in the community," he said. "In the case of a pandemic, we are
unsure from the data whether these vaccines would work on the elderly."
"In
people over 65, the vaccines 'are apparently ineffective' in the prevention of influenza,
pneumonia and hospital admissions, although they did reduce deaths from pneumonia a
bit, by "up to 30 percent," the study says."
"What you
see is that marketing rules
the response to influenza, and scientific evidence comes fourth or fifth," Dr. Jefferson said. "Vaccines may have
a role, but they appear to have a modest effect. The best strategy to prevent the illness is to wash
your hands."
"People
should ask whether it's worth investing these trillions of dollars and euros in these
vaccines,"Jefferson
said (Seattle
Times 9/25/05)
"Combining
data from 15 studies, they found that in elderly individuals living in the community, inactivated influenza vaccines were not effective
against influenza-like illnesses, influenza, or pneumonia..." (Medical News Today
9/23/05)
Why should any
of this surprise us when the CDC had already written an article entitled, "Preliminary
Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 2003-04 Inactivated Influenza Vaccine - Colorado,
December 2003"? In this article, CDC states that the vaccine had "no or low
effectiveness"
against influenza or influenza-like illness. There seems to be an obvious pattern of
INefficacy that main stream media
"forgets" to include in their daily flu update every influenza season.
If it's not
working on infants or the elderly, what about the in-between and healthy individuals?
Let's be logical here. Shouldn't "healthy" be an indication
of just how unnecessary the vaccine is for the healthy individual? Healthy can only
logically mean that individual has a greater ability to ward off infection without
"further assistance" by way of even a vaccine. We keep getting these mixed
messages from CDC through major media outlets, "Let those at risk get the
vaccines", "The elderly and infants first", "If you're healthy and
you've never had the vaccine before, you should get two doses", "the same for
infants"...
A search of
VAERS for the year 2003 [Vaccination Date after '20030101' and Vaccination Date before
'20040101'] revealed the following:
Found 1816 records with Vaccine contains 'FLU'.
Found 687 records with Vaccine contains 'FLU' and
ER Visit.
Found 129 records with Vaccine contains 'FLU' and
Hospitalized.
Found 38 records with Vaccine contains 'FLU' and
Life Threatening and Patient Did Not Die.
Found 26 records with Vaccine contains 'FLU' and
Patient Died.
Some
of the listed "symptoms" from VAERS on those that died (these are direct quotes):
2 year old: Pt died 4 days after
administration of vaccine (mom
was probably just following doctors orders to be sure her baby was protected for the
season)
Had flu vaccine 100303. C/O N & V after
vaccine. Deceased 100703 AM cause of death not known
10/02 vaccine administered. 10/02 Evening: patient
began running fever. 10/03 Patient unable to walk due to dizziness; dyspnea on and off
since 10/02. 10/05 Mother thought bloated; gave suppository and he died
Wife called clinic 10/03/03. Reports 2 and half
hours after flu vaccine patient c/o, n/v, bpv. Symptoms not improved next day, instructed
patient to see PMD ASAP. Patient went to hospital from residence 10/4/03 via ambulence,
expired that night
ambulance to the hospital. She was diagnosed with
Stevens-Johnson syndrome. The pt died on 11/3/03. The reporter stated that the death
certificate lists the cause of death as "toxic epidermal necrolysis and severe
respiratory failure." No other info was reported. A telephone call was placed to the
reporter on 11/7/03, to request copies of the
Patient admitted to hospital on 11/8/03 (8:39 PM).
Patient presented with fever (105), generalized erythema, chills, SOB, semi-conscious
state. Patient also hypoxic and had ischemia on fingers. Patient was intubated
The pt received influenza vaccine during AM hours.
The pt seemed fine for several hours but was found unresponsive by a neighbor that
afternoon. Resuscitation efforts failed and the pt was pronounced dead at 17:52 on
11/14/00. Her death was felt to be sudden cardiac death with a history of diabetes and
hypertension. Please not the date of the event, 11/14/01, is the correct date. The pt died
on the same day he received influenza immunization
At 24 hours pt felt lethargic, dizzy. After dinner
that night he was sweating, burping. At 48 hours pt had pain in left arm, congestion and
tightness in chest. COD as per death certificate -- cardiorespiratory arrest
The pt received a Fluvirin vaccination on 10/23/98
and on 5/29/99 experienced pneumonia and respiratory failure and subsequently died, as a
result the adverse event was considered serious. The reporter assessed the causality as
possibly related. No more information has been provided
THERE ARE MANY
MORE
"The
flu vaccine gets the most-useless-vaccine-of-all-time award. Now the CDCis recommending the vaccine for children under two years old and all adultsover 50. Don't fall for it."---Randall Neustaedter OMD
