RE: Flu Vaccine & Flu in 2003 - HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION - Dr. F. Yazbak

[Guest guest]

EXCELLENT - VITAL to read.........be sure to read all the way to the end

for the summary of what we know on the so-called flu deaths in

children.............

Thank you Dr. Yazbak

Sheri

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/2004_jan12.html

HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION

Chickenpox, Lyme, Rotavirus, And A Highly Revealing Analysis Of Flu Statistics

By RFD Columnist, Dr. F. Yazbak

TL Autism Research

Falmouth, Massachusetts

E-mail: tlautstudy@...

Years ago, the description of diseases used to be accurate. Smallpox was a

very dreaded, serious, and often fatal illness. Certainly, no parent wished

smallpox on his children. Chickenpox on the other hand was a relatively

benign illness: a low-grade fever, an itchy rash and a week out of school.

Like all childhood illnesses, it was worse in adults and parents were

actually hoping that their children could “catch chickenpox” and be

finished with it for the future.

In 1995, chickenpox suddenly became a major health problem. Six children

were reported to have died from chickenpox; frequent and repeated TV

coverage lasted for weeks without anyone mentioning that two of the six

children had leukemia and the others were on cortico-steroids.

Concurrently, chickenpox became a major economical disaster that was

gravely impacting the United States economy, as working mothers stayed home

to give their children Aveeno baths and syrup to relieve itching. A short

time later, the chickenpox vaccine was cheerfully and successfully launched.

Historically, epidemics have occurred in cycles. Experts in infectious

diseases could often predict them. The number of unvaccinated children

increased during several successive years of low spread and when the

reservoir was full, an outbreak, an epidemic or a pandemic occurred.

Children then developed a solid immunity that was boosted successfully

during subsequent outbreaks. Recently, in the United States, a new

epidemiological trend has become very evident: MBAs and Marketing Directors

predict epidemics that are then orchestrated to occur, on cue, when a new

vaccine is due to be launched.

A flurry of interest about Lyme disease started in the Northeast and Upper

Midwest in 1996-97. It promptly snowballed into a major news campaign in

the targeted areas, where indeed there were increasing numbers of cases,

many with serious long-term complications. In 1998, the LYMErix vaccine

received conditional approval by the FDA and was welcome in the

geographical locations where the disease was common and often devastating.

Unfortunately, it was soon discovered that the vaccine itself had major

side effects and doctors became disenchanted with its use. Since the

manufacturer discontinued production of the vaccine, the newspaper

articles, experts’ interviews and television “health minutes” on Lyme

disease have completely stopped. It is almost as if the disease has totally

disappeared, when it obviously has not.

Years ago, we did not talk much about the rotavirus. Most people did not

even know the name and some thought that it was “RotoVirus”, because it

kept spreading “around and around” nursery schools. We were happy to tell

the parents the baby had “some kind of a virus”, that penicillin was not

going to help, that we were seeing many children with the same symptoms,

and that they improved after a few days. We then suggested liquids and a

limited diet and the reassured parents left with their little ones, to stop

at their neighborhood drugstore for Pampers and Pedialyte. We obviously

were immensely more alarmed when a child had salmonella, shigella, cholera,

pathogenic E. Coli and staphylococcus gastro-enteritis.

Rarely, the babies with rotavirus infections became dehydrated. They were

then brought to a holding unit at the hospital, given intravenous fluids

and discharged before 23 hours. Officially, they had not been actually

“admitted” to the hospital.

Suddenly, in 1998, every newspaper and every TV news program started

continuous reporting on the rotavirus. Overnight, the rotavirus became a

household name and the most common cause of diarrhea. It also killed

thousands of babies. The fact that the deaths occurred in Third World

countries was rarely, if ever, mentioned. In addition, the news programs

warned that the economy of the United States was once more in dire danger,

that HMOs were almost bankrupt trying to keep up with the rising costs of

hospitalizations and that millions of hours were lost in the workplace

during the rotavirus season; after all, mothers of affected children had to

stay out of work to care for them and could not drop them off, as usual, at

schools and day-care centers. In the midst of that intense “information”

campaign, the rotavirus vaccine “Rotashield” was released to the joy and

relief of The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

pediatricians and parents. Because three doses were needed, the delight of

the manufacturer and stockholders was tripled. One could almost imagine

them visualizing a set of gorgeous blond triplets singing “Triple the

Doses, Triple the Dough” using the old and proven tune of “Double the Mint,

Double the Fun”.

And then, something went wrong, very wrong. It became quickly evident that

some infants who received the vaccine developed intussusception, a form of

intestinal obstruction and that a few died. The CDC, to its credit, acted

promptly and suspended the administration of the Rotashield in July 1999,

just a few months after it was released. In October 1999, it issued a

detailed statement that started with the following two paragraphs: “The

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided that

Rotashield, the only U.S.-licensed rotavirus vaccine, should no longer be

recommended for infants in the United States. This action was based on

the results of an expedited review of scientific data presented to the ACIP

by CDC in cooperation with the FDA, NIH, and Public Health Service

officials, along with Wyeth-Lederle. Data from the review indicated a

strong association between Rotashield and intussusception (bowel

obstruction) among some infants during the first 1-2 weeks following

vaccination. Use of the vaccine was suspended in July pending the data

review by the ACIP. Parents should be reassured that their children who

received rotavirus vaccine before July and remain well are not at increased

risk for intussusception now.

Rotavirus is a severe diarrheal illness in childhood that accounts for more

than 500,000 physician visits and approximately 50,000 hospitalizations

each year among children less than 5 years of age. Symptoms include fever,

an upset stomach and vomiting followed by diarrhea, which may lead to

dehydration. This results in $264 million in direct medical costs and $1

billion in total costs to society.

The rotavirus media blitz came to a screeching halt and for four years,

interest in the “designer diarrhea” has ranged between nil and minimal.

Children with the disease had once again “some kind of a virus.”

However, this is due to change AGAIN. Yes indeed, very soon, we will be

undoubtedly bombarded once more with a barrage of relentless rotavirus

propaganda, diarrhea will become extremely serious in the United States and

the cost to the National economy will become even more staggering as the

launching of the “new, safe, effective and improved” rotavirus vaccine is

carefully orchestrated. This second vaccine has been developed for years

and has been ready to go. If rotavirus disease is so serious, the new

formulation should have been released already “to save lives”. But it was

probably felt that releasing it too soon after the first fiasco would not

have been a good business move and as it happens sometimes, when it comes

to the care of children, MBAs may overrule MDs. So everyone involved had to

wait patiently for the opportune time. Indications are that 2004 will be

the year.

For years, the inactivated flu vaccine has been recommended for the

elderly. It was also recommended for children and adults at risk, mainly

those with chronic debilitating conditions. Recently, annual vaccination of

all children aged 6 to 23 months and older children and adolescents in

their household was recommended. Because of parental concerns over

thimerosal, a “preservative-free” pediatric flu vaccine was expressly

produced for the 2003-2004 season. Marketing experts decided that the

description of the product as “preservative-free” was less controversial

than “mercury-free”.

A live intranasal flu vaccine, FluMist, was also recently licensed. As per

the manufacturer: “Before you get the flu, ask your health care

professional about new FluMist — the first nasal flu vaccine that helps

prevent the flu where the flu virus typically enters your body — your nose.

FluMist helps prevent the flu for the entire season. FluMist is indicated

for active immunization for the prevention of disease caused by influenza A

and B viruses in healthy children and adolescents, 5 to 17 years of age,

and healthy adults, 18 to 49 years of age. FluMist is not indicated for

immunization of individuals less than 5 years of age, or 50 years of age

and older.”

It is not exactly clear why suddenly healthy infants, children and adults

under the age of 50 needed to be vaccinated.

As expected, an outbreak of flu occurred in the fall of 2003. A massive

barrage of “information” was orchestrated and news programs were saturated

except for two days after the capture of Saddam Hussein. There was special

emphasis on pediatric cases and particularly pediatric deaths.

According to the 2003 “Red Book” of the American Academy of Pediatrics

(AAP), the Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases and the

pediatrician's reference on the subject, par excellence: “Influenza

classically is characterized by sudden onset of fever, often with chills or

rigors, headache, malaise, diffuse myalgia, and a nonproductive cough.

Subsequently, the respiratory tract signs of sore throat, nasal congestion,

rhinitis, and cough become more prominent. Conjunctival injection,

abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting can occur. In some children, influenza

can appear as an upper respiratory tract infection or as a febrile illness

with few respiratory tract signs. In young infants, influenza can produce a

sepsis-like picture and occasionally can cause croup, bronchiolitis or

pneumonia. Acute myositis characterized by calf tenderness and refusal to

walk may develop after several days of influenza illness…” (p. 382)

Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases is an important

CDC publication that is often used as a resource. The following is from

page 249 of the 5th Edition: “The severity of influenza illness depends on

the prior immunologic experience with antigenically related virus variants.

In general, only around 50% of infected persons will develop the classic

clinical symptoms of influenza.

‘Classic' influenza disease is characterized by the abrupt onset of fever,

myalgia, sore throat, and non-productive cough. The fever is usually

101-102°F, and accompanied by prostration. The onset of fever is so abrupt

that the exact hour is recalled by the patient. Myalgias mainly affect the

back muscles. Cough is believed to be the result of tracheal epithelial

destruction. Additional symptoms may include rhinorrhea (runny nose),

headache, substernal chest burning and ocular symptoms (e.g. eye pain and

sensitivity to light.)”

All of us who have had the flu remember the aches and pains, and how much

our eyes hurt when we moved them. We remember the cough and the fever and

the sick stomach. We remember how we felt tired and fatigued for a long

while. We actually remember our flu encounters so well that we feel sick

all over again watching that great commercial with the poor actor looking

so miserable and enumerating all his symptoms.

MMWR

For years, the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC

has been the most reliable source of accurate information on diseases. The

CDC was so careful about every statement and figure that it included the

following disclaimer in every report on the Internet: All MMWR HTML

versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML.

This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors

in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are

referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy

for the official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this

issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202)

512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices

The MMWR of December 19, 2003 [/ 52(50);1232-1234] covers the period

between December 7 and 13. It can be accessed here

Important portions will be copied verbatim and footnotes will be inserted

between brackets, immediately after the corresponding statements for

clarity (italics). My comments will appear in bold.

Influenza activity in the United States continued to increase during

December 7--13, 2003*. [* Provisional data reported as of December 17] The

proportion of patient visits to sentinel providers for influenza-like

illness (ILI)† overall was 7.4%, which is above the national baseline§ of

2.5%. [† Temperature of >100.0º F (>37.8º C) and cough and/or sore throat

in the absence of a known cause other than influenza] [§ Calculated as the

mean percentage of visits for ILI during non-influenza weeks, plus two

standard deviations. Wide variability in regional data precludes

calculating region-specific baselines and makes it inappropriate to apply

the national baseline to regional data.] The above symptoms are not flu

symptoms. They are certainly not those listed in the Red Book and the

quoted CDC publication and they are certainly not those that the average

person attributes to the flu. A child or an adult with just such a

low-grade fever and a cough or a sore throat can hardly be said to have

Influenza. The bar has been substantially lowered if the CDC includes such

cases in the national flu statistics, whatever the intention. Similarly,

one must wonder why and how the 2.5% baseline for low-grade fever, sore

throat or cough was decided on. Certainly every primary physician and nurse

practitioner will easily assert that year-round, patients with such

symptoms amount to a greater percentage of visits. The unrealistic 2.5%

figure lowers the bar further.

During the reporting week of December 7--13, World Health Organization

(WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System

(NREVSS) laboratories reported testing 3,814 specimens for influenza

viruses; 1,365 (35.8%) were positive. Of these, 262 were influenza A (H3N2)

viruses, 1,080 were influenza A viruses that were not subtyped, and 23 were

influenza B viruses.

Since September 28, WHO and NREVSS laboratories have tested 32,854

specimens for influenza viruses; 9,464 (28.8%) were positive. Of these,

9,395 (99.3%) were influenza A viruses, and 69 (0.7%) were influenza B

viruses. Of the 9,395 influenza A viruses, 2,113 (22.5%) have been

subtyped; 2,112 (>99.9%) were influenza A (H3N2) viruses, and one (<0.1%)

was an influenza A (H1) virus. All 50 states have reported

laboratory-confirmed influenza this season. The fact that only 1/3 of the

submitted specimens were positive is of some concern and may suggest that

most of the patients tested may not have had the flu. A more careful

clinical diagnosis, based on more appropriate criteria, would have yielded

reasonable incidence figures and higher confirmation rates. One can only

imagine the uproar if surgeons performed appendectomies on patients who

vomited once, had a low-grade fever and a vague tummy ache.

Of 269 influenza viruses collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1 and

characterized antigenically by CDC, 265 were influenza A (H3N2) viruses,

two were influenza A (H1) viruses, and two were influenza B viruses. The

hemagglutinin proteins of the influenza A (H1) viruses were similar

antigenically to the hemagglutinin of the vaccine strain A/New

Caledonia/20/99. Of the 265 influenza A (H3N2) isolates that have been

characterized, 62 (23%) were similar antigenically to the vaccine strain

A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2), and 203 (77%) were similar to a drift variant,

A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2)**. Both influenza B viruses characterized were

similar antigenically to B/Sichuan/379/99. [** Although vaccine

effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses might be less than

that against A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses, the current U.S. vaccine

probably will offer some cross-protective immunity against the

A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses and reduce the severity of disease.] It is

imperative to point out that 77% of the cultures antigenically identified

by the CDC did not match the strain in the flu vaccine this year. In

addition, one must question the first statement in the footnote “Although

vaccine effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses might be less

than that against A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses”. The use of the word

“might” seems inappropriate. The vaccine effectiveness against

A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses is definitely less than that against

A/Panama/2007/99. The bar has been lowered further. The authors were wise

to use the word “probably” in the following sentence: the current U.S.

vaccine probably will offer some cross-protective immunity against the

A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses and reduce the severity of disease.

Commenting on that possibility, an infectious disease specialist said in an

interview: “The available flu vaccine will prevent death”.

* * *

On December 19, 2003, a MMWR Dispatch was also published by the CDC

(52:1-2). Reported by J , DVM, A Likos, MD, N

Bhat, MD [EIS officers, CDC], it was entitled Update: Influenza-Associated

Deaths Reported Among Children Aged <18 Years --- United States, 2003--04

Influenza Season.

Since October, 42 influenza-associated deaths among children aged <18 years

have been reported to CDC. All patients had influenza virus infection

detected by rapid antigen testing or other laboratory testing methods. The

fact that all 42 deaths, according to the authors, were

“influenza-associated” does not mean that the cause of death was the

influenza, of course. The second sentence serves to “reinforce” the first

and to convince anyone with doubts. But it cannot change the fact that

detection of influenza viral infection in the laboratory does not prove

that “The Flu” was the cause of death.

Among the 42 reported deaths, 20 (48%) patients were male, and 21 (50%)

were female; the sex of one patient was not reported. Twenty-three (55%) of

the children were aged <5 years, and 13 (31%) were aged 6--23 months. The

median age was 4 years (range: 9 weeks--17 years). Seventeen (40%) of the

children had underlying chronic medical conditions; the previous medical

status for four (10%) children was unknown. Among the 21 patients who had

no underlying chronic medical condition, five had invasive bacterial

co-infections, including three caused by methicillin-resistant

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), one by Streptococcus pneumoniae, and one by

Group A streptococcus. Three children with underlying chronic medical

conditions had invasive bacterial co-infections, including one caused by

MRSA, one caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, and one caused by Neisseria

menigitidis. One must wonder why in a review of national importance, an

effort was not made to identify the sex of one child and the past history

of four others. The underlying chronic conditions (some children had more

than one) were: Lupus 1, cerebral palsy 2, chromosomal abnormality 1,

hypothyroidism 1, gastroesophageal reflux 1 and biliary atresia 1. Two

children were developmentally delayed and 2 had mental retardation. Three

children had asthma, one had received a heart transplant, 3 had seizure

disorders, one had Pierre Robin Syndrome and the last one had the syndrome

of Cornelia de Lange. The available information is not enough to determine

the role of the influenza infection in the demise of these children. Eight

(19%) of the 42 children had fulminating systemic infections. At least in

these, influenza was not the primary cause of death. [The immediate

cause of death is listed first on a death certificate. To its right, the

physician must enter the interval between onset and death. In the following

three lines, underlying and associated causes are listed in order of

significance with the intervals between onset and death.]

What may be tragic is the fact that, because of the continuous bombardment

with reports of the “epidemic”, some parents, believing that their children

just had the flu, may have waited too long to seek medical advice for

meningitis, septicemia or pneumonia. Similarly, a busy ER physician seeing

a multitude of children brought by parents concerned about the “major flu

epidemic” going on, may have thought that the child he was sending home,

simply had the flu, like all the others. Symptoms of early bacterial

meningitis are easily mistaken for the flu. This was evident in New

Hampshire around Christmas when an 18-year old co-ed was seen in an

Emergency Room, diagnosed with the flu and discharged without further

testing only to die of meningococcal meningitis a short time later. The

cases of the 5 children in the MMWR report, who died of invasive bacterial

illnesses, and who had no underlying condition, should be thoroughly

investigated. The fact that they “tested positive for the flu” may be

etiologically irrelevant.

Influenza vaccination status was available for only seven patients; five

(aged 1 year, 14 months, 20 months, 3 years, and 8 years) were not

vaccinated; two (aged 21 months and 5 years) received 1 dose of influenza

vaccine; however, their previous vaccination history was unknown. Influenza

A viruses were isolated from 11 (26%) patients; 29 (69%) infections were

detected by rapid diagnostic testing or by direct fluorescent antibody

testing of respiratory specimens. In two (5%) patients, evidence of

influenza A virus infection was solely by immunohistochemical staining

(IHC) of postmortem tissue specimens at CDC. Five cases that were positive

by rapid antigen testing of respiratory specimens also were tested by IHC;

all five also had influenza A viral antigens detected in bronchial

epithelium tissues obtained at autopsy. CDC continues to work with state

health departments to collect additional information on all cases. The lack

of information on the vaccination status of 83% of the deceased children is

disturbing and indicates a further lowering of the bar. Positive viral

cultures are more definitive proofs of viral presence. The fact that viral

cultures were positive in only 26% of cases is important. On the other

hand, a positive viral culture is not absolute proof that influenza is the

cause of death; without more details, its significance is hard to determine.

Lastly, the fact that the events that followed vaccination of seven

children were not made available for review is also of concern.

Before December 2002, there were 12 reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events

Reporting System (VAERS) of children under 10, who expired shortly after

receiving the inactivated flu vaccine. It is accepted that only a small

percentage of actual reactions are ever reported to VAERS. In 11 cases, the

flu vaccine was the only vaccine administered. All children had serious

underlying chronic illnesses. Five children died within 24 hours of

vaccination and 2 within 72 hours.

* * *

Influenza outbreaks are usually widespread and of uniform intensity. So,

was the flu a global emergency this past fall, as it seemed to be in the

United States? Specifically, what was the situation worldwide during the

week of December 7 to 13?

According to a December 23, 2003 report of the World Health Organization

(WHO) entitled “Widespread influenza activity persists in northern

hemisphere - update 5” Disease Outbreak Reported that covered Week 50, 7

December – 13 December 2003: “ Influenza activity associated with

influenza A(H3N2) viruses continues to increase in Africa (Tunisia), Europe

(Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Russia, Switzerland,

Russia Federation and Ukraine) and North America (the United States), and

persists in France and some parts of Canada. In other European countries

(Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom) and most parts of Canada, activity

has declined.

Most influenza infections this season have been attributed to influenza

A(H3N2) viruses. The majority of viruses antigenically characterized so far

have been shown to be A/Fujian/411/2002-like; the rest have been

A/Panama/2007/99-like. There have been few reports of influenza

A/Fujian/411/2002-like virus detections from Asia …

An avian influenza A(H5N1) outbreak in poultry in a chicken farm in the

Republic of Korea was reported on Tuesday 16 December. The outbreak was

recognized by the death of about 19 000 chickens. Surviving chickens in the

affected farm were slaughtered. As of Monday 22 December 2003, nine poultry

farms in 4 provinces were found to be infected by avian influenza. About

one million chickens and ducks are to be culled. The A(H5N1) strain

isolated is being examined to determine its relation to other influenza

A(H5N1) viruses, which emerged in Asia recently. So far no human A(H5N1)

cases have been reported. [http://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_12_23/en/]

It is not unusual for flu outbreaks to be increasing in the second week of

December. It is unusual that this outbreak was already decreasing in Spain,

Portugal, the United Kingdom and most of Canada. In fact, the British

vaccine authorities were so sure the flu season was over that they were

happy to sell their leftover stock of flu vaccines to the CDC. Over all, it

should be reassuring to note that a shorter paragraph was needed to

summarize the influenza activity globally in the week in question (December

7 to13) than to describe what happened in chicken farms in Korea.

Over here, the CDC was publishing on December 11, a long and detailed

report entitled Flu Vaccine Supply—2003-04 Season

[http://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluupdate.htm] which started with the following

statement: “The strong consumer demand for influenza vaccine this year will

likely exceed the consumer demand seen in previous flu seasons. Some

healthcare providers have used — or may use —- all of their supplies of

influenza vaccine. In past years, supply has generally been sufficient to

meet demand. This year, however, a strong demand has continued for longer

than usual into the month of December. At a time when flu vaccination

clinics are typically winding down, people are still seeking vaccination.

That certainly says it all.

The early reports of vaccine shortage resulted in sustained greater demand.

People who had never been interested in previous flu vaccination programs,

when the vaccine supply was plentiful, were lining up this past fall before

the “vaccine ran out”. To its credit, the CDC was able to provide vaccines

for anyone who wanted to be vaccinated. Vaccine supplies were redistributed

to areas with increased demands and more stock was imported from abroad.

People lined up in clinics on a first come first serve basis and in certain

sites, had to pick up little pink numbered tickets like those used at

delicatessen counters. The vaccine was also administered in drugstores and

senior centers.

The owners of a retail chain considered distributing FluMist in their

stores but changed their mind when they realized that Christmas shoppers

may not be too thrilled if they were sneezed upon and showered with live

viruses from vaccinated folks. Computer-literate folks searched on eBay.

In New York, two entrepreneurs without medical or nursing training, rented

space in an apartment building and started administering the flu vaccine to

anyone who could afford it. [They were arrested]. In Florida, thousands of

doses of an unapproved vaccine almost found their way to the people.

Some HMO's became convinced that the flu was a National Emergency and

decided that distribution of the vaccine was the patriotic duty of all

healthcare providers. This resulted in payments that were less than the

cost of the product and its administration forcing some physicians to refer

their private patients to clinics.

Earlier in the season, the makers of FluMist were concerned about the

limited popular interest and offered $25 refunds to stimulate sales.

Recovery was quick when the shortage of the inactivated vaccine was

publicized. The perfect example of a win-win situation was the recent offer

by the CDC to purchase a substantial number of doses of FluMist at $20 a

dose.

Over all, the sales of flu vaccines exceeded everyone's expectations. Large

bonuses must have certainly been distributed and everyone in flu vaccine

companies must have had wonderful holidays. That was indeed a very good

year and it would not be surprising if textbooks for Business 101 were

rewritten to include a chapter entitled: “The Marketing of an Epidemic:

The Flu of 2003”.

Some of the following questions have been asked. Many more should be.

How effective is the inactivated flu vaccine? Is it safe? Does it still

have serious side effects? Does it cause long-term problems? Do the

benefits outweigh the risks for everyone including debilitated children and

adults? Should preservative–free products be developed for adults and

particularly the elderly? How are the strains for the upcoming season

vaccine really chosen? Do MDs get vaccinated yearly? How about the owners

of the company that manufactures the vaccines?

How good is the live flu vaccine? Will it be considered “safe and

effective” after a few years? Do we really need to vaccinate every one?

How serious was this Flu Epidemic?

Why is Medicine changing so much?

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL

OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

******

" Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.

Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy

knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information

and religions destroy spirituality " .... Ellner

[Guest guest]

Sheri,

This is such an excellent article. Im also going to copy this and

give it to the nurse at my sons school. Last year I told them at the

begining of flu season, that my son would not be getting the flu

vaccine, I felt they looked at me as if I was some terrible mother.

Then when the flu did break out at his school, I panicked and got

him vaccinated. I wish I would have had the knowledge last year as I

do this year. This is one of the best articles on the flu

vaccine..Thank you for all you do!

Do you mind if I post it on some other groups?

Donna

> EXCELLENT - VITAL to read.........be sure to read all the way to

the end

> for the summary of what we know on the so-called flu deaths in

> children.............

> Thank you Dr. Yazbak

> Sheri

>

>

[Guest guest]

Go ahead.

It actually is on Redflagsweekly which is now subscription but I really

think this info has to get out there. (I really shouldn't be sending it

out..........but lives need to be saved.

If you want a homeopathic session for him, I do see patients by phone/video.

Its up to you.

I don't take many patienst and more and more are going to limit to children

I think

Just an FYI

Sheri

At 06:38 PM 10/20/2004 -0000, you wrote:

>

>

>Sheri,

>

> This is such an excellent article. Im also going to copy this and

>give it to the nurse at my sons school. Last year I told them at the

>begining of flu season, that my son would not be getting the flu

>vaccine, I felt they looked at me as if I was some terrible mother.

>Then when the flu did break out at his school, I panicked and got

>him vaccinated. I wish I would have had the knowledge last year as I

>do this year. This is one of the best articles on the flu

>vaccine..Thank you for all you do!

>

>Do you mind if I post it on some other groups?

>

>

>Donna

>

>

>

>

>

>> EXCELLENT - VITAL to read.........be sure to read all the way to

>the end

>> for the summary of what we know on the so-called flu deaths in

>> children.............

>> Thank you Dr. Yazbak

>> Sheri

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sheri,

My son has lennox gastaut syndrome( severe seizures) He goes

into status seizures with out his medicine. My son has had thousands

of seizures, he was actually in a seizure nonstop for three days. I

know if I go through chelation with him, This will affect his levels

for his seizure medicine. I've talked to Andy before about

chelation, But I havent heard of anyone with severe seizures being

chelated.

Im just going to post the article on some . Parents need

to read this.

Donna

> Go ahead.

> It actually is on Redflagsweekly which is now subscription but I

really

> think this info has to get out there.