Re: Reasons against flu vaccine specifically

[Guest guest]

Mercury, aluminum, other toxins (read package insert), Alzheimer's, all vaccines

carry risk of death, notoriously ineffective vaccine if you even believe

vaccines work, CDC in bed with pharmaceutical companies (if you believe

otherwise, you need to wake up to reality), flu deaths exaggerated by

CDC--include pneumonia deaths, and more.

Not everyone gets flu--stay healthy.

Winnie

Reasons against flu vaccine specifically

Vaccinations

> I mean there's the general vax reasons, but give me some stuff

> to support a specific debate re flu?

>

> Here is the email I am going to rebutt:

> Effectiveness of preventing flu is definitely dependent upon the

> formulation each year and the matching of the virus (ie- last

> year didn't work out so well). The CDC estimated that the

> vaccine is 70-90% effective in healthy persons less than 65

> years of age, less effective in the frail elderly, but

> ultimately 50-60% effective in preventing hospitalization and

> 80% effective in preventing death. There are a decent amount of

> people that end up with the flu despite getting the vaccine, but

> considering the serious complications of flu (viral pneumonia,

> secondary bacterial pneumonia, Reye's syndrome, myocarditis),

> the benefit is most definitely evident. Those at highest risk

> are generally the very young (under 2 years) and the elderly

> (over 65), but other predisposing medical conditions can affect

> other populations. I always get a flu vaccination because I am

> in a high risk group as a healthcare worker since I have direct

> contact with a number of sick patients. I mostly get vaccinated not

> to protect myself, but to protect those patients of mine that

> might not fair so well should they contract the flu.

>

> I'm curious your thoughts on flu vaccination. It is a relatively

> ambivalent vaccine when it comes to adverse reactions, pending

> that a practitioner properly screens a patient for their

> contraindications (egg allergies, moderate/severe acute illness,

> history of Guillian-Barre syndrome). Ultimately a lot of people

> believe that the feeling they get after getting the flu

> vaccination (fever, muscle aches, etc) is a manifestation of the

> flu, which is impossible considering the virus is killed (the

> injectable form - there is a live nasal virus available).

>

> Granted, I will admit that my information is primarily from the

> CDC, which I would consider a reliable source. Unlike drug

> companies, which can be swayed by financial interests, the CDC

> is in the business of public health, working hand-in-hand with

> systems like VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System),

> which monitors vaccine safety and efficacy. As a part of my

> curriculum (actually next week), I will be trained on how to

> vaccinate and education, and ultimately consider it one of the

> most important things I will do. I would never ask my patients

> to do anything I wouldn't do myself, which is why I am fully

> vaccinated for all indicated vaccines for my age (including

> optional vaccines, such as HPV). There have been a number of

> vaccination safety issues that have arisen in the past, such as

> with thimerosol preservatives, which have greatly been removed,

> and possible autism risk, which has been evaluated and

> ultimately dismissed (even the Vaccine Injury Compensation

> Program (VICP)

> has yet to pay out any claims regarding autism because the risk

> has never been proven). Most of these concerns lie with

> childhood vaccinations, and not yearly flu vaccines.

>

> Thanks

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

They predict which bug will pop it's little head up then they make

a vaccine. How good do you think they are at that? LOL

On Sep 25, 2008, at 10:13 PM, wharrison@... wrote:

> Mercury, aluminum, other toxins (read package insert), Alzheimer's,

> all vaccines carry risk of death, notoriously ineffective vaccine

> if you even believe vaccines work, CDC in bed with pharmaceutical

> companies (if you believe otherwise, you need to wake up to

> reality), flu deaths exaggerated by CDC--include pneumonia deaths,

> and more.

>

> Not everyone gets flu--stay healthy.

>

> Winnie

>

> Reasons against flu vaccine specifically

> Vaccinations

>

> > I mean there's the general vax reasons, but give me some stuff

> > to support a specific debate re flu?

> >

> > Here is the email I am going to rebutt:

> > Effectiveness of preventing flu is definitely dependent upon the

> > formulation each year and the matching of the virus (ie- last

> > year didn't work out so well). The CDC estimated that the

> > vaccine is 70-90% effective in healthy persons less than 65

> > years of age, less effective in the frail elderly, but

> > ultimately 50-60% effective in preventing hospitalization and

> > 80% effective in preventing death. There are a decent amount of

> > people that end up with the flu despite getting the vaccine, but

> > considering the serious complications of flu (viral pneumonia,

> > secondary bacterial pneumonia, Reye's syndrome, myocarditis),

> > the benefit is most definitely evident. Those at highest risk

> > are generally the very young (under 2 years) and the elderly

> > (over 65), but other predisposing medical conditions can affect

> > other populations. I always get a flu vaccination because I am

> > in a high risk group as a healthcare worker since I have direct

> > contact with a number of sick patients. I mostly get vaccinated not

> > to protect myself, but to protect those patients of mine that

> > might not fair so well should they contract the flu.

> >

> > I'm curious your thoughts on flu vaccination. It is a relatively

> > ambivalent vaccine when it comes to adverse reactions, pending

> > that a practitioner properly screens a patient for their

> > contraindications (egg allergies, moderate/severe acute illness,

> > history of Guillian-Barre syndrome). Ultimately a lot of people

> > believe that the feeling they get after getting the flu

> > vaccination (fever, muscle aches, etc) is a manifestation of the

> > flu, which is impossible considering the virus is killed (the

> > injectable form - there is a live nasal virus available).

> >

> > Granted, I will admit that my information is primarily from the

> > CDC, which I would consider a reliable source. Unlike drug

> > companies, which can be swayed by financial interests, the CDC

> > is in the business of public health, working hand-in-hand with

> > systems like VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System),

> > which monitors vaccine safety and efficacy. As a part of my

> > curriculum (actually next week), I will be trained on how to

> > vaccinate and education, and ultimately consider it one of the

> > most important things I will do. I would never ask my patients

> > to do anything I wouldn't do myself, which is why I am fully

> > vaccinated for all indicated vaccines for my age (including

> > optional vaccines, such as HPV). There have been a number of

> > vaccination safety issues that have arisen in the past, such as

> > with thimerosol preservatives, which have greatly been removed,

> > and possible autism risk, which has been evaluated and

> > ultimately dismissed (even the Vaccine Injury Compensation

> > Program (VICP)

> > has yet to pay out any claims regarding autism because the risk

> > has never been proven). Most of these concerns lie with

> > childhood vaccinations, and not yearly flu vaccines.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

start with my pages

http://www.wellwithin1.com/flu.htm

At 02:38 AM 9/26/2008, you wrote:

>I mean there's the general vax reasons, but give me some stuff to

>support a specific debate re flu?

>

>Here is the email I am going to rebutt:

>Effectiveness of preventing flu is definitely dependent upon the

>formulation each year and the matching of the virus (ie- last year

>didn't work out so well). The CDC estimated that the vaccine is

>70-90% effective in healthy persons less than 65 years of age, less

>effective in the frail elderly, but ultimately 50-60% effective in

>preventing hospitalization and 80% effective in preventing death.

>There are a decent amount of people that end up with the flu despite

>getting the vaccine, but considering the serious complications of

>flu (viral pneumonia, secondary bacterial pneumonia, Reye's

>syndrome, myocarditis), the benefit is most definitely evident.

>Those at highest risk are generally the very young (under 2 years)

>and the elderly (over 65), but other predisposing medical conditions

>can affect other populations. I always get a flu vaccination because

>I am in a high risk group as a healthcare worker since I have direct

>contact with a number of sick patients. I mostly get vaccinated not

>to protect myself, but to protect those patients of mine that might

>not fair so well should they contract the flu.

>

>I'm curious your thoughts on flu vaccination. It is a relatively

>ambivalent vaccine when it comes to adverse reactions, pending that

>a practitioner properly screens a patient for their

>contraindications (egg allergies, moderate/severe acute illness,

>history of Guillian-Barre syndrome). Ultimately a lot of people

>believe that the feeling they get after getting the flu vaccination

>(fever, muscle aches, etc) is a manifestation of the flu, which is

>impossible considering the virus is killed (the injectable form -

>there is a live nasal virus available).

>

>Granted, I will admit that my information is primarily from the CDC,

>which I would consider a reliable source. Unlike drug companies,

>which can be swayed by financial interests, the CDC is in the

>business of public health, working hand-in-hand with systems like

>VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), which monitors

>vaccine safety and efficacy. As a part of my curriculum (actually

>next week), I will be trained on how to vaccinate and education, and

>ultimately consider it one of the most important things I will do. I

>would never ask my patients to do anything I wouldn't do myself,

>which is why I am fully vaccinated for all indicated vaccines for my

>age (including optional vaccines, such as HPV). There have been a

>number of vaccination safety issues that have arisen in the past,

>such as with thimerosol preservatives, which have greatly been

>removed, and possible autism risk, which has been evaluated and

>ultimately dismissed (even the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

>(VICP) has yet to pay out any claims regarding autism because the

>risk has never been proven). Most of these concerns lie with

>childhood vaccinations, and not yearly flu vaccines.

>

>Thanks

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sherri--where is your rebutt? I'm very interested to hear your

response to 's post. I went to the link below (wellwithin1.com)

and tried to open the first article about the flu shot for infants

and it won't open.

> >I mean there's the general vax reasons, but give me some stuff to

> >support a specific debate re flu?

> >

> >Here is the email I am going to rebutt:

> >Effectiveness of preventing flu is definitely dependent upon the

> >formulation each year and the matching of the virus (ie- last year

> >didn't work out so well). The CDC estimated that the vaccine is

> >70-90% effective in healthy persons less than 65 years of age,

less

> >effective in the frail elderly, but ultimately 50-60% effective in

> >preventing hospitalization and 80% effective in preventing death.

> >There are a decent amount of people that end up with the flu

despite

> >getting the vaccine, but considering the serious complications of

> >flu (viral pneumonia, secondary bacterial pneumonia, Reye's

> >syndrome, myocarditis), the benefit is most definitely evident.

> >Those at highest risk are generally the very young (under 2 years)

> >and the elderly (over 65), but other predisposing medical

conditions

> >can affect other populations. I always get a flu vaccination

because

> >I am in a high risk group as a healthcare worker since I have

direct

> >contact with a number of sick patients. I mostly get vaccinated

not

> >to protect myself, but to protect those patients of mine that

might

> >not fair so well should they contract the flu.

> >

> >I'm curious your thoughts on flu vaccination. It is a relatively

> >ambivalent vaccine when it comes to adverse reactions, pending

that

> >a practitioner properly screens a patient for their

> >contraindications (egg allergies, moderate/severe acute illness,

> >history of Guillian-Barre syndrome). Ultimately a lot of people

> >believe that the feeling they get after getting the flu

vaccination

> >(fever, muscle aches, etc) is a manifestation of the flu, which is

> >impossible considering the virus is killed (the injectable form -

> >there is a live nasal virus available).

> >

> >Granted, I will admit that my information is primarily from the

CDC,

> >which I would consider a reliable source. Unlike drug companies,

> >which can be swayed by financial interests, the CDC is in the

> >business of public health, working hand-in-hand with systems like

> >VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), which monitors

> >vaccine safety and efficacy. As a part of my curriculum (actually

> >next week), I will be trained on how to vaccinate and education,

and

> >ultimately consider it one of the most important things I will do.

I

> >would never ask my patients to do anything I wouldn't do myself,

> >which is why I am fully vaccinated for all indicated vaccines for

my

> >age (including optional vaccines, such as HPV). There have been a

> >number of vaccination safety issues that have arisen in the past,

> >such as with thimerosol preservatives, which have greatly been

> >removed, and possible autism risk, which has been evaluated and

> >ultimately dismissed (even the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

> >(VICP) has yet to pay out any claims regarding autism because the

> >risk has never been proven). Most of these concerns lie with

> >childhood vaccinations, and not yearly flu vaccines.

> >

> >Thanks

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Sheri is traveling until the 10th of October. She has limited access

to the Internet at the moment. She did state she'd have better access

in a week or so.

It looks like the whole site www.redflagsdaily.com is down or gone.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Housh <brookehoush@...> wrote:

> Sherri--where is your rebutt? I'm very interested to hear your

> response to 's post. I went to the link below (wellwithin1.com)

> and tried to open the first article about the flu shot for infants

> and it won't open.

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I didn't see that she'd stated that, but thanks.

> > Sherri--where is your rebutt? I'm very interested to hear your

> > response to 's post. I went to the link below

(wellwithin1.com)

> > and tried to open the first article about the flu shot for infants

> > and it won't open.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks so much to the group for the responses so far... I have already stated

many of those reasons... mainly severe illness and death so soon after receiving

the vax... scary!

[Guest guest]

I don't have time to look anything up... just check in here

occasionally nowdays... but here are some things to research further.

>

> Here is the email I am going to rebutt:

> Effectiveness of preventing flu is definitely dependent upon the

formulation each year and the matching of the virus (ie- last year

didn't work out so well). The CDC estimated that the vaccine is 70-

90% effective in healthy persons less than 65 years of age, less

effective in the frail elderly, but ultimately 50-60% effective in

preventing hospitalization and 80% effective in preventing death.>>

Check the actual studies on this. I remember numbers much lower than

that LAST year, as they attempted to explain why we had so much flu

during a high vaccination year. My recollection is that when checked

by titres and such, the vaccine is horribly ineffective in the

elderly, well below 50%.

<<There are a decent amount of people that end up with the flu

despite getting the vaccine, but considering the serious

complications of flu (viral pneumonia, secondary bacterial pneumonia,

Reye's syndrome, myocarditis), the benefit is most definitely

evident.>>

How so? Take the serious complications of the flu that were listed --

viral pneumonia, secondary bacterial pneumonia, etc. -- now add the

possible serious side effects of the flu vaccine, right off the label

(look them up), and add in also the " normal " side effects from the

label -- including that " non-flu " fever and cold -- and, if you want,

add in the possible " unproven " side effects, such as long-term

consequences and autoimmune diseases.

Why suffer through the complications of the flu AND the flu vaccine?

Why not stop at possible pneumonia?

<<Those at highest risk are generally the very young (under 2 years)

and the elderly (over 65), but other predisposing medical conditions

can affect other populations. I always get a flu vaccination because

I am in a high risk group as a healthcare worker since I have direct

contact with a number of sick patients. I mostly get vaccinated not

to protect myself, but to protect those patients of mine that might

not fair so well should they contract the flu.>>

Well, you are one of the few. Vaccine rates among healthcare

workers, ironically, are some of the lowest in the nation, 41%

average if I remember right. Hospitals in my area are considering

regulations requiring flu shots, since their encouragement campaigns

over the past few years haven't worked at all... and the healthcare

workers are outraged. Go figure.

>

> I'm curious your thoughts on flu vaccination. It is a relatively

ambivalent vaccine when it comes to adverse reactions, pending that a

practitioner properly screens a patient for their contraindications

(egg allergies, moderate/severe acute illness, history of Guillian-

Barre syndrome). Ultimately a lot of people believe that the feeling

they get after getting the flu vaccination (fever, muscle aches, etc)

is a manifestation of the flu, which is impossible considering the

virus is killed (the injectable form - there is a live nasal virus

available).>>

Let's assume it is " impossible " to get the flu from the vaccine, even

though I disagree.

So what is this feverish, flu-like mystery illness that affects

people who get the flu vaccine? Shouldn't we be concerned about

that -- a vaccine meant to prevent an illness we are fairly familiar

with is causing one we know nothing about? Yikes.

>

> Granted, I will admit that my information is primarily from the

CDC, which I would consider a reliable source. Unlike drug companies,

which can be swayed by financial interests, the CDC is in the

business of public health, working hand-in-hand with systems like

VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), which monitors

vaccine safety and efficacy.>>

Again, there are differing opinions on that. Research it before

making a final decision.

<<As a part of my curriculum (actually next week), I will be trained

on how to vaccinate and education, and ultimately consider it one of

the most important things I will do. I would never ask my patients to

do anything I wouldn't do myself, which is why I am fully vaccinated

for all indicated vaccines for my age (including optional vaccines,

such as HPV). There have been a number of vaccination safety issues

that have arisen in the past, such as with thimerosol preservatives,

which have greatly been removed,>>

Except in the flu vaccine. And check out studies that examined

whether all the thimerosol is really removed, and whether they can

adequately control for that... interesting stuff.

<<and possible autism risk, which has been evaluated and ultimately

dismissed (even the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has

yet to pay out any claims regarding autism because the risk has never

been proven).>>

Wrong. A claim was paid this year, BEFORE a decision was reached.

Read the circumstances surrounding that, and think about the

implications when an agency voluntarily pays millions in settlement

to end a trial before such an important question could be answered,

for a case they claim they would have won anyway had the trial been

completed.

And, the government agencies have officially said the link is not yet

proven, not that it doesn't exist. And their pronouncements are

often in direct contradiction to the studies they cite, which is what

infuriates so many parents. Read the actual IOC report.

<< Most of these concerns lie with childhood vaccinations, and not

yearly flu vaccines.>>

Flu vaccines are now given in childhood, infancy even. By age 5,

children would have had six flu vaccines, correct? And the flu

vaccines do contain thimerosol, among other nasty things. Seems like

it's just as much a concern as the others.

JMO,