Guest guest Posted August 16, 2005 Report Share Posted August 16, 2005 msherrett, Criron's 2004-2005 influenza vaccine product was recalled because tested vials were found to be contaminated with viable bacteria -- an ongoing problem since about 2000, which the FDA knew about but hadn't moved to decisively address. The British HMCA inspected the plant & , when it found the evidence of contamination, the British suspended the plant's " license " for the product. Had it been left to the U.S. FDA, those suspect lots might have been shipped into US commerce and administered. As it was, some of the Chiron lots had been shipped to holding warehouses in the U.S. before the British agency acted. Hopefully, this has answered your question. Respectfully, Dr. King http://www.dr-king.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ .. was contaminated At 10:44 8/16/05 -0400, virri345@... wrote: >I'm in the process of reading Kirby's " Evidence of Harm " book. > >Remember when there suddenly weren't enough flu vaccine doses? As I >read the book I began to wonder if possibly the doses were withdrawn >because it was discovered they were tainted with too much in the way of >mercury? > >msherrett. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 I remember watching something live on Cspan or CSpan2 with Gerberding and a bunch of Senators. They were talking about a variety of things and one subject was the flu shot. Weldon, Burton et al were asking her why the flu shot was coming out with mercury in it after they've just gone through all the efforts to clean up the other vaccines. She didn't appear to have a very good answer. THE NEXT DAY, the news broke about the Chiron production problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. What I have yet to see is the CDC #s on how many people died of the flu last year. I don't suspect they can kick around that 36,000 figure again. My guess is there were fewer flu deaths than ever. Does anyone have any info. on this? I'm in the process of reading Kirby's " Evidence of Harm " book. Remember when there suddenly weren't enough flu vaccine doses? As I read the book I began to wonder if possibly the doses were withdrawn because it was discovered they were tainted with too much in the way of mercury? msherrett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 my understanding is that the 36,000 figure is the result of running numbers thru a statistical model, and that it is likely a far cry from a true reflection of the actual flu mortality rate. So my guess is you'll likely see that number tossed about regardless ('cause it's good FUD material...) -randy > I remember watching something live on Cspan or CSpan2 with Gerberding > and a bunch of Senators. They were talking about a variety of things and one > subject was the flu shot. Weldon, Burton et al were asking her why the flu > shot was coming out with mercury in it after they've just gone through all > the efforts to clean up the other vaccines. She didn't appear to have a very > good answer. THE NEXT DAY, the news broke about the Chiron production > problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. > What I have yet to see is the CDC #s on how many people died of the flu last > year. I don't suspect they can kick around that 36,000 figure again. My > guess is there were fewer flu deaths than ever. Does anyone have any info. > on this? > > > > I'm in the process of reading Kirby's " Evidence of Harm " book. > > Remember when there suddenly weren't enough flu vaccine doses? As I > read the book I began to wonder if possibly the doses were withdrawn > because it was discovered they were tainted with too much in the way of > mercury? > > msherrett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 -Fit PR, 1. The CDCP's " 36,000 " per year for flu deaths is based on the average of all influenza and pneumonia deaths from 1918 until the present. 2. The actual numbers reported for past years can be found by going to the " Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report " web page: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ and querying the MMWR search engine with " vaccine mortality. " There you can read for yourself that: 1. The CDC's BETTER GUESTIMATE for the 1994-2000 period is " 20,000 " influenza-associated deaths per year 2. The CDC seems to count all pneumonia deaths during the influenza season as " flu-associated deaths " Amazingly, just by reading the first few lines of their reports, one can reduce the deaths by about 44 % (from 36,000 in their press releases to 20,000 in their reports). From researchers who have been trying to develop scientifically sound estimates of the deaths that are truly " influenza-associated, " the preliminary numbers that I have been told are on the order of 1,200 to 1,500 per year -- not bad for a population of 300-plus-million people (less than 1 person in every 200,000 people [~0.0005 %]). Even if the researchers find the best estimate of the average to be 1,800 influenza-associated deaths, then the 36,000 to 1,800 will be a 95% reduction (or less than 0.001% of the population [less than 6 persons in a million people]). Hopefully, you and other interested readers will study these reports and the other information provided and see that, as usual, the CDCP has been exaggerating the numbers to " scare " the American people into getting vaccinated. Respectfully, Dr. King http://www.dr-king.com/ PS: Moreover, even if the deaths were 36,000 per year, that mortality rate, less than 1.2 persons per ten thousand people per year, is certainly not an epedimic level of deaths in the real world. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At 10:17 8/17/05 -0400, -Fit PR wrote: >I remember watching something live on Cspan or CSpan2 with Gerberding >and a bunch of Senators. They were talking about a variety of things and one >subject was the flu shot. Weldon, Burton et al were asking her why the flu >shot was coming out with mercury in it after they've just gone through all >the efforts to clean up the other vaccines. She didn't appear to have a very >good answer. THE NEXT DAY, the news broke about the Chiron production >problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. >What I have yet to see is the CDC #s on how many people died of the flu last >year. I don't suspect they can kick around that 36,000 figure again. My >guess is there were fewer flu deaths than ever. Does anyone have any info. >on this? > > > >I'm in the process of reading Kirby's " Evidence of Harm " book. > >Remember when there suddenly weren't enough flu vaccine doses? As I >read the book I began to wonder if possibly the doses were withdrawn >because it was discovered they were tainted with too much in the way of >mercury? > >msherrett. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 Just checked out the CDC website on " Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report " web page: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ and came across this paragraph: " Deaths from influenza are uncommon among both children with and without high-risk conditions, but do occur (61,62). A study that modeled influenza-related deaths estimated that an average of 92 deaths (0.4 deaths per 100,000) occurred among children aged <5 years annually during the 1990's, compared with 32,651 deaths (98.3 per 100,000) among adults aged >65 years (1). Reports of 153 laboratory-confirmed influenza-related pediatric deaths from 40 states during the 2003--04 influenza season indicated that 61 (40%) were aged <2 years and, of 92 children aged 2--17 years, 64 (70%) did not have an underlying medical condition traditionally considered to place a person at risk for influenza-related complications (CDC, National Center for Infectious Diseases, unpublished data, 2005). Further information is needed regarding the risk for severe influenza-complications and optimal strategies for minimizing severe disease and death among children. " 92 is not an epidemic and yet, they are strongly recommending the flu vaccines with mercury for small childrem. This is insane and clearly a ploy to make more money from Big Pharma. > >I remember watching something live on Cspan or CSpan2 with Gerberding > >and a bunch of Senators. They were talking about a variety of things and one > >subject was the flu shot. Weldon, Burton et al were asking her why the flu > >shot was coming out with mercury in it after they've just gone through all > >the efforts to clean up the other vaccines. She didn't appear to have a very > >good answer. THE NEXT DAY, the news broke about the Chiron production > >problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. > >What I have yet to see is the CDC #s on how many people died of the flu last > >year. I don't suspect they can kick around that 36,000 figure again. My > >guess is there were fewer flu deaths than ever. Does anyone have any info. > >on this? > > > > > > > >I'm in the process of reading Kirby's " Evidence of Harm " book. > > > >Remember when there suddenly weren't enough flu vaccine doses? As I > >read the book I began to wonder if possibly the doses were withdrawn > >because it was discovered they were tainted with too much in the way of > >mercury? > > > >msherrett. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 approximately 35,750 of those deaths are from pneumonia. --- tmiktliu <rtoni@...> wrote: > my understanding is that the 36,000 figure is the > result of running > numbers thru a statistical model, and that it is > likely a far cry from > a true reflection of the actual flu mortality rate. > So my guess is > you'll likely see that number tossed about > regardless ('cause it's > good FUD material...) > > -randy > > > I remember watching something live on Cspan or > CSpan2 with > Gerberding > > and a bunch of Senators. They were talking about a > variety of things > and one > > subject was the flu shot. Weldon, Burton et al > were asking her why > the flu > > shot was coming out with mercury in it after > they've just gone > through all > > the efforts to clean up the other vaccines. She > didn't appear to > have a very > > good answer. THE NEXT DAY, the news broke about > the Chiron production > > problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. > > What I have yet to see is the CDC #s on how many > people died of the > flu last > > year. I don't suspect they can kick around that > 36,000 figure again. My > > guess is there were fewer flu deaths than ever. > Does anyone have any > info. > > on this? > > > > > > > > I'm in the process of reading Kirby's > " Evidence of Harm " book. > > > > Remember when there suddenly weren't enough flu > vaccine doses? As I > > read the book I began to wonder if possibly the > doses were withdrawn > > because it was discovered they were tainted with > too much in the way of > > mercury? > > > > msherrett. > > > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 >1. The CDC's BETTER GUESTIMATE for the 1994-2000 period is "20,000" influenza-associated deaths per year2. The CDC seems to count all pneumonia deaths during the influenza season as "flu-associated deaths"< Am I wrong to assume their guestimate figures are erroneous and fabricated? They put so much emphasis on science when discussing the autism debate. To state that a death occurred from a flu virus shouldn't they have proof of and the strain of the virus before including a case in the yearly totals? I recommend Dr. Sherri Tenpenney's video and DVD on vaccines. She points out that they use a pen to get the data they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 OR DCs, If we are serious about EBM...check out these... First a systematic review and mata analysis published in Lancet Infectious Diseases http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/abstract and Second, an industry response. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.htmlhttp://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.html Comment: Interesting (IMHO) how the evidence is pretty thin for flu vaccine in certain age groups, and effectiveness (where the evidence is good) is only of " moderate " effectiveness. (But remember, this is only about influenza vaccination, not vaccines in general.) But when we chiros get beat up over not being " evidence based, " it is well to remember that EBM is often in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what evidence is " good enough " depends on where you stand. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis Original TextProf T Osterholm PhD S Kelley PhD , Prof Alfred Sommer MD , A Belongia MD Summary Background No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. Methods We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups). Findings We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51—67] in adults aged 18—65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2—17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69—91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8—17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60—93). Interpretation Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Funding Alfred P Sloan Foundation. Manufacturers react cautiously to flu vaccine efficacy analysis Roos News Editor Oct 31, 2011 (CIDRAP News) – Companies that market influenza vaccines in the United States are reacting cautiously to last week's meta-analysis that highlighted gaps in the evidence for the efficacy of the vaccines, with officials stressing that vaccines are still the best preventive tool and that the firms are working to improve them. The meta-analysis, published last week in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, showed that evidence from the best randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that flu vaccines have an efficacy of about 59% in adults aged 18 to 65. The authors emphasized that vaccines remain the best defense against flu, but that better vaccines are needed. The authors also found that RCTs show the nasal-spray vaccine (live attenuated influenza vaccine, or LAIV) works well in children 6 months to 7 years old, but RCT evidence of the vaccine's efficacy in older children and adults is lacking. The investigators found just one high-quality observational study of flu vaccine effectiveness in adults 65 and older, and it showed the vaccine was 59% effective. No high-quality RCTs of vaccine in efficacy in older adults were found, but such trials have been deemed unethical because flu vaccination has been recommended for older adults since the 1960s. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.html A. Simpson, DC DABCOMedical Director, Vice PresidentThe CHP Group6600 SW 105th Ave, Suite 115Beaverton, OR 97008503-619-2041 O503-367-0872 C503-644-0442 F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 .....But when we chiros get beat up over not being "evidence based," it is well to remember that EBM is often in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what evidence is "good enough" depends on where you stand.EXACTLY! Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724 From: csimpson@...Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:54:07 -0700Subject: flu vaccines OR DCs, If we are serious about EBM...check out these... First a systematic review and mata analysis published in Lancet Infectious Diseases http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/abstract and Second, an industry response. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.htmlhttp://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.html Comment: Interesting (IMHO) how the evidence is pretty thin for flu vaccine in certain age groups, and effectiveness (where the evidence is good) is only of "moderate" effectiveness. (But remember, this is only about influenza vaccination, not vaccines in general.) But when we chiros get beat up over not being "evidence based," it is well to remember that EBM is often in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what evidence is "good enough" depends on where you stand. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis Original TextProf T Osterholm PhD S Kelley PhD , Prof Alfred Sommer MD , A Belongia MD Summary Background No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. Methods We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups). Findings We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51—67] in adults aged 18—65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2—17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69—91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8—17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60—93). Interpretation Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Funding Alfred P Sloan Foundation. Manufacturers react cautiously to flu vaccine efficacy analysis Roos News Editor Oct 31, 2011 (CIDRAP News) – Companies that market influenza vaccines in the United States are reacting cautiously to last week's meta-analysis that highlighted gaps in the evidence for the efficacy of the vaccines, with officials stressing that vaccines are still the best preventive tool and that the firms are working to improve them. The meta-analysis, published last week in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, showed that evidence from the best randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that flu vaccines have an efficacy of about 59% in adults aged 18 to 65. The authors emphasized that vaccines remain the best defense against flu, but that better vaccines are needed. The authors also found that RCTs show the nasal-spray vaccine (live attenuated influenza vaccine, or LAIV) works well in children 6 months to 7 years old, but RCT evidence of the vaccine's efficacy in older children and adults is lacking. The investigators found just one high-quality observational study of flu vaccine effectiveness in adults 65 and older, and it showed the vaccine was 59% effective. No high-quality RCTs of vaccine in efficacy in older adults were found, but such trials have been deemed unethical because flu vaccination has been recommended for older adults since the 1960s. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.html A. Simpson, DC DABCOMedical Director, Vice PresidentThe CHP Group6600 SW 105th Ave, Suite 115Beaverton, OR 97008503-619-2041 O503-367-0872 C503-644-0442 F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 And at this point of history....the question is: Who wrote the evidence? Can they be trusted? It is right or finagled? Whose agenda is the evidence serving? All valid questions BEFORE we can believe the evidence. skSunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7CEugene, Oregon, 97401541- 654-0850; Fx; 541- 654-0834www.drsunnykierstyn.com From: dcdocbrian@...Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:14:12 -0700Subject: RE: flu vaccines .....But when we chiros get beat up over not being "evidence based," it is well to remember that EBM is often in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what evidence is "good enough" depends on where you stand.EXACTLY! Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724 From: csimpson@...Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:54:07 -0700Subject: flu vaccines OR DCs, If we are serious about EBM...check out these... First a systematic review and mata analysis published in Lancet Infectious Diseases http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/abstract and Second, an industry response. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.htmlhttp://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.html Comment: Interesting (IMHO) how the evidence is pretty thin for flu vaccine in certain age groups, and effectiveness (where the evidence is good) is only of "moderate" effectiveness. (But remember, this is only about influenza vaccination, not vaccines in general.) But when we chiros get beat up over not being "evidence based," it is well to remember that EBM is often in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what evidence is "good enough" depends on where you stand. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis Original TextProf T Osterholm PhD S Kelley PhD , Prof Alfred Sommer MD , A Belongia MD Summary Background No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. Methods We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups). Findings We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51—67] in adults aged 18—65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2—17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69—91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8—17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60—93). Interpretation Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Funding Alfred P Sloan Foundation. Manufacturers react cautiously to flu vaccine efficacy analysis Roos News Editor Oct 31, 2011 (CIDRAP News) – Companies that market influenza vaccines in the United States are reacting cautiously to last week's meta-analysis that highlighted gaps in the evidence for the efficacy of the vaccines, with officials stressing that vaccines are still the best preventive tool and that the firms are working to improve them. The meta-analysis, published last week in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, showed that evidence from the best randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that flu vaccines have an efficacy of about 59% in adults aged 18 to 65. The authors emphasized that vaccines remain the best defense against flu, but that better vaccines are needed. The authors also found that RCTs show the nasal-spray vaccine (live attenuated influenza vaccine, or LAIV) works well in children 6 months to 7 years old, but RCT evidence of the vaccine's efficacy in older children and adults is lacking. The investigators found just one high-quality observational study of flu vaccine effectiveness in adults 65 and older, and it showed the vaccine was 59% effective. No high-quality RCTs of vaccine in efficacy in older adults were found, but such trials have been deemed unethical because flu vaccination has been recommended for older adults since the 1960s. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/oct3111producers.html A. Simpson, DC DABCOMedical Director, Vice PresidentThe CHP Group6600 SW 105th Ave, Suite 115Beaverton, OR 97008503-619-2041 O503-367-0872 C503-644-0442 F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.