FDA approved flu shot for your kids coming soon

[sprinter]

Trouble is it's making kids in Australia sick and has been pulled. How many kids here in the US will go through the same plight so that the drug makers will make huge profits?

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_Australia_vaccines.html

 

 

 

 

Although it's still summer in North America, it is of course winter in Australia, and the flu season is well under way there. As usual, Australian health authorities have been urging parents there to vaccinate their children against the flu, propagating the mythology that flu vaccines are both safe and effective. But this time around, many Australian parents found out the hard way that they were being lied to.

 

It didn't take long to realize the truth after their children start going into convulsions following the flu vaccine injections. Other children began vomiting or exhibiting dangerously high levels of fever. One child has gone into a coma and may never recover.

 

As reported in WA Today (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/f...)

 

"Perth mother of two Bea Flint said her 11-month-old boy Avery had a seizure after receiving the first dose of the two-dose flu vaccination on Saturday. Mrs Flint said that after the 9am vaccination she noticed Avery had a minor temperature about 2pm. At 7.45pm, Avery started whimpering and moaning. When Mrs Flint got to his cot the baby had vomited and was lying on his side having a seizure. 'He couldn't cry - his head was hanging down in the car seat and he couldn't move. I was petrified - it was one of the worst experiences of my life."

 

The story goes on to say, "The doctor who treated Avery told Mrs Flint her baby was the fifth child with similar symptoms admitted to the hospital that day."

 

In other words, this was no rare event. Vaccinated children suffering severe convulsions were piling up in hospital emergency rooms across the country.

 

The real kicker, though, is that children started having convulsions two weeks ago but Australian health authorities ignored them, insisting that the vaccine was safe and causing it to be injected in yet more babies. Two weeks later, with dozens more children experiencing convulsions (and who knows how many thousands actually being harmed in less obvious ways), Commonwealth chief health officer Professor Jim Bishop finally announced the vaccination ban.

 

Remember: Health authorities in Australia, UK, the United States and everywhere else have relentlessly insisted that flu vaccines are perfectly safe and can't possibly harm anyone. In the U.S., the FDA has given its approval to the very same flu vaccine that's harming children in Australia, and the CDC has insisted that all children in the USA -- regardless of age -- should now be injected with this very same flu vaccine.

 

So now we've got a vaccine that Australia has banned but the USA somehow says is safe enough to inject into a six-month-old infant. How many convulsing babies will it take in the U.S. before American parents realize the truth about flu vaccines?

 

Chemically induced convulsions

As you're reading this, you may find yourself wonder, "Well, what could cause such convulsions in children?"

 

The answer is more terrifying than you might think, because it's not "weakened flu viruses" that vaccine manufacturer claim they put into the vaccines. A weakened flu virus doesn't send children into convulsions. Only a chemical can do that.

 

The chemical in question is one that's routinely added to most vaccines as a way to aggravate the immune system to respond to the presence of the weakened virus. It's called an "adjuvant" and consists of a highly inflammatory chemical that we now know may damage brain tissues and the nervous system. It is this adjuvant that most likely caused the convulsions in children.

 

Even in children who don't experience convulsions, there is speculation that this adjuvant may lead to future Alzheimer's disease or other neurological disorders. Vaccine manufacturers always attempt to downplay their use of adjuvant chemicals, and few media outlets focus on this important point, but it is the adjuvant that is most likely responsible for sending these Australian children into hospitals with convulsions.

 

Health authorities defend dangerous vaccine

One thing I've noticed about vaccine pushers is that they behave like irrational zealots. No matter how much evidence surfaces about the dangers of vaccines, they continue to mindlessly push them while ignoring the evidence.

 

A pediatric professor in Australia, Dr Peter Richmond, admitted that researchers were trying to figure out if the entire vaccine was dangerous, or if there was just a bad batch. But even before getting the answer to this question, he goes on to say that everybody over the age of five should go ahead and get injected with this same vaccine! (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/f...)

 

In other words, he's so convinced the vaccine is safe -- even after dozens of children were obviously harmed by it -- that he's still pushing the same dangerous vaccine onto everybody else!

 

This is precisely the kind of attitude reflected across the vaccine industry. Reports of children being harmed, or paralyzed, or hospitalized by vaccines are always written off as "coincidence." The mounting evidence is simply thrown out the window because it conflicts with the pro-vaccine agenda.

 

Can you imagine the outrage if an herbal product sent fifty kids to the hospital suffering from convulsions? Health authorities across the world would be quick to condemn the product, and they'd confiscate it right off the shelves while shutting down the operations of its manufacturer. But somehow when a vaccine does the same thing, these same health authorities urge people to keep on injecting their children with it!

[suv_guy_19]

I'm sorry, you'll have to wait while I go get my tinfoil. Vaccines have saved literally millions of lives. Quit needlessly spreading fear.

[fmccap]

I'm sorry, you'll have to wait while I go get my tinfoil. Vaccines have saved literally millions of lives. Quit needlessly spreading fear.

#1 You have no proof of that.

 

#2 What happened to the BS flu scare of last year that seemed to just disappear overnight?

[suv_guy_19]

#1 You have no proof of that.

 

There is a multitude of proof to be found.

 

#2 What happened to the BS flu scare of last year that seemed to just disappear overnight?

 

People got the shot. It seems that it was enough to significantly slow the spread of a disease that was very dangerous to young healthy people.

[napfirst]

I'm sorry, you'll have to wait while I go get my tinfoil. Vaccines have saved literally millions of lives. Quit needlessly spreading fear.

BOO!

[sprinter]

 

People got the shot. It seems that it was enough to significantly slow the spread of a disease that was very dangerous to young healthy people.

 

 

Is that why there are so many doses of the vaccine left over from the scare? It was hype and you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

 

A government wouldn't pull the vaccine unless it is real bad. Odds are there will always be a small percentage of people that will have a reaction to the jab, they know it too. This turned out to be more than a small percentage.

[suv_guy_19]

It was a small percentage. Your data comes from useless sources. When a bad pandemic actually does hit, it will be people like you that cause the deaths of many others. Quit spreading misinformation and fear, and quit using junk sources.

[RangerM]

Trouble is it's making kids in Australia sick and has been pulled. How many kids here in the US will go through the same plight so that the drug makers will make huge profits?

Vaccination has been proven safe and effective for decades.

 

Even in the polio vaccine there have been side effects. The problem (for parents) is deciding what's worse, the vaccine or the disease. My kids are both older than 3. Neither will get the flu shot because their immune systems are strong enough at this point.

 

Problem is, you have people thinking these scary scenarios about all vaccines. That is a problem and only invites epidemic of (historically common, but presently uncommon) childhood diseases.

 

As far as the "huge profits"........Somehow I don't think drug companies intentionally inflict suffering on their customers so they can reap "huge liabilities". Killing your customer wouldn't seem to be a long-term sales strategy.

Edited August 30, 2010 by RangerM

[sprinter]

Vaccination has been proven safe and effective for decades.

 

Even in the polio vaccine there have been side effects. The problem (for parents) is deciding what's worse, the vaccine or the disease. My kids are both older than 3. Neither will get the flu shot because their immune systems are strong enough at this point.

 

Problem is, you have people thinking these scary scenarios about all vaccines. That is a problem and only invites epidemic of (historically common, but presently uncommon) childhood diseases.

 

As far as the "huge profits"........Somehow I don't think drug companies intentionally inflict suffering on their customers so they can reap "huge liabilities". Killing your customer wouldn't seem to be a long-term sales strategy.

 

 

"Huge liabilities"? I think you need to be brought up to speed on that.

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/20/Legal-Immunity-Set-for-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Makers.aspx

 

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has not only given immunity to the makers of Tamiflu and Relenza for injuries stemming from their use against swine flu, she has granted immunity to future swine flu vaccines and “any associated adjuvants”.

 

The last time the government embarked on a major vaccine campaign against a new swine flu, thousands filed claims contending they suffered side effects from the shots. This time around, they will have no recourse.

 

The 2006 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (the PREP Act) allows the DHHS Secretary to invoke almost complete immunity from liability for manufacturers of vaccines and drugs used to combat a declared public health emergency.

 

The PREP Act removes the right to a trial jury unless a plaintiff can provide clear evidence of willful misconduct that resulted in death or serious physical injury -- and gets permission to sue from the DHHS Secretary.

 

But once the PREP Act is invoked to shield manufacturers from liability, the pharmaceutical firms have no financial incentive to make the safest product, and have a negative incentive to test it for safety. As long as they do not deliberately harm consumers of the product, they will not be liable for damages.

 

 

And look what is going on in India:

 

India halt vaccine programmes after the deaths of four children

 

I tried to do a search on the Indian Express site to view the article quoted, but they seem to have broken the link to it. It still shows up in their website search, but gives a "sorry this page cannot be found". We don't want the masses to find out their children might die from a vaccine shot, that just might cause an uprising.

 

http://www.indianexpress.com/gsearch.php?cx=partner-pub-9517772455344405%3Aw4l2qg-ta2o&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Jachha+Bachha+Suraksha+Abhiyan&sa=Search&siteurl=www.indianexpress.com%2Fgsearch.php%3Fcof%3DFORID%253A10%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26cx%3Dpartner-pub-9517772455344405%253Aovx9qn9iau0%26q%3Dvaccine%26sa%3DSearch%231052#788

[RangerM]

"Huge liabilities"? I think you need to be brought up to speed on that.

That is something I was not aware of and probably should be made more widely known.

 

Still, I think the benefits of vaccination (certain cases, excepted) have outweighed the risks.

 

Hell, they even have people taking thalidomide (as a treatment for cancer, I think) nowadays.

[akirby]

The question with any drug or treatment with side effects is whether the effectiveness of the vaccine is worth the risk of the side effects. I think we would all agree for things like polio or smallpox that there is no question about the benefits outweighing the risk. However, when you're talking about flu which only poses a serious risk for those with weakened immune systems or underlying conditions then it's not so cut and dried.

[suv_guy_19]

This particular flu was not like that, but otherwise, I agree, only the old, young (not the very young, though) and people with weakened immune systems should get the shot. The point though, of having healthcare workers and people in contact with those mentioned groups (like, everyone) get the shot is to prevent the spread to those groups. There are people within those groups who won't get the shot (because they're as paranoid as the OPer) and there are others for whom the shot will have little effect, because of body chemistry and genetics.

 

I've never gotten a flu shot, but it isn't because they scare me. I simply don't see the reason. The rest of my family got the shot for H1N1 last year. I didn't, but that was because there were lineups where I was living, and by the time they were gone, the flu was in decline.

[JW]

Killing your customer wouldn't seem to be a long-term sales strategy.

 

The tobacco industry aside...

[akirby]

Killing your customers quickly isn't a good sales strategy. If you do it slowly enough they'll never notice.

[sprinter]

http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html

 

 

If scientists discovered something that worked better than vaccines at preventing influenza, you'd think they would jump all over it, right? After all, isn't the point to protect children and adults from influenza?

 

A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

 

The results are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. In other words, this was a "rigorous" scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence.

 

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

 

Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...).

 

This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.

 

To further support this, what really needs to be done is a clinical trial directly comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines with four total groups:

 

Group #1 receives a vitamin D placebo

Group #2 receives real vitamin D (2,000 IUs per day)

Group #3 receives an influenza vaccine injection

Group #4 receives an inert injection

 

Groups 1 and 2 should be randomized and double blind while groups 3 and 4 should also be randomized and double blind. The results would reveal the comparative effectiveness of vitamin D versus influenza vaccines.

 

Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won't subject vaccines to any real science that compares it to vitamin D.

 

 

 

 

But that's the history of science: A whole bunch of really smart people turn out to be wrong on a regular basis. That's usually how science advances, by the way: A new idea challenges an old assumption, and after all the defenders of the old (wrong) idea die off, science manages to inch its way forward against the hoots and heckles of a determined dogmatic resistance.

 

This attitude is blatantly reflected in a quote from Dr John Oxford, a professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine in London, whose reaction to this study was: "This is a timely study. It will be noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that makes the vitamin D story credible. But this study needs to be replicated. If it is confirmed we might think of giving vitamin D at the same time as we vaccinate." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...)

 

Did you notice his concluding remark? He wasn't even considering the idea that vitamin D might replace vaccines. Rather, he's assuming vitamin D only has value if given together with vaccines!

Edited September 16, 2010 by sprinter

[bhazard1]

Not a good idea except with the most potentially damaging viruses such as H1N1 was or could have been. I think your immune system would be much stronger if it fought these viruses naturally.

[suv_guy_19]

http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html

 

You do realize that the scientific and medical communities have been pushing vitamin D for a whole hose of issues, right? Just look up vitamin D, and tell me that I'm wrong.

[fmccap]

CDC Allegedly Falsifies Reports – Ignoring up to 3,587 Miscarriages From H1N1 Vaccine

[RangerM]

You have to be careful with this mega-vitamin therapy stuff.

 

Any fat-soluble vitamin (like A and D) can build up in the body. It probably takes a lot of Vitamin D to build up to toxic levels, but we (as a society) often bite ourselves in the ass with the "more is better" mentality.

 

Water soluble vitamins like Vitamin C are less a problem from what I understand, though.

[suv_guy_19]

Any fat-soluble vitamin (like A and D) can build up in the body. It probably takes a lot of Vitamin D to build up to toxic levels, but we (as a society) often bite ourselves in the ass with the "more is better" mentality.

 

Anything like a couple thousand units and under of D isn't a problem. Not sure about A. I take 1000 units a day.

Edited September 18, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[joihan777]

Vitamins A,D,E,&K are fat soluble and can build up to unhealthy levels (Even life-threatening).

Fat-soluble means that the vitamins do not get excreted out in your urine (water soluble) like Vitamin C does. Fat soluble vitamins get 'stored' in your fat cells. And since fat cells last forever, you can accumulate too much vitamins and getting the excess out isn't so easy, thus the danger of slowly building toxicity without realizing it. Research is being conducted on just how much is too much.... but you really don't want to be the canary do you?

 

And as far as the main topic in the original post:

 

Here's a CDC article made for general healthcare workers, but it's not too hard to see that vaccines have been proven effective: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm

 

Another federal public health article/ site: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/Flu/understandingFlu/Pages/seasonalVaccine.aspx

 

Most bad reactions to vaccines are not to the inactivated, DEAD virus... but are actually an allergic reaction to the eggs from which they are grown in or to preservatives used by some manufacturers. Understand that children, elderly & immunodeficient people are most at risk and ANY INFECTED PERSON they contact can potentially harm them. In fact, healthy young people can have the flu for several days without even realizing it.... meanwhile they pose a hazard to susceptible populations.

 

It's just smart to get vaccinated. You really CANNOT get the flu from the vaccine, people that say they did actually got a DIFFERENT virus at the same time and 'believe' the vaccine was at fault. Sorry, humans don't work that way.

 

Check it out before going around town with a gasmask and a tin foil hat.

Edited September 18, 2010 by joihan777

[RangerM]

Vitamins A,D,E,&K are fat soluble and can build up to unhealthy levels (Even life-threatening).

Fat-soluble means that the vitamins do not get excreted out in your urine (water soluble) like Vitamin C does. Fat soluble vitamins get 'stored' in your fat cells. And since fat cells last forever, you can accumulate too much vitamins and getting the excess out isn't so easy, thus the danger of slowly building toxicity without realizing it.

I'm no dietician, but I'd always heard that you store a 2-year supply of Vitamin A (and a lesser amount of D) in your liver. Not sure of the others you mention.

[suv_guy_19]

I'm no dietician, but I'd always heard that you store a 2-year supply of Vitamin A (and a lesser amount of D) in your liver. Not sure of the others you mention.

 

Studies though, show that there is no danger for most people of getting too much vitamin D (as many people have too low of levels) and that a large amount of vitamin D (up to a point) is a good thing.

[sprinter]

Worst Science on Vitamin D

 

 

 

Narang NK, Gupta RC, Jain MK J Assoc Physicians India. 1984 Feb;32(2):185–8.

 

Narang, et al's, 1984 paper may have done the most damage to the most people of any paper on vitamin D in the world's literature. The authors wrote about groups of six subjects with hypercalcemia who reportedly consumed increasing amounts of vitamin D, with the highest dose at 3800 IU (95 µg) per day, for up to six months. A protocol involved 25 subjects per group and Heaney, et al, used doses as high as 10,000 IU (250 µg) per day. Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD. Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed adverse effect level Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288–94. Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ. Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204–10.

 

There was no hint of hypercalcemia in either of these modern studies. The old Narang data suggest error on technical grounds: i.e. the hypercalcemia suggests that Narang, et al, did not confirm the accuracy of vitamin D doses given, and the doses were probably many times higher than they thought—there is no other explanation for this.

 

But the real problem here is with the Food and Nutrition Board. For although several reports (dated prior to 1995) of the safety of higher, physiologic doses of vitamin D were available, the FNB instead chose to rely solely upon the data from the Narang study to support their current toxicity levels (LOAEL of 3800 IU). Those specious toxicity levels have prevented millions of people from obtaining adequate vitamin D3 nutrition ever since.

[sprinter]

But Bill, aren't vaccines suppose to help people live longer as we are being told by government? And if people live longer, doesn't that make MORE CO2 output?