|
Home > Archive > Nursing > October 2004 > Is the flu vaccine the next bad drug?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Is the flu vaccine the next bad drug?
|
|
|
|
NEWS Oct 06, 04
http://www.boiseweekly.com/more.php?id=4281_0_1_0_M2
Media, money and medicine
Is the flu vaccine the next bad drug?
by Dr. Madeline Behrendt, D.C.
Each winter the flu intrudes into our lives. But beyond fever and chills,
this villain virus generates media, money and mayhem.
With flu season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) plan
"The Seven-Step Recipe for Generating Interest in and Demand for Flu
Vaccines" creates a massive pro-vaccine media campaign each year. In a
single week last September, 1,026 media messages were broadcast or
published, including "this could be the worst flu season ever," "the flu
shot is the best way to prevent the flu" and "flu season kills 36,000 per
year." But what evidence is there to back up this scare that produces long
lines of frightened souls hoping to score dwindling doses of vaccine? Are
they effective or even safe? And, when vaccine manufacturers routinely
report seasonal revenues upward of $500 million, are there financial
incentives for product safety?
The nearly 5,000 flu vaccine-related autism injury cases currently pending
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims suggest negative answers to these
questions. According to Barbara Loe Fisher, former consumer member of the
FDA Vaccines Advisory Committee (1999 to 2003) and cofounder of the National
Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), "Many of the world's most highly
vaccinated children are contracting far fewer infections in childhood but
are growing up chronically ill with various kinds of brain and immune system
dysfunction." She adds, "Government health officials and the American
Academy of Pediatrics put out an Autism Alarm to the public announcing . a
stunning 200 to 7,000 percent increase in autism in every state over the
past two decades."
The government's vaccine risk assessment database, the Vaccine Safety
Datalink (VSD), recently detected a statistical link between vaccines
containing the mercury-laced preservative thimerosal, a neurotoxin, and
developmental and behavior disorders, including but not limited to autism.
But this information was withheld from the public. Fisher started a petition
to allow full access to the VSD by independent researchers, and almost
10,000 people signed immediately.
Fisher also links vaccinations to 3 million learning disabled
schoolchildren; 4 million with ADHD; 9 million with asthma; 300,000 with
juvenile rheumatoid arthritis; and 1 in 400 to 500 with diabetes.
Senior citizens may also be negatively affected by flu shots. According to
immogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, M.D., individuals who received five
consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 are ten times more likely to
develop Alzheimer's disease than those who received zero, one or two shots.
But the number of injuries may be even greater, as doctors can refuse to
report adverse effects and face no consequences. And even when a link can be
proven, vaccine manufacturers are not liable. Since the flu vaccine was
added to the federal vaccine compensation program in 1986, those injured by
vaccines now face the federal government, which is defended by the
Department of Justice.
Beyond the side effects, the question remains as to whether the flu vaccine
is actually effective enough to be worth the risks. Last season 82,000,000
people were vaccinated in the United States, but according to NVIC "only 3
to 14 percent of those who got vaccinated were protected against the flu."
WebMD adds that in a Denver hospital, "people who got vaccinated were just
as likely to get flu-like symptoms as those who didn't get the vaccine." And
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly reports the vaccine had "no or low
effectiveness" against flu-like illness.
Like a muscle, immunity must be developed. Infectious agents stimulate an
inflammatory response, which signals the production of antibodies. The
antibodies then resolve the inflammation, and healing begins to take place.
But according to British Medical Journal, when vaccines artificially
manipulate immunity, the natural immune response may be compromised. For
example, Haemophilus influenzae type b infection rates are now higher than
they were before the vaccine program was introduced. The reason, according
to researchers, is that reduced exposure to the disease means antibody
levels or "natural" immunity, are no longer being boosted. When the disease
begins to rise once again, many victims are less equipped to fight the
infection.
Despite these conclusions, vaccine mandates continue to be pushed by state
legislators-but parents are pushing back by becoming educated about legal
exemptions for school admittance. The American Journal of Preventive
Medicine reports that 93 percent of physicians reported at least one
parental vaccine refusal in their practice in the past year. Typically, 80
to 90 percent of Americans don't get the flu each year. Although flu strains
vary the body's defense is the same: a strong immune system. Those looking
to augment immune function through non-vaccine measures may find relief
through natural (alternative) health care including homeopathic remedies or
chiropractic care.
In recent years, doctors and pharmaceutical companies have encouraged
millions of Americans to partake in the magical powers of Fen Phen, hormone
replacement therapy, Ephedrine and Vioxx, among others, only to later learn
that the miracle drugs are quite dangerous drugs with life-threatening side
effects. Beyond the hype, is the flu vaccine the next bad drug?
[2] comments (81 views) |
Comments
As we mandated more and more vaccines with thimerosal without adding up the
total mercury exposure, babies were receiving 40 to 60 times the EPA limits
for mercury. At the same time, autism rates in the United States in one
decade went from 1/10,000 to 1/166.
Autistic children often share similar traits. Interestingly, the symptoms of
mercury poisoning and autism are identical.
The rate of autism in California increased 300 percent in a decade during
the 1990s. But after voluntarily removing thimerosal from children's
vaccines, they've seen three-consecutive quarters with 35 percent reductions
in the autism rate. This is the first time ever that California's numbers
have been declining.
Califormia has now banned thimerosal in children's vaccines, as Iowa has
also done. Yesterday, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for
Disease Control, told a congressional hearing that, at best, the
preservative may be eliminated from the vaccine by 2009.
FIVE YEARS ago the American Academy of Pediatrics and the federal health
agencies urged drug manufacturers to remove thimerosal. AND NOW, it's still
going to another FIVE YEARS to do it?
That's hardly oversight by the CDC. It's more like rubber-stamping. With
over 700 waivers for conflicts of interest for people in our health
agencies, who also work for drug companies, it's easy to see why they're in
no hurry.
Anne McElroy Dachel
Chippewa Falls, WI
Clarification: The 5000 autism cases pending in the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program are not suspected to be related to the flu vaccine but
to thimerosal, a mercury based preservative used in vaccines.
The flu vaccine was only recently recommended for universal use for children
and so has only been recently added to the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program.
Kathi Williams
National Vaccine Information Center
| |
|
| Repeating the same lies told by another clueless twit doesn't make them
true.
Jeff
| |
| Sarah Vaughan 2004-10-25, 7:11 pm |
| In message <ckuguv$o85$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, john
<nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> writes
>
>NEWS Oct 06, 04
>http://www.boiseweekly.com/more.php?id=4281_0_1_0_M2
>
>
>Media, money and medicine
>
>
>
>Is the flu vaccine the next bad drug?
>by Dr. Madeline Behrendt, D.C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Each winter the flu intrudes into our lives. But beyond fever and chills,
>this villain virus generates media, money and mayhem.
>
>
[...]
>The government's vaccine risk assessment database, the Vaccine Safety
>Datalink (VSD), recently detected a statistical link between vaccines
>containing the mercury-laced preservative thimerosal, a neurotoxin, and
>developmental and behavior disorders, including but not limited to autism.
>But this information was withheld from the public.
So how do you know it?
[...]
> According to
>immogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, M.D., individuals who received five
>consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 are ten times more likely to
>develop Alzheimer's disease than those who received zero, one or two shots.
What other factors did he control for when he was working out the
statistics? People who visit their doctor more often are probably more
likely to end up getting their flu shot each year, because of the "While
you're here......" factor - if someone is in the doctor's office
already, it's easy to recommend the flu vaccine to them, while if
someone never turns up because they're very healthy, it may be harder to
let them know they're due for a flu shot. So it's possible that it
might be that a reduced state of health is linked to Alzheimer's in some
way or another. (For example, there is now evidence that smoking may
increase Alzheimer's rates, and it certainly increases the chances of
you going to see the doctor with various ailments and therefore being
recommended to come back for a flu shot.)
[...]
>Beyond the side effects, the question remains as to whether the flu vaccine
>is actually effective enough to be worth the risks. Last season 82,000,000
>people were vaccinated in the United States, but according to NVIC "only 3
>to 14 percent of those who got vaccinated were protected against the flu."
Could you give a cite for this, please? (A detailed enough one to find
easily, I mean.)
>WebMD adds that in a Denver hospital, "people who got vaccinated were just
>as likely to get flu-like symptoms as those who didn't get the vaccine." And
>Morbidity and Mortality Weekly reports the vaccine had "no or low
>effectiveness" against flu-like illness.
That's right. There are lots of viruses out there that cause flu-like
symptoms, and it isn't possible to immunise against them all. The flu
vaccine, each year, immunises against the few viruses that are most
likely to cause death or serious illness. It would be nice if we could
also cut down on all the runny noses, coughs and aching joints that are
caused by the many other viruses that go around at this time of year,
but it's not feasible. What the flu vaccine is meant to protect against
is *death*, or serious illness, resulting from the flu. So the
statistics we really need here are the comparative death or
hospitalisation rates, not the comparative rates of "lu-like symptoms".
>Like a muscle, immunity must be developed.
That analogy is an important one. As anyone who's got into exercise on
any sort of serious basis knows, if a particular muscle _isn't_
developed and you try to overwork it, you're going to tear the muscle
and do more harm than good. So, when you want to build up a particular
muscle group that is currently weak, you don't go straight to the
heaviest weights available and start trying to lift those. You start
with small weights to strengthen those muscles, and only move onto
heavier weights after that.
The idea behind vaccinations is similar. If your immune system has no
experience with a particular germ but then meets that germ in full
force, it's going to take time to build up the antibodies it needs to
fight that particular germ. In the meantime, the germ, or the toxin it
produces, is going to be making you sick. If it's a cold germ, no
biggie - you have a few uncomfortable days or weeks, get something from
your local pharmacist or just make the hot drinks your mother always
used to make for you, and wait it out. If it's a diptheria or
meningococcus or other serious form of germ, you may be dead or severely
damaged before your body has mounted an immune response adequate to get
rid of the germ. For elderly or ill people, a flu germ can also be that
serious.
So, rather than leave you to suffer that fate, doctors vaccinate you
against these germs. In much the same way as a responsible gym
instructor would start you off on small weights, a doctor starts you off
on 'small germs' by immunising you with a form of the germ in question
that's been designed to do far less harm. It may be a killed form of
the germ, or a severely weakened form, or simply a part of its surface
coating that can't cause infection on its own but is sufficient to teach
your body how to recognise the disease. And this lets your body build
up immunity to that particular germ without suffering serious
ill-effects, so that if and when it meets the full-on no-holds-barred
version of the germ, your immune system's 'muscles' are strengthened and
it's all ready to fight that germ off before the germ can harm you.
> Infectious agents stimulate an
>inflammatory response, which signals the production of antibodies. The
>antibodies then resolve the inflammation, and healing begins to take place.
>But according to British Medical Journal, when vaccines artificially
>manipulate immunity, the natural immune response may be compromised.
Could you give a reference for where the BMJ said this, please?
> For
>example, Haemophilus influenzae type b infection rates are now higher than
>they were before the vaccine program was introduced.
Could you give a reference, please? I've heard that Hib rates are going
up, but certainly haven't heard that they're 'higher than they were
before the vaccine program was introduced', and that sounds like the
kind of thing that would normally be headline news.
[...]
> Although flu strains
>vary the body's defense is the same: a strong immune system.
And the idea of vaccination is to build up the strength of that immune
system.
All the best,
Sarah
--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley
| |
|
| "john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message news:<ckuguv$o85$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
> Is the flu vaccine the next bad drug?
> by Dr. Madeline Behrendt, D.C.
"D.C." -- that about says it all.
Mark, MD
| |
|
|
"Mark" <mlowry3@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > >
>
>
> "D.C." -- that about says it all.
>
> Mark, MD
Yes, to be trusted to not kill 700,000 people every year and to have cured
polio and most mental illness, beyond any allopath
http://www.whale.to/y/chiro.html
| |
| Carole 2004-10-26, 7:27 pm |
| "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cl308a$b1b@library1.airnews.net>...
> Repeating the same lies told by another clueless twit doesn't make them
> true.
>
> Jeff
Doesn't make them false either.
Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm
| |
| David Wright 2004-10-26, 7:27 pm |
| In article <ckuguv$o85$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
john <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote:
>
>NEWS Oct 06, 04
>http://www.boiseweekly.com/more.php?id=4281_0_1_0_M2
>
>
>Media, money and medicine
>
>
>
>Is the flu vaccine the next bad drug?
>by Dr. Madeline Behrendt, D.C.
Doubtful. But thanks for asking.
<snipp>
>Senior citizens may also be negatively affected by flu
>shots. According to immogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, M.D.,
>individuals who received five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and
>1980 are ten times more likely to develop Alzheimer's disease than
>those who received zero, one or two shots.
This is a favorite anti-vac claim, much beloved of, e.g. Gymmy Boob,
but I think it's a lie. I can't find anything on Medline that looks
even remotely like it. There really is an HH Fudenberg who has
published quite a bit about Alzheimers, but I can't find a reference
that looks like what is claimed here, unless it's a 1994 paper with no
abstract available from Molecular Neurobiology, and the title,
"Heterogenity of Alzheimer's Disease," doesn't sound like a match.
>Beyond the side effects, the question remains as to whether the flu
>vaccine is actually effective enough to be worth the risks. Last
>season 82,000,000 people were vaccinated in the United States, but
>according to NVIC "only 3 to 14 percent of those who got vaccinated
>were protected against the flu."
That's still a lot of people, out of 82,000,000.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
|
| |
|
|