More on Flu Shots

I would like to present my best case against flu shots, and I wanted to get your best opinions to the contrary. If you agree, that is cool too, but I am most interested in knowing what you all believe:

Flu Shots are bad and here is why:

According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD, the world's leading immunogeneticist and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals), if an individual has had five consecutive flu shots his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's Disease is ten times higher than if they had one, two or no shots.

www.drbobmartin.com...

As another user here pointed out, he is listed in the PubMed database as an author, and there are a ton of abstracts, so his credentials are noteworthy at least. Some more on the specifics of the problems it causes itself:

www.safeminds.org...

According to a published study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons by Mark Geier, M.D., Ph.D., and president of the Genetic Centers of America and his son, David Geier, president of Medcon Inc. and a consultant on vaccine cases, "Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders and Heart Disease in the United States,"

www.safeminds.org...

the rate of exposure to these chemicals exceeds EPA limits. If the CDC wants to criticize the link to Autism and other Diseases, that is fine, but there are a few things no one can dispute:

"The EPA limit is 0.1 micrograms of mercury per kilogram body weight per day. It doesn't take a genius to do the calculations when on their day of birth children are given the hepatitis B vaccine, which is 12.5 micrograms of mercury. The average newborn weighs between 6 and 7 pounds, so they would be allowed 0.3 micrograms of mercury - but in this one shot they are getting 12.5 micrograms. That's 39 times more than allowed by law. And it gets worse when you consider that children are getting multiple vaccinations at 2 months. And this limit is for oral ingestion and not injection, which is much worse." According to Mark Geier.

This is true regarding the EPA limit. Please see the google cache to the EPA website (which is down for some reason currently):

216.239.41.104...:OqKmLTS4KfsJ:www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf+site:epa.gov+EPA+0.1+limit+micrograms+of+mercury+pe r+kilogram+body+weight+per+day&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8

There is actually a little more to this too. The above has to do with the Hepatitas B vaccine. Check out the actual label inserts from a prominent Pharm that produces these vaccines:

www.us.aventispasteur.com...

And this:

www.vaccineshoppe.com...

Note the relevant line in their ingredients: Each dose contains the preservative thimerosal [(mercury derivative), 25 �g mercury/dose] (12.5 (or > .5 depending on which "presentation" you receive) for the newer children's dose).

According to the EPA, a kid that is 7 pounds is 3ish Kgs, and if their limit is .1 �g/dose/kg, the most that vaccine can have according to the EPA is .3 �g. It has .5 or less (with the new formula) which is a LOT better when taken alone, but with other vaccines, I am afraid their "trace amounts" add up. The older formula had 12.5 micrograms! Now lets take for example a typical male, weighing 170lbs (77Kg). The most that person could ingest per/day is 7.7 �g per day according to the EPA. Currently it is 25 �g!!! That isn't dangerous? It is according to the EPA, link to disease or no link, it is dangerous, and it breaks the law. This is only for 1 vaccine as well. There are several vaccines administered to kids at that age, and many of them all at once! One thing to note though is that Thimerosal is 46% Mercury (because it is a derivative), so the 25 micrograms is actually 12.5, but still too high according to the EPA.

Also, note the other chemicals on the insert. Anything stand out to you??? Like maybe formaldehyde (carcinogenic) and Polyethylene Glycol p-Isooctylphenyl Ether (a close cousin to a chemical used in Antifreeze)? If thimerosal doesn't do any damage, this stuff could. I haven't even seen any studies on it, however I would be curious anyway. Do we really want this stuff in our bodies?

According to the EPA,

www.epa.gov...

5.6mg/kg of body weight/Day of formaldehyde is required before any incidence of tumor occurs. I want to know how much is in these vaccines? Assuming you weigh 170 pounds, that is like 77Kg, which comes out to 431.2 micrograms/day to be toxic. Keep in mind that is just one dose. For this company's benefit, I will not look at Polyethylene Glycol p-Isooctylphenyl Ether because the more recent formula of this vaccine seems to not have that chemical in it. Why did they take it out I wonder? Oh, maybe because it was dangerous???

Then there is the question as to why there isn't more information out there on this? In fact, the CDC denies that thimerosal is toxic, but they asked Pharms to drop it anyway?

www.cdc.gov...

That doesn't make sense to me. According to Rep. Dan Burton:

"One reason this isn't getting the attention it needs is that the Food and Drug Administration has very close ties to the pharmaceutical companies, as does the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] and the Centers for Disease Control. I've said in the past that in some cases it appears that it's a revolving door and people leave government health agencies and go to work for the pharmaceuticals, which I think have undue influence on our health agencies. Of course, they may not want to look at this because there's a possibility that large claims would be filed and the pharmaceutical companies would have to cough up the money to take care of these kids who have been damaged."

No, you mean to tell me that the industry has been greasing the govt. wheels to spin in it's own direction? That is preposterous! (disclaimer: Although I slam the CDC on this issue, I recognize that they are by and large a very good organization on the whole spectrum of medical issues, and in most cases I would trust their word. The issues discussed above, and later don't help me on this issue though.)

"The FDA, CDC and HHS should put out in a very public way the dangers of mercury, but as soon as they do it will amount to an admission that their mercury is causing these problems. So the reports that come out of the FDA, CDC and HHS use ambiguous terms. Well, if they're not sure, and there's the remotest possibility that mercury in vaccines could cause autism, they ought to get thimerosal off the market. Too many kids are being ruined for life because of this stuff."

www.insightmag.com...

For anyone who is still discounting all of this, imagine if the chemical in question was cyanide? Wouldn't you be up in arms, no matter how much was in that vaccine? Mercury is just as bad folks. Having said all of that, I think that vaccines have a very STRONG potential to be VERY VERY good, and have been historically. That is undisputed. My only wish is that these chemicals were removed. What is my recommendation if you want to get a flu shot without he chemicals? First of all I don't have a good one. Second of all I am not a doctor, so take what I say for what is is worth k? The best thing I can think of is to demand the most recent shots available (which would probably be the only ones administered to you anyway), and demand to check the insert shipped with the vaccine. Check what chemicals are in that vaccine. If there is trace amounts, or less of thimerosal, you (as an adult) will be safe at those levels. In other words, ask for the smaller pediatric doses if they will allow that. For children, don't let them get more than 1 shot per day. Remember the EPA guidelines.

Not to mention you might just end up with an implanted chip by gettin a flu shot....paranoid arent I?

Originally posted by tracer
Not to mention you might just end up with an implanted chip by gettin a flu shot....paranoid arent I?

I doubt this highly as the tip is too small for a chip anyway And who cares, it's not as though this shot is forced on anyone. It's your choice and is mostly given to elderly and children or people with lower immune systems. So I just don't see any conspiracy or treachery behind the flu shot. It's all luck of the draw anyway, they just take the most likely strands of the virus for *that* year and incoorperate it into one shot, it isn't a sure bet that you won't get the flu, perhaps another strand that wasn't inside the vaccine. It just lessons your chances.

I should point out that just because he's listed in PubMed doesn't mean everyone agrees with his findings.

Okay...thought experiment: I'm one of a generation of Army brats. We had more injections in our youth than you would have had in your entire lifetime *and* they had the mercury preservative *and* we lived on Army bases polluted with leftovers from making weaponry.

Mercury levels in our blood are and were much higher than anyone else's.

Question: Why isn't there a huge incidence of autism in the children of military servicemen? Why isn't there a huge incidence of autism in the children of Christian missionaries?

If the vaccines are so bad for you, why aren't we dying at earlier ages, why don't we have unusually high instances of cancer and why isn't there a high incidence of cancer and early Alzheimers and other of these suspected conditions among career military people and their children -- as well as among missionaries and career diplomats?

From a more practical side of the story, do flu shots actually work?

Has anyone here had them?

I know some people that have and the verdict is mixed on the effectiveness of flu shots themselves.

That combined with the other issues brought up here convince me that there is little value in them.

But all the hypocondriacs out there love them!

Yes, they work.

Both my spouse and I have cardiac conditions and we're on medication for them (my spouse has a whole boatload of pills to take every day.) We've faithfully had the flu shots for the past 8-10 years and haven't gotten the flu though others around us have.

VERY good points, and good comments. Can you prove that those vaccines have the said chemicals in them at the levels that vaccines currently have?

Another point against some of the findings has to do with the claim of increased Autism at around the time that certain changes to child immunizations occurred. Doctors link them together with a 1-1 relationship. One of the things that also happened during that period though was that the definition of Autism broadened, and therefor resulted in a much higher diagnosis. Personally, I don't completely buy the Autism link, but the EPA limits thing has yet to be disputed.

Originally posted by Byrd
I should point out that just because he's listed in PubMed doesn't mean everyone agrees with his findings.

Okay...thought experiment: I'm one of a generation of Army brats. We had more injections in our youth than you would have had in your entire lifetime *and* they had the mercury preservative *and* we lived on Army bases polluted with leftovers from making weaponry.

Mercury levels in our blood are and were much higher than anyone else's.

Question: Why isn't there a huge incidence of autism in the children of military servicemen? Why isn't there a huge incidence of autism in the children of Christian missionaries?

If the vaccines are so bad for you, why aren't we dying at earlier ages, why don't we have unusually high instances of cancer and why isn't there a high incidence of cancer and early Alzheimers and other of these suspected conditions among career military people and their children -- as well as among missionaries and career diplomats?

Originally posted by THENEO
From a more practical side of the story, do flu shots actually work?

Has anyone here had them?

I know some people that have and the verdict is mixed on the effectiveness of flu shots themselves.

That combined with the other issues brought up here convince me that there is little value in them.

But all the hypocondriacs out there love them!

I got a flu shot about 3 years ago, and while many of my family and friends got the flu that year, I didn't get it. Though, I haven't gotten the flu in 7 years now *knock on wood* and I've probably only had it about 4 times in my life.

I wouldn't get it again unless I'd gone through a year being sick a lot.

It's all luck of the draw anyway, they just take the most likely strands of the virus for *that* year and incoorperate it into one shot, it isn't a sure bet that you won't get the flu, perhaps another strand that wasn't inside the vaccine. It just lessons your chances.

You're right about that, it's no a surefire thing. If the influenza that were to surface one year were an H4 or an H5 bug, there would be no protection for anybody, nor can the dead virsus from those particular strains be incorporated in the flu shot, as they would kill the eggs that are used to grow H1-H3 varieties.

A device using nanotechnology could be injected into your body without you knowing it...

I get the flu shot every year. I have asthma so it is important that I get it. Since I have been getting the shot, I dont get sick with bronchitis, the flu or even colds anymore.If I do get a form of the cold, its very slight and only lasts about 3 days. It definately makes a difference for me. Iam sure not all people are the same though.

My wife has recieved a flu shot for the last three years. She's an RN, so she thinks it's necessary to get one to prevent her patients from getting a flu from her, should she contract one. I have had less bouts with the flu for the last 3 years than she has. I just don't believe in them. I also think there are greater risks involved than the physicians will admit. After all, they are the ones who push antibiotics as a cure all.

I agree that there are certain risks when you get it. I will admit Iam always nervous when I get it. You always hear about people getting the flu from getting the shot.

what is the conspiracy behind the new nasal flu vaccine

The first year I worked in a doctor's office, the doctor tried to force me to take the flu shot. I politely refused, stating that they were ineffective and would only promote getting the flu. I was the only one in the office that year that didn't get the flu. The doctor was out for three days.

Flu shots, in my opinion, are usless on perfectly healthy people.

I'm going to get my yearly flu shot in the morning just as I have done since the vaccine was first offered.

It's never made me feel ill or have any side effects that I know of.

The benefits out weigh the dangers for me.

I am more concerned about drinking tap water from a municipal water system than I am about getting the flu vaccine.

Wishing everyone good health through the coming winter.

Originally posted by postings
I would like to present my best case against flu shots, and I wanted to get your best opinions to the contrary. If you agree, that is cool too, but I am most interested in knowing what you all believe:

The main problem I see with your argument is that it is not focused. You say you are presenting the case against flu shots, but then you present evidence about other shots (hep B for instance).

My personal experience: I have never gotten the flu shot, but I am a healthy 30-something woman with no particular risk factors, and I don't work with children, elderly, or ill people. When I do get the flu, it lays me up for a couple days and then goes away. If I did have any sort of extra risk, I would definitely get the shots. If I were pregnant and my baby was due during flu season, I would get the shot to protect my newborn.

Some more general comments:

In general, I think it strengthens an argument to provide links to the abstracts for papers that you discuss, rather than a link to another site that discusses the paper. Pubmed is easily searchable. Also, if you do a pubmed search yourself, you will be able to see whether there are other papers on the subject. If one paper supports a link between, say, thimerosal and autism, but 25 papers find no link, that's important information.

Also, be careful with how you use certain data. You cite an exposure level of 5.6mg/kg/day of formaldehyde -- this sounds like a level that causes cancer due to chronic exposure, not one-time exposure. Thus, it really tells us nothing about vaccination -- it's more relevant to occupational exposure (drycleaners, etc.)

Finally, don't trust everything you read on anti-vaccination sites. I have yet to find one that doesn't give misleading, outdated, or outright false information.

You've done a lot of good research. I'm increasingly interested in the topic of vaccination, and I really believe there is evidence that we are over-vaccinated. But anti-vaccination activists have (in my opinion) made it very difficult to get to the real issues. As you say: vaccination has been of huge historic benefit to mankind, and there is plenty of evidence that it does work. By trying to make a case against all vaccination, people actually weaken their cases against particular vaccinations.

I hope to see more from you on the topic