Autism, mercury and...Meniere's?

Autoimmune disorders are also very frightening--and vaccines have ONLY been tested on healthy people. There have been no safety or effectiveness studies on vaccines for people with autoimmune disorders.

Yes, people with autoimmune disorders are more likely to react severely to viruses. But vaccines can TRIGGER autoimmune disorders.

You're darned if you do, and darned if you don't.

 

Good article from Dr. Mercola in today's newsletter regarding amalgams.

 

Yes, here it is: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/28/scientists-urge-fda-to-stop-amalgam-use-in-children-pregnant-women-and-hypersensitive.aspx

I would suggest, though, that removing them may be more dangerous than leaving them in; I would remove them only if it were likely that they were causing problems.

 

IF

A little word that has a very big impact.

 

True. When someone IS having lots of neuro symptoms, and they have a mouthful of mercury, then I don't think you can ignore the possibility that the mercury MAY be the cause (or one of several causes) of the symptoms.

But because of the potential danger involved in removing the amalgams, I don't think it should be the first choice, especially when there are so many other causes of symptoms that could be ruled out without such danger.

 

not just the flu vaccine that doesn't work, the others don't either, studies have shown that during past epidemics more people got the disease who were vaccinated than people who wern't.

 

Which ones. It certainly worked for polio and the other childhood diseases that used to kill and cripple millions.

 

I believe she is referring to the recent flu vaccines. There is a lot of controversy surrounding last years debacle called H1N1 vaccine. Is that right Abigail?

 

Yes, I'd like to see the actual study that says that if so, it is interesting.

vaccines are proven to work..........they don't work 100% for everyone, and it's catastrophic and sad if you have a reaction to one, but they greatly protect our society, the numbers do show.

Lisa

 

Actually, there are no studies saying that flu shot DOES work well.

The package insert says "efficacy has not been shown in pediatric and geriatric populations." JAMA, BMJ, and the Cochrane Collaboration have ALL gone on record saying that the flu shot is not effective--and not just this year's flu shot.

The pertussis shot has also had a poor track record, as a large percentage (84% is what I remember reading, will try to find the source for that) of those who have come down with it were fully vaccinated. The old version caused seizures, and the new version is either ineffective, or the virus has mutated, or both. In addition, one can be fully immunized against pertussis and still carry the virus and spread it.

Other shots, like Hepatitis B, are totally unnecessary in infants, and should only be considered when a child is older.

The problem, as I see it, is that people are now becoming aware of how unethical the pharm industry has become--and they are choosing to forego ALL vaccines.

At this point, I am still convinced that polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria and tetanus vaccines are a good idea. If they could make a more effective (and still safe) pertussis vaccine, I could go along with that, too, although I am not totally convinced it is necessary for a breastfed infant. They also need to offer separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines again--and ALL vaccines should be thimerosal-free.

I think there's going to be a huge backlash against vaccines, bigger than what we've already seen--and the upshot will be a resurgence of polio, which would be a terrible thing. But it won't be the fault of the people who refused the vaccines. It will be the fault of the pharmaceutical industry who betrayed our trust in the first place with their lack of ethics.

 

The information I saw at the dr's office yesterday said that the flu vaccine is effective about 70% of the time if the right flu virus strain was in the vaccine. Naturally if the strain you catch isn't the one they made the vaccine for, it isn't going to work.

I was not aware that the h1n1 was a debacle either.

 

The information you saw at the doctor's office was prepared by the vaccine manufacturer, for marketing purposes. They are selling a product. I have yet to see an independent study confirm that the flu shot is effective 70% of the time. The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that it was little better than a placebo in 2006 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55507.php and again just last month http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219481-No-Value-in-Any-Influenza-Vaccine-Cochrane-Collaboration-Study

h1n1 was a mild flu virus. Other countries have been questioning WHO for upping the panic factor. The health minister of Poland refused to order vaccines for h1n1 (http://info-wars.org/2009/11/04/polish-health-minister-rejects-untested-swine-flu-jabs/), and we haven't heard anything about major problems in Poland from h1n1.

This year's flu shot was already pulled off Australia's recommended list for children LAST SUMMER (their flu season is earlier than ours) because of a striking uptick in post-vaccination seizures. In the US, we don't have the same brand of flu shots, but reports are already coming in about post-vaccination seizures in children here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/vaccine-seizures-feds-checking-post-flu-shot_n_811756.html. Of course, Sanofi has issued a statement reassuring us that all is fine and we should continue using their flu shot.

 

fourteenstudies.org was a great help to me, taximom

 

I just don't know if I can agree taximom, respectfully.

I see one of the top docs in the nation for endocrinology and he told me it is imperative that my daughter and I get vaccinated with the flu shot each year.

I get mine from my neighbor who is a nurse, going back to school, for more nursing, who has a job distributing flu shots to school populations. I just know these people who are highly trained and educated would not be speaking about how important flu shots are if they were not effective.

I do think it is true that there are certain flue shot batches that are not as effective some years as others depending on the outbreaks of certain strains, but the effort to vaccinate the worldwide population against all diseases is still one of our greatest efforts in the world against disease. Not 100% effective, but astounding and impressive.

One problem with the internet is I think you can find a source to say anything you want.

Lisa

 

It's okay, Lisa, you don't have to agree with me.

If you can find an independent study showing that the flu shot is effective, please post it. I have yet to see one, and the mainstream medical journals, as I already posted above, say it's not effective.

Your doctors may still believe that it's effective because that's what they were told in medical school, and the message will have been repeated every year by pharm reps touting in-house (NOT independent) studies. They may even believe that they have seen good results from it, not realizing that those who bother to get the flu shots are also the ones who bother to wash their hands frequently, use antibacterial wipes on their shopping carts, etc.

 

The studies I read online from the CDC (Centers for Disease control) list the varying effectiveness under all the different circumstances.........but let's say it's 50% effective for 18 year olds (making this part up based on part of what I read), then that's half of a high school class not getting it and passing it on to family members, school mates, teachers......

It obviously helps tremendously. Even a 60% success rate among any population would cut down gravely on transmission.
Saying it's ""not effective" because it's not "100 %" effective is not something I can agree with- at all.

I work with someone who's wife died over the holidays from the flu. She had a 4 and 7 year old. All her organs shut down. I had two uncles die in the early 1900's from the great flu epidemic.....my grandma buried one twin and the next died the next day. The flu can be a very, very serious illness, sometimes fatal. I think it's really important to not spread misinformation about the importance of the flu shot.

My doc reads so many new studies in so many medical journals, and often talks about different ones with me.......I can guarantee you his information is not a holdover from med school- to say he gets his info from a pharm rep is just funny

It seems you have had some bad experiences with docs. So have I. As a result, over the years I now have excellent docs that I sought out or were referred to me. It does take work to end up with the right person. They have made my life completely different that what it would have been without good medical care. I think it's so important to listen to the good docs........boy they know their stuff.

Lisa

 

The corruption in the pharmaceutical industry reaches even the CDC, as well as the press. Surely you are aware of the fact that the pharmaceutical industry's immense political clout?

The former head of the CDC is now president of the vaccine division at Merck.

The CEO of Reuters is on the board of Merck.

The committee that decides the recommended pediatric vaccine schedule is headed by the inventor and patent-holder of Merck's Rotateq vaccine.

If the CDC is posting that the flu shot has a 70% effectiveness rate, they are posting inaccurate information. You need to actually read and understand the studies to see how the results have been twisted to market the flu shot. There are NO studies showing that the flu shot prevents 70% of flu cases, nor that it prevents transmission of the flu.

The best they could come up with was that there was antibody production--but independent studies are showing that antibody production does not equal immunity, and it certainly doesn't stop people from acquiring and spreading the virus.

In fact, with the live-virus vaccines, you shedive virus cells for up to 3 weeks following inoculation.

The same people who claim that correlation does not equal causation with vaccine reactions assume that the flu shot prevents the flu, and that the flu is the sole cause of death in people who die after a viral illness rather than an underlying medical condition, inadequate treatment, or even adverse reaction to medical treatment.

It's a double standard.

 

Obviously we disagree, which as you've said before is fine.

Just fyi, I have carefully read what the CDC posted, but draw different conclusions than you do.

I do trust the doctors that I see, they are truly wonderful. I am so thankful for good medical care.

Lisa

 

TM, have you investigated corruption in other industries like the vitamin makers, the car makers, the oil and gas industries? Do you find them pure as the driven snow? If not, do you still use these products. Do you drive a car even knowing that there have been brake failures that were the result of negligence and greed ? Do you let your children ride in cars knowing this?

To me, it is a matter of the big picture. It is important to look at the things you look at and constantly improve without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't think there are any simple answers. No industry is all good guys or all bad guys. Too bad because life would be a lot easier if we could just stick labels on people and things and know they were always right. But they are never always right. Life is a lot more complicated than that.

 

I'm sure your doctors are wonderful, and I am glad you are getting good medical care. But I doubt that they have done as much research into vaccines as I have--and I'm not making a casual assumption here. I have several doctor friends, NONE of whom have time to do research. They ALL tell me it is standard for pediatricians and family doctors to accept the pharmaceutical representatives' word regarding safety and efficacy of medications. In addition, the CME (Continuing Medical Education) classes are funded by, directed by, and taught by pharm reps and doctors who are pharm employees.

That is why I believe that your doctors are wrong about the flu shot.