Home > General Info, In the News, Preventable Diseases, Seasonal Flu > Shot of Great Media Coverage Promotes Good Health

Shot of Great Media Coverage Promotes Good Health

More positive exposure (pardon the pun) on immunizations and vaccinations appeared in a special insert in today’s LA Times.  The insert, which features a compilation of various articles, is a great boost to vaccine advocates, eager to educate the public on the importance of vaccinations.    

Every Child By Two celebrity spokesperson, Amanda Peet, appears on the cover and defends the importance of vaccination with her featured story.   Other articles highlight everything from recommendations for the seasonal flu shot and concern over the current whooping cough epidemic, to information about immunizations for travelers and how vaccines have shaped modern public health.

STAYING SAFE. Luke receives his flu vaccine on the one year anniversary of his illness.

And you won’t want to miss another great inspirational story that highlights Every Child By Two spokesperson, Luke Duvall.  The detailed account of Luke’s battle with H1N1 comes to life through this compelling story and his determination to spread the message about the importance of immunization against the flu really hits hard. 

Be sure to check out the full details of this insert here and share it with your friends and family.

  1. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Care to tango again? When you focus on the swine flu vaccine you focus on the shakiest pro-vaccine product on the market (and I am sure you know it). Why don’t you inform your readers as to how many countries outside the insulated USA have banned the use or discontinued the use of these vaccines due to the huge number of adverse reactions? India, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, just to name a few, have all had adverse reactions including high fevers, high pitched screaming in infants, seizures, narcolepsy and Gullain Barre Syndrome to the point of discontinuing vaccination.

    In fact one country in particular, Poland, completely refused swine flu vaccines last year. And guess what? They had no worse experience of swine flu than all of the countries that actively pushed for, and wasted money on, the swine flu vaccine and all without any adverse side effects. http://www.dddmag.com/news-Poland-Refuses-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-11910.aspx. The irony of the Polish story is that the one person who pushed publicly for the the vaccine, Janusz Kochanowski, the ombudsman for civil rights, actually contracted swine flu himself. Now it can be assumed that he either 1) had the vaccine he so aggresively promoted and STILL contracted the illness or 2) he was a complete hypocrite pushing for the vaccine and not getting it himself. Either way the situation, through irony, certainly undermines the ‘importance’ of vaccinating against such a mild illness. Stop shilling for big Pharma and start promoting health!

    Like

  2. Steve Michaels
    November 5, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    By the way, not to rain on your parade too much, but being in the UK the link does not work (I am assuming it’s because of being in the UK) but the link address shows this ‘great’ article to be in an ADVERTISING section. Who has paid for this commercial? Also, having read the Luke Duvall article, I was particlarly moved by the systemic promotion of vaccines over any sort of natural treatment protocol. http://www.3news.co.nz/Living-Proof-Vitamin-C—Miracle-Cure/tabid/371/articleID/171328/Default.aspx

    After his family fought for a natural treatment (including legal intervention) while he was, according to the medical ‘professionals’ on his deathbed, Allan Smith eventually left the hospital within 13 days of vitamin treatment after doctors said he had no chance of survival. Search for the truth!!

    Like

  3. Chris
    November 6, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Oooh… news reports from other countries! That is compelling. Not.

    Like

  4. November 6, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    @Steve Michaels – Re Poland

    According to Wikipedia, 181 deaths in Poland are attributed to 2009 H1N1.

    Did more people die in Poland because 2009 H1N1 vaccine was not available? The sensible answer is yes — but someone needs to provide the statistics.

    The facts are very simple.
    2009 H1N1 strains replaced earlier H1N1 strains other influenza A and influenza B strains for the 2009-2010 flu season and earlier. The 2009 H1N1 vaccine was antigenically similar to near 100% of all strains of 2009 H1N1. 2009 H1N1, compared to typical influenza went after those with decent immune systems who would be expected to have a great response to the vaccine.

    So we have a very effective vaccine that works in those at risk of influenza. So the vaccine would have made a difference if it had been available on time and if the Polish people would have taken it.

    I expect there will be a study or two that estimates the unnecessary death toll.

    Like

  5. Steve Michaels
    November 7, 2010 at 6:45 am

    How about an objection of substance. The news reports that are seen in the US are highly propagandized, but more important are the reports you never see. Right now in the US there is a push for school children to be given statins drugs even if they are asymptomtic, while in the UK the British Medical Journal is openly questioning efficacy AND reporting on serious side effects. How is that being reported in the States? And considering how much of the US media is controlled by the Murdoch family, consider their position with GSK and you will see a huge conflict of interest between biased reporting and share holder profiteering.

    Like

  6. Steve Michaels
    November 7, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Fisrtly, the efficacy of the vaccine is HIGHLY questionable. Aside from the immunogenic question as to whether an antibody response actually confers protection (ref to HIV where antibody response claims infection NOT protection) the vaccines themselves, on the package insert make many statements that most doctors (let alone patients) actually read and understand. Directly from Novartis:

    14.1 Immunogenicity in Adults (18 to 64 years of age)
    Tables 4 and 5 show the immunogenicity data for the adult age group. The seven clinical studies presented enrolled a total of 774 adult subjects. In the adult group, for all antigens (A/H1N1, A/H3N2 and B) at least one of the following point estimate criteria was met: the proportion of subjects with seroconversion (post-vaccination titer ≥1:40 from a pre-vaccination titer 2.5; the proportion of subjects with a post-vaccination hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titer ≥1:40 was greater than 70%.

    Please not that up to 30% did not have a theoritcally significant anti body response. That is hardly efficacious if you even buy the theory (which I don’t).

    Here’s your safety information from Novartis:

    WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

    If Guillain-Barré syndrome has occurred within 6 weeks of receipt of prior influenza vaccine, the decision to give Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks. (5.1)
    That’s on page 1!

    USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

    Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children less than 4 years of age. (8.1, 8.3, 8.4)

    Antibody responses to the trivalent seasonal Influenza Virus Vaccine manufactured by Novartis (FLUVIRIN) were lower in the geriatric population than in younger subjects. (8.5)
    That’s on page 2.

    Admission of lack of efficacy:
    5.4 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
    Vaccination with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine may not protect all individuals.
    That’s on page 5.

    You can read the whole thing here: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182242.pdf

    It is not pleasant reading for the shills who promote the corporate (for profit) healthcare that only REALLY profits when people are ill.

    Like

  7. Chris
    November 7, 2010 at 11:33 am

    That was one of last year’s five approved mono-valiant vaccines (one of which was approved for children). It is out of date, and a package insert. Package inserts are written by lawyers to cover their posterior. Plus you cherry picked one of the five. They are as scientific as your silly news reports.

    Can you try something more original, like actual data and evidence?

    Like

  8. Chris
    November 7, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Oh, forgot to include the link you cherry picked from:
    http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm181950.htm

    Now if you have evidence of any of those dire things happening, like an increase of GBS, please provide it. But if it is a news report, package insert, or something else that is not real evidence you will be ignored.

    (by the way, I believe you have been told many times before that package inserts are not real evidence, but you seem to have trouble learning that simple concept)

    Like

  9. Steve Michaels
    November 7, 2010 at 11:57 am

    I actually picked that one at random. So, lets see if I am reading you right… the package insert, which is REQUIRED by law to show multi phased studies on the product are NOT evidence? You beggar belief. By the way, a vaccine study, which in the case of Novartis was a sampling of 776 adults, does not even qualify for a Gallup Poll sampling for accuracy. I suggest you read up on the FDA requirements for these ‘legal’ CYA’s. The only results that are required to be released are those that are completed. If a company starts a study and gets a 75% adverse reaction rate, they can, and do, legally end the study prematurely and never report the results. They can then use the 25% without adverse reactions in the next study, thus biasing the sampling pool and continue this formula until the results match what the company wants to project. All thanks to the FDA protecting their corporate benefactors over public safety.

    Like

  10. Chris
    November 7, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    What kind of salad dressing do you want for that word salad? It makes very little sense. Since it is not referenced I will assume you just made it up.

    If you read the whole package insert it says the most common is defined as greater than 10%, and that was mostly a sore arm. They are mostly boiler plate that cover everything ever recorded, included the GBS from over thirty years ago (and even then those reports may have been coincidences).

    The package insert is not evidence. Something you have been told many many times. Do I need to repeat it for you again? Okay, I shall:

    The package insert is NOT evidence!

    Now here is the real data:

    Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Sep;10(9):643-51.
    Guillain-Barré syndrome after exposure to influenza virus.
    Lehmann HC, Hartung HP, Kieseier BC, Hughes RA.

    pidemiological studies have shown that, except for the 1976 US national immunisation programme against swine-origin influenza A H1N1 subtype A/NJ/76, influenza vaccine has probably not caused GBS or, if it has, rates have been extremely low (less than one case per million vaccine recipients). By contrast, influenza-like illnesses seem to be relevant triggering events for GBS. The concerns about the risk of inducing GBS in mass immunisation programmes against H1N1 2009 do not, therefore, seem justified by the available epidemiological data.

    Vaccine. 2010 Nov 3;28(47):7455-6. Epub 2010 Sep 9.
    Adverse reaction of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus vaccination in pregnant women and its effect on newborns.
    Lim SH, Lee JH, Kim BC, Jung SU, Park YB, Lee CS.

    Various adverse reactions developed after vaccination, but the symptoms were mild and resolved within several days without requiring any treatment or hospitalization.

    Vaccine. 2010 Oct 21;28(45):7248-55. Epub 2010 Sep 16.
    Adverse events following influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccines reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, United States, October 1, 2009-January 31, 2010.
    Vellozzi C, Broder KR, Haber P, Guh A, Nguyen M, Cano M, Lewis P, McNeil MM, Bryant M, Singleton J, Martin D, DeStefano F.

    Death, Guillain-Barré syndrome and anaphylaxis reports after 2009-H1N1 vaccination were rare (each <2 per million doses administered).

    Now, until you come up with equivalent evidence to support your claims you will be mocked and laughed at.

    Like

  11. Steve Michaels
    November 7, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Please allow me to cherry pick some more here. From CSL Afluria (your apparent pet product as it is the one that has been approved from 6 months of age):

    • Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is an inactivated influenza
    virus vaccine indicated for active immunization of persons ages 6 months
    and older against influenza disease caused by pandemic (H1N1) 2009
    virus. (1)
    • This indication is based on the immune response elicited by the seasonal
    trivalent Influenza Virus Vaccine manufactured by CSL (AFLURIA).
    CSL’s Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine and AFLURIA are
    manufactured by the same process. There have been no controlled clinical
    studies demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination
    with AFLURIA.

    Note the last line.

    USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS———————
    Information is based on studies conducted with seasonal trivalent Influenza
    Virus Vaccine manufactured by CSL (AFLURIA).
    • Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent
    Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers
    and in the pediatric population below 6 months of age. (8.1, 8.3, 8.4)
    • Antibody responses were lower in geriatric subjects than in younger
    subjects.

    Sounds suspiciously like the Novartis PI.

    8.1 Pregnancy
    Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine or AFLURIA. It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.
    8.3 Nursing Mothers
    Neither Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine nor AFLURIA has been evaluated in nursing mothers. It is not known whether Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine or AFLURIA is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is administered to a nursing woman.

    Again suspiciously similar to Novartis, and particularly relevant considering the CDC and WHO recommendation for compulsory vaccination of pregnant women.

    12.1 Mechanism of Action
    Influenza illness and its complications follow infection with influenza viruses. Global surveillance of influenza identifies yearly antigenic variants. For example, since 1977 antigenic variants of influenza A (H1N1 and H3N2) and influenza B viruses have been in global circulation. Specific levels of hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titers post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccine have not been correlated with
    protection from influenza virus. In some human studies, antibody titers of 1:40 or greater have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50% of subjects.

    Read this in plain English and it says that in up to 50% of subjects that titers of 1:40 or greater MAY (in legalese this is translated as does not) associate with protection. That is up to 50% of the 97.8% (H1N1) may have some level of protection. That translates to 48% may achieve the criteria and 52% will not. Hardly efficacious. Especially when combined with the fact the the placebo group showed HI titers greater than 1:40 in 74.6% for H1N1 WITHOUT the vaccine. Let me translate that again: based on this study, 74.6% of the population ALREADY have the required HI titer ratio so the vaccine has increased the HI titer ratio in 22% of the population. These numbers do not in any way justify mass vaccination given the high level of adverse reactions.

    Now I fully understand that this year’s vaccine is a polyvalent mixture of antigens and as such may not have the same characteristics. However, I submit to you that something that is rubbish, when mixed with other antigens that are rubbish, then add in thimerosal, aluminium, squalene and various antifungals and formaldahyde will still be rubbish.

    Like

  12. Chris
    November 7, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Package inserts are not evidence.

    What high rate of adverse reactions? What reactions? A sore arm? Titers of who? Which particular vaccine? Why the 1977 strain? Percentage of what?

    Your “translation” is just a mixed up word salad that does not make any sense.

    Oh, and more on GBS: Preliminary Results: Surveillance for Guillain-Barré Syndrome After Receipt of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine — United States, 2009–2010:

    Of the 326 persons with GBS, 27 had documentation of 2009 H1N1 vaccination in the 42 days preceding illness onset, 274 did not receive vaccine, and the vaccine status of 25 was either unknown (six) or pending ascertainment (19) (Table 1). Sixteen of the 27 (59%) with documentation of 2009 H1N1 vaccination also reported antecedent illness symptoms in the 42 days before GBS onset; 78% of unvaccinated persons with GBS (215 of 274) reported antecedent symptoms (p=0.04). No clustering among vaccinated persons was observed in the period between vaccination and illness onset (p=0.54). Among the 27 GBS patients with 2009 H1N1 vaccination, four required ventilator support, and one remained hospitalized 30 days after GBS onset; among the 274 GBS patients who did not receive 2009 H1N1 vaccination, 37 (14%) required ventilator support, and 34 (12%) remained hospitalized after 30 days. Eight (2%) of the 326 GBS patients died (from any cause); none of the eight had received the 2009 H1N1 vaccine within 42 days of illness onset.

    Most of the GBS patients did not have the vaccine.

    Like

  13. Chris
    November 7, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    From the whole package insert of Afluria (which you are claiming to use) , page 15, Table 5 (ages 18 to 65):
    Vaccine Strain: H1N1
    Seroconversion Rate*,(95% CI): 48.7%, (45.6, 51.7)
    HI Titer greater or equal to 1:40†, (95% CI): 97.8%, (96.7, 98.6)

    (* Seroconversion rate is defined as a 4-fold increase in post-vaccination HI antibody titer from pre-vaccination titer greater or equal to 1:10, or an increase in titer from less than 1:10 to greater or equal to 1:40. Lower bound of 95% CI for seroconversion should be greater than 40% for the study population.
    † HI titer greater or equal to 1:40 is defined as the proportion of subjects with a minimum post-vaccination HI antibody titer of 1:40. Lower bound of 95% CI for HI antibody titer greater or equal to 1:40 should be greater than 70% for the study population.)

    Now page 18, Table 4, effectiveness in children from six months to three years old:
    Vaccine Strain: H1N1
    Dose 1:
    Seroconversion Rate*,(95% CI): 16.1% (greater than 11.3)
    HI Titer greater or equal to 1:40†, (95% CI): 16.1% (greater than 11.3)
    Dose 2:
    Seroconversion Rate*,(95% CI): 95.0% (greater than 90.8)
    HI Titer greater or equal to 1:40†, (95% CI): 95.7% (greater than 91.7)

    Table 4, effectiveness in children from greater than three to nine years old:
    Vaccine Strain: H1N1
    Dose 1:
    Seroconversion Rate*,(95% CI): 24.3% (greater than 18.5)
    HI Titer greater or equal to 1:40†, (95% CI): 25.7% (greater than 19.8)
    Dose 2:
    Seroconversion Rate*,(95% CI): 93.9% (greater 89.3)
    HI Titer greater or equal to 1:40†, (95% CI): 95.5% (greater than 91.2)

    Unfortunately it never gave the references for “Study 4”, so it is difficult to go back and confirm. One primary reason package inserts are not evidence.

    Like

  14. Chris
    November 7, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    However, I submit to you that something that is rubbish, when mixed with other antigens that are rubbish, then add in thimerosal, aluminium, squalene and various antifungals and formaldahyde will still be rubbish.

    There is still not squalene in American vaccines. But you own liver is making plenty for you. That is, if you have a healthy liver. Remember without squalene, you would not be alive.

    Also your body is also making formaldehyde as part of normal cell metabolism. Again, without it, you would not be alive.

    None of the pediatric vaccines have thimerosal.

    Aluminum is the most common metal in the earth’s crust. It is a major component of the most common mineral that makes up soil. You know, the stuff that food plants are grown in, so you consume many micrograms per say. If you ever fell and scraped your knee, you probably got a nice dose of aluminum from the feldspars.

    Rubbish, indeed!

    Like

  15. Steve Michaels
    November 7, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    I am so sorry Chris, I thought you were someone with knowledge. Not just shooting off the hip. If a product’s own labeling says it only works ‘maybe’ 50% of the time, that is not efficacious. As far as the issues of aluminium, your belie your lack of knowledge and understanding that it is a heavy metal and highly toxic. The evidence of this is so overwhelming as to not really warrant further response. As far as squalene goes, it has already been shown that HCG, the pregnancy hormone, had been placed into tetanus vaccines and given to women without their knowledge. This occurred in the Philippines. Here is an excerpt from the article:

    “The Philippine Medical Association reported that nine of the 47 vaccine samples tested were found to contain hCG, and released a letter signed by the three Philippine physicians who actually tested the vaccines. The PMA president attested to the veracity of the letter and the testing process. All the vaccines sampled were taken from various health centers in Luzon and Mindanao. Almost all of them were labeled by one of two Canadian firms, Connaught or Intervax. All the samples were tested with an immunoassay-based method developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. ”

    Why is this important? Because the women who received this vaccine developed an antibody response to HCG and miscarried when they became pregnant. The first large scale use of squalene was in the anthrax vaccine given to soldiers in the first Gulf War. The ONLY thing all victims had in common was an abnormal antibody response to squalene. If you have any understanding of the human immune system, you would know that the first line of defense is the mucosal response. This response acts as a ‘friend or foe’ alert mechanism for subsequent immune responses. This means that substances that occur naturally within the body are recognized and internal immune response is turned off. In vaccines, this step is bypassed allowing the antibody and T-cell response to occur with substances that would have already been recognized through normal entrance tracts, skin, mucous or intenstinal. Once this occurs, the body begins to attack its own normally occurring substances. In case you are unaware, this is what is called ‘auto-immune disease’.

    Like

  16. Steve Michaels
    November 7, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    The most bountiful gas in the atmosphere is nitrogen, if you breathe it exclusively you will die. Just because something naturally occurs does not make it safe or non-toxic. That is a silly argument. And in the case of aluminium, it’s toxicity is beyond question. It has been linked to Alzheimers and other diseases already. And since formaldahyde is so abundant in the body, why do people’s bodies get embalmed? Or can a person survive embalming since formaldahyde occurs naturally in the body? Of course not!

    Like

  17. Steve Michaels
    November 7, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    A bit more on squalene:

    A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:

    “ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.

    In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”

    According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia:

    “… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called “Gulf War Syndrome,” documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.

    The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”

    The very fact that this oil is naturally present in the body is the reason a squalene adjuvant is so dangerous!

    Like

  18. November 7, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    Product inserts for influenza vaccination include information that comes from VAERS or similar. VAERS is a passive adverse event reporting system for the US. Anyone can report any symptom after vaccination. If you report a serious adverse event that is new, expect it to show up the next time the product insert is modified.

    VAERS data does not imply correlation let alone causation. That’s made clear here http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

    As to squalene, last year I got 2009 H1N1 vaccine that used only 25% as much antigen and 20% of the thimerosal as any of the US 2009 H1N1 vaccines that came in 10 dose vials. That’s because it was adjuvanted with AS03, a squalene type adjuvant. Squalene adjuvanted vaccines were used in Canada and Europe. I’m not aware of any problems from them except that they resulted in more arm soreness or other short term injection site concerns. That’s what happened to me — my arm hurt more last year than it did this year when I got vaccinated with an unadjuvanted trivalent flu vaccine from a 10 dose vial.

    Considering the dire predictions from vaccination opponents, last years influenza vaccine was safe and effective as expected.

    Like

  19. Steve Michaels
    November 8, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Sheldon,
    You must obviously be aware that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. If the level of antigen or adjuvant is at a level where, say, only 1 in 1000 react to it, then a single case of non-reaction means nothing (and neither does a single case of reaction). And whilst you are correct that ‘reported adverse effects’ on a package insert do include reports to VAERS, they are the reactions NOT quantified and do NOT appear in the ‘clinical’ trials statistics. And, in any event, if you read the US Government disclaimer on VAERS, it states that no causality is proven AND all reports are voluntary and under those conditions, as many as 90% of adverse reactions are NEVER reported to VAERS. That’s the Government’s own disclaimer. It doesn’t take much research (unless Obama is already blocking international news sites) to find that India, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden have all banned the use of different vaccines because of high rates of palsies, narcolepsy in children, seizures and convulsions.

    Like

  20. Steve Michaels
    November 8, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Also, I am assuming you are in Canada, I remember a report last year (it would take some digging to find it now) that Canadian health authorities were counting anyone who died after contracting ‘clinical’ swine flu as dying ‘from’ swine flu. The two cases that were highlighted were a woman who was ‘clinically’ diagnosed (see above comment about accuracy of ‘clinical’ diagnosis) as having contracted swine flu and then died as a result of a motoring accident, and the other was an older gentleman who died six months after his ‘diagnosis’ from a heart attack. Both were listed as dying ‘after contracting swine flu’ as the category was named. This is the type of statistical game playing that fear mongers use.

    Like

  21. November 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    I gave a personal anecdote about my experience but immediately tied it to the experience of the millions of people vaccinated with adjuvanted influenza vaccine. Of course, my personal experience is worthless as a guide to whether or not a vaccine is safe. Just as the personal experience of a parent who observes (or later decides to have observed) a regression into autism into autism is totally, totally worthless in reaching a conclusion that vaccines caused the autism. Glad we can agree on that and that Jenny McCarthy’s ‘mommy knows’ argument is worthless.

    As to the other concerns, you can find them addressed elsewhere. As someone who accuses others of fear mongering, you seem to take to it quite handily.

    Like

  22. Steve Michaels
    November 8, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Clinical testing of simply taking vitamin D3 supplements and treatment with vitamin C if infected have shown themselves to be vastly superior to preventing and treating swine flu than pharmacuetical concoctions of known toxins being injected unnaturally and bypassing normal immune response. How on Earth does that constitute ‘fear mongering’???? The companies’ own efficacy studies show that 77% of people already have the theoretical immune response WITHOUT vaccines and of the remainder ‘up to 50%’ MAY be confered immunity by the vaccine, that is, to be more precise, 11% MAY benefit but ALL get known toxins. Toys were pulled off the market because of trace amounts of lead in the paint, yet you seem to think that aluminium and mercury (THE most toxic non-radioactive substance to mankind) injected into the body is fine.

    Travelling recently, the person sitting next to me on the flight and I got to talking about this stuff. He pointed out an amazing insight. He said that if you believe in natural selection, than everything that occurs is evolutionary. Point one, he said evolution is not necessarily progressive, and point two, if vaccines are dangerous and the ill informed choose to, or allow themselves to be coerced into, killing themselves, than it is natural selection. The issue comes down to this, who has the right to, without any real evidence of safety or efficacy, subject children to these experiments without their consent? The answer is NOBODY!. Shown me one study of vaccinated versus non vaccinated studies of overall health outcomes over 20 years. They don’t exist! We are told we are confered protection for anywhere from 5 to 10 years from being vaccinated, but adverse reactions have to occur within hour or days to count, otherwise its all ‘coincidental’ we are told. Only a fool would buy that argument.

    And don’t profess to speak for millions. It makes you sound arrogant.

    Like

  23. November 8, 2010 at 7:41 pm

    What a collection of crap. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Like

  24. November 8, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Let me apologize and retract the words from my last comment.

    But not the sentiment. Comments that respond to an earlier comment should narrow the issues being discussed — not widen them . Nor should a comment simply throw out item after item. That’s the “Gish Gallop” in action.

    Here we have a laundry list of concerns which take more time and space than warranted. That’s wrong.

    Like

  25. Chris
    November 8, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia

    Dude, she was a paleo geologist. She worked looking for minerals composed of teeny tiny fossils.

    Like

  26. Chris
    November 8, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    What does that word salad have to do with the influenza vaccine?

    Squalene in not used in the USA.

    Oh, and the antrax vaccine never contained squalene:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16762524

    The overall results of this investigation provide direct evidence for the absence of squalene in nearly all of anthrax vaccine preparations tested.

    Like

  27. Chris
    November 8, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    So you only understand that the dose makes the toxin just for certain things.

    There is much less aluminum in a vaccine than in your food.

    Like

  28. Chris
    November 8, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    You must obviously be aware that anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

    Then stop using it. That means no news reports, nor VAERS.

    Like

  29. Chris
    November 8, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    Agreed. He must be reminded that this is about the seasonal flu vaccine, and adult pertussis vaccinate, but mostly about the influenza vaccine. He is flailing about bringing up side issues, and old talking points that he actually used before without success.

    From now on, remind him that even he said not to use anecdotes, and to bring up real evidence: and not the package inserts.

    Like

  30. Chris
    November 8, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    Clinical testing of simply taking vitamin D3 supplements and treatment with vitamin C if infected have shown themselves to be vastly superior to preventing and treating swine flu

    And you didn’t bother to list them because….?

    Stick to the influenza subject. Don’t go off on other tangents.

    Oh, and this old canard:

    Shown me one study of vaccinated versus non vaccinated studies of overall health outcomes over 20 years.

    First off, don’t even mention it again until you can come up with a design that protects the unvaxed arm of children from mumps, measles, pertussis, Hib, etc. If you go and say, “Oh, then just use the ones that voluntarily don’t vax.”, then I will point you to the several large scale epidemiological studies that have been done of the past few decades in several countries. That claim is just another moving the goal posts ploy, perpetuated by people you who think that a geologist would actually know as much biology as an immunologist (she doesn’t).

    If you want studies, go to pubmed. Put in the term “influenza vaccine epidemiological” and click search. To reduce a bit, I chose only the review studies… here is a partial list:

    Schultz-Cherry S, Jones JC.
    Adv Virus Res. 2010;77:63-84. Review.PMID: 20951870 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine for 2010-2011.
    [No authors listed]
    Med Lett Drugs Ther. 2010 Oct 4;52(1348):77-9. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 20885341 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Utility of virosomal adjuvated influenza vaccines: a review of the literature.
    Gasparini R, Lai P.
    J Prev Med Hyg. 2010 Mar;51(1):1-6. Review.PMID: 20853669 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    [Evaluation of alum-adjuvanted whole virus influenza vaccine and future aspects of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccine].
    Ihara T.
    Uirusu. 2010 Jun;60(1):69-78. Review. Japanese. PMID: 20848866 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Free ArticleRelated citations

    [Basic epidemiological characteristics of influenza infection].
    Kyncl J, Havlícková M.
    Klin Mikrobiol Infekc Lek. 2010 Aug;16(4):116-9. Review. Czech. PMID: 20809461 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Guillain-Barré syndrome after exposure to influenza virus.
    Lehmann HC, Hartung HP, Kieseier BC, Hughes RA.
    Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Sep;10(9):643-51. Review.PMID: 20797646 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    [Review of the sudden death and death following immunization of influenza vaccine]
    Li KL, Wu WD, Liu DW.
    Zhongguo Ji Hua Mian Yi. 2010 Jun;16(3):270-4. Review. Chinese. PMID: 20726274 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    The need for quadrivalent vaccine against seasonal influenza.
    Belshe RB.
    Vaccine. 2010 Sep 7;28 Suppl 4:D45-53. Review.PMID: 20713260 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Seasonal influenza and vaccination coverage.
    Monto AS.
    Vaccine. 2010 Sep 7;28 Suppl 4:D33-44. Review.PMID: 20713259 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    The 2009-2010 influenza pandemic: effects on pandemic and seasonal vaccine uptake and lessons learned for seasonal vaccination campaigns.
    Poland GA.
    Vaccine. 2010 Sep 7;28 Suppl 4:D3-13. Review.PMID: 20713258 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns for health care personnel: systematic review.
    Lam PP, Chambers LW, MacDougall DM, McCarthy AE.
    CMAJ. 2010 Sep 7;182(12):E542-8. Epub 2010 Jul 19. Review.PMID: 20643836 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Free PMC ArticleFree textRelated citations

    Dendritic cell vaccines for the immunocompromised patient: prevention of influenza virus infection.
    Decker WK, Safdar A.
    Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010 Jul;9(7):721-30. Review.PMID: 20624046 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    2009 pandemic influenza: a review.
    Faruqui F, Mukundan D.
    Curr Opin Pediatr. 2010 Aug;22(4):530-5. Review.PMID: 20601883 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Control of influenza in healthcare settings: early lessons from the 2009 pandemic.
    Carlson AL, Budd AP, Perl TM.
    Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2010 Aug;23(4):293-9. Review.PMID: 20592530 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Perspectives on influenza evolution and the role of research.
    Forrest HL, Webster RG.
    Anim Health Res Rev. 2010 Jun;11(1):3-18. Review.PMID: 20591210 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Influenza, including the novel H1N1, in organ transplant patients.
    Ison MG.
    Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2010 Aug;23(4):365-73. Review.PMID: 20581671 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    [Infectiology and tropical medicine 2010]
    Löscher T, Bogner JR.
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010 Jun;135(25-26):1315-21. Epub 2010 Jun 16. Review. German. No abstract available. PMID: 20556690 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    The 2009 A (H1N1) influenza virus pandemic: A review.
    Girard MP, Tam JS, Assossou OM, Kieny MP.
    Vaccine. 2010 Jul 12;28(31):4895-902. Epub 2010 May 27. Review.PMID: 20553769 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Prevalence of influenza vaccination and associated factors among pregnant women in Hong Kong.
    Lau JT, Cai Y, Tsui HY, Choi KC.
    Vaccine. 2010 Jul 26;28(33):5389-97. Epub 2010 Jun 11. Review.PMID: 20542072 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Ecology of avian influenza viruses in a changing world.
    Vandegrift KJ, Sokolow SH, Daszak P, Kilpatrick AM.
    Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 May;1195:113-28. Review.PMID: 20536820 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

    Like

  31. Steve Michaels
    November 9, 2010 at 4:35 am

    When I have a bit of time, I will look up MORE studies that you will no doubt say don’t count. The entire vaccine dogma is based on bad science and bad medicine. The original standard, smallpox vaccine, has been discontinued due to the number of cases it caused! Yes, that has been cited in a previous comment section. The British Medical Association recommended it’s use be stopped because it was actually increasing disease rates. Polio rates had increased from their ‘pre-modern’ medical rates by 90% BEFORE the vaccine was introduced. Afterwards, rates INCREASED until the definition of polio was changed to aeseptic meningitis. Yes, this has also been previously cited. The same trends have occurred with measles and mumps.

    The scientific method requires starting with a blank sheet of paper and dispassionately studying various groups and control groups to find out what happens. You cannot discard a ‘gold standard’ double blind placebo study of a given intervention because you claim you must “come up with a design that protects the unvaxed arm of children from mumps, measles, pertussis, Hib, etc”‘ That is completely unscientific. You are entering into the study assuming efficacy that has NEVER been proven. YOU are the one who is afraid of true studies that DON’T move the goal posts because they won’t work out in favor of your view. To listen to you, mankind only survived by chance until the great modern medical interventionist world saved us and gave great health and no disease. It is convoluted and invalid rational thought to say that you must protect children from potentialities that, firstly they may never be exposed to, and secondly, are treatable if they are, when the claim of protection is the VERY thing being studied.

    The studies that HAVE been done are along the lines of ‘group A smokes Marlboro, group B smoke Newport, no difference in cancer rates found, therefore smoking does not cause cancer’.

    Like

  32. Steve Michaels
    November 9, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Chris let me ask you a question. WHAT is evidence in your mind? I have on previous threads brought out university, peer-reviewed studies and been told, ‘oh we don’t count that one’ or ‘nobody puts any stock in THAT’. Those types of statements are provided against evidence and then treated as a priori proof that the evidence has no value. I have attack the evidence provided you your lot because they have NEVER been true double-blind placebo studies. NEVER, only double-blind COMPARATIVE studies that show nothing except whether 2 different versions of the same basic product work better or worse as compared to each other. That is a substantive objection, claiming consensus is not. Consensus said the world was flat, that gravity was the primary phycial force and that witches should be burned at the stake (when they didn’t even exist). Consensus is nothing.

    You say my arguments have been ‘used before without success’. Your definition of “without success” is by declaration, not offering of proof. That, my friend, is the definition of ‘dogma’, belief based on belief, even in the face of evidentiary falsehood.

    Like

  33. Steve Michaels
    November 9, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    And now the silence….

    Like

  34. Chris
    November 9, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    It depends on the information wanted. For certain health issues the large surveys must be used for ethics issues. You cannot deny medical care to a large segment of children, and not tell them. Which is why epidemiological surveys are used. For a good explanation of how those work, read Paul Offit’s Autism’s False Prophets.

    I told you not to bring up the “double blind placebo” study without explaining how you would protect the placebo arm from measles, mumps, pertussis, Hib and other diseases that are returning. You have failed to do that.

    Unfortunately there have been double blind placebo studies on vaccines. They were done on disabled children in institutions. The conditions and the deliberate infecting of children with hepatitis in the Willowbrook School is why your little test will never ever, not ever again, be approved by an institutional review board on the treatment of human subjects.

    To learn about those studies by Koprowski, Krugman, and others read Arthur Allen’s Vaccine and Paul Offit’s biography of Maurice Hilleman, Vaccinate.

    I say again: Do not bring up that bit of goal post moving without explaining very very carefully how the children who get the placebo will be protected from getting diseases.

    Just about everything you say is wrong: “The original standard, smallpox vaccine, has been discontinued due to the number of cases it caused!”… Um, yeah… only after it was gone. It was used in a targeted way only in areas where it was still infecting people, which is describe in the book Inside the Outbreaks by Mark Pendergrast.

    You said “Polio rates had increased from their ‘pre-modern’ medical rates by 90% BEFORE the vaccine was introduced.”, which is classic cherry picking. The diseases a cyclic, and the chart you use is just a specific set of years.

    I also see that you claim that “Consensus said the world was flat,” which is flat out wrong. It has been known since ancient times that the world is a globe, and the circumference was measured over 2200 years ago.

    You not only do not understand you are wrong, but you cannot even get your examples of consensus right. You are a classic case of Dunning-Kruger. Before you try to argue again, try to double check your facts, and provide the reference (make sure it is not from John Scudamore of whale.to, where I read all of those canards years ago… they are as lame now as they were ten years ago, especially the really ignorant “polio is aseptic meningitis” lie — which only makes sense for a germ denier who does not understand that viruses are actually identifiable).

    Actually learn some of the science, and take a beginning course in statistics. Until you do, you will be either ignored or mocked depending on my mood.

    Like

  35. Chris
    November 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    I have a life, idiot. Get yourself to the library and start doing some real research, using real science. Try reading up on human medical research ethics. You can start using search words like Tuskegee and Willowbrook.

    Now I need to finish eating my lunch and get back to work.

    Like

  36. Steve Michaels
    November 9, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    And still no objections of substance. Read up on medical ethics of research done on humans paid for by the NIH and the CDC with YOUR tax dollars. Don’t lecture me on ethics. I actually have quite enjoyed displaying for all to see how little substance there really is to your dogmatic position.

    Like

  37. trrll
    November 9, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    No, a package insert is not evidence. Package inserts are very conservative, and generally mention every serious condition that has ever occurred after receiving the medication, even when it is likely coincidental.

    For example, to this day flu virus inserts caution about Guillain-Barré syndrome, even though there is no good evidence that flu vaccine has ever caused a single case of Guillain-Barré syndrome. There were some reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after flu vaccination in 1976. In fact, it was never clear that it had anything at all to do with the vaccine, and the actual number of cases reported weren’t that different from the number that would be expected without vaccination. But the flu season wasn’t turning out that bad, and they figured, “better safe than sorry, ” and stopped giving the vaccine. To this day, nobody knows if there is actually a risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome with flu vaccination. The additional risk with vaccination would have to be very small, perhaps 10% of the risk of getting Guillain-Barré even if you aren’t vaccinated. But just in case, the label continues to mention the possibility of a risk.

    No flu vaccine has every had a documented incidence of severe side effects that comes anywhere close to the risk of even a run-of-the-mill flu season.

    Like

  38. trrll
    November 9, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    When somebody uses the words, “it has been linked,” they are almost always trying to fool you. What does that actually mean? Not much of anything–just that somebody, somewhere, has speculated that there is a relationship. For example, people have looked very hard for a causal relationship between aluminum and Alzheimer Disease, and haven’t found one. So yes, “it has been linked;” you just don’t mention that the link turned out to be wrong. And in any case aluminum is very abundant, and we are exposed to a great deal of it in our daily life, far more than the tiny bit that will fit into a vaccine shot. So even if aluminum turned out to be bad for you, the problem would be the aluminum in your food, and in dirt, and your cookware, and lots of other things, not the minuscule fraction of aluminum exposure that comes from vaccines. And yes, the same thing is true of formaldehyde, and squalene (even if it were were in US vaccines, which it isn’t) and all of the other so-called toxins that the antivaxxers have turned to now that their previous boogymen–mercury and measles–have been proved to be nonsense.

    Like

  39. Chris
    November 9, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    Crikey! Here we have the classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in its natural habitat. Now we could be quiet, but this one is so dense that it has not run off like “Brave Sir Robin.” Notice how it flails about on to different subjects, without posting any real substantial evidence. That is a beautiful example of the Gish Gallop. See how it replies with the childish “If I am one, what are you” when confronted with several studies, and actual books referencing medical ethics. Ah, too bad these things are so common.

    Oh, look, it is dinner time. There will be more to mock tomorrow!

    Like

  40. trrll
    November 10, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Not only did it turn out that the vaccine did not contain squalene, but it was also shown that antibodies against squalene were just as common in people who never received the vaccine:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20206873

    This exemplifies a typical pattern: antivaxxers always cite the initial, weak paper that “links” an illness with a vaccine, and don’t even bother to even mention that subsequent, more careful studies showed that the link was wrong. (Among scientists, this sort of selective citation is regarded as dishonest).

    Like

  41. Steve Michaels
    November 10, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Your coming across as a bit nuts now.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: