Home > Expert Insights, Get Involved, Preventable Diseases, Seasonal Flu > Nurses Continue Emphasis on Immunizations

Nurses Continue Emphasis on Immunizations

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that 63% of healthcare workers received a seasonal influenza vaccine as of the beginning of November.  While this is a 7% increase over the number vaccinated by the same time last year, there is still significant room for improvement.

Healthcare workers include a wide variety of professions, such as nurses, dentists, lab technicians, OB/GYNs and many others.  These professionals have a great deal of contact with patients, and therefore are exposed to illness on a regular basis, which is why you might suspect they would want to be up-to-date on their vaccines.  However, we must also recognize the risks these workers pose to others if they themselves are infected.  It is possible for workers to be contagious before they realize they are ill.  During that time it is also possible that they could unknowingly spreading illnesses, such as influenza, to vulnerable patients.

Take, for instance, the example of a newborn child.  As a parent, your most important concern is for the well-being of your baby.   That’s why you may insist that friends and family members who want to visit your child, both in the hospital and at home, are immunized.  However, how would you feel if you discovered that almost 40% of the people providing care for your child are not immunized against seasonal flu?

As parents and patients we often assume that those caring for us and our loved ones are doing everything possible to protect us, and that includes getting immunized.  While we are seeing encouraging statistics to suggest that they are, this is not a universal requirement in the healthcare industry and so there is still work to do to help improve healthcare worker vaccination rates.

Since nurses play a critical role as vaccinators, educators and role models for their patients, it’s important to highlight the efforts being made by the American Nurses Association (ANA) to help educate nurses on the importance of immunizations.  Not only do they offer a free Continuing Education (CE) course entitled Bringing Immunity to Every Community, they are doing their part to engage on the issue of influenza vaccination with their Unite to Fight the Flu! campaign.  Today, they’ve even planned a clever way to offer free CE credits with a live Twitter chat.     

To join today’s twitter chat from 12:30-1p.m. EST,  all one has to do is go to http://tweetchat.com/room/anachat or use the hashtag #anachat on Twitter.  The discussion will focus on facts about influenza, with a special emphasis made to dispel the myths about the flu vaccine.  This is a free event and both ANA members and non-members are encouraged to join. 

Nurses can also Unite To Fight the Flu! by using the resource toolkit that the ANA has developed .  This is designed to assist nurses in any role or setting with their influenza vaccination and outreach efforts. There is even a pledge that nurses can take that says they recognize that vaccines are safe and effective, and vow, as champions of immunizations, that they will do their best to protect their patients, as well as their community, by being up-to-date on their immunizations.   

Nurses are also encouraged to take advantage of the ANA’s  Bringing Immunity to Every Community initiative. This program, developed by ANA and Every Child by Two (ECBT), is an innovative webcast designed to help nurses learn about vaccine safety and patient communication. Combining a nurse-panel presentation with patient-nurse video vignettes, this course offers practical knowledge and skills to increase immunization competency to those professionals who are most often the administrators of immunizations.

In a previous interview with Mary Beth Koslap-Petraco, DNP, PNP-BC, CPNP, who was on the Advisory Panel for this initiative, I asked her to elaborate on the nurse’s role in immunization services. She explains,

 “I have heard others say “Nurses own immunizations”. That’s because nurses are able to take the time to teach our patients and their families about immunizations and vaccine preventable diseases. I believe nurses are the driving force behind immunization programs and I want to share that message with nurses and give them the tools they need to keep promoting and administering vaccines.

It’s undeniable that nurses have a critical and influential connection with patients.  The way in which they handle immunization questions and concerns with their patients is often a deciding factor as to whether patients get immunized.  Recently, in a conversation with Dr. William Shaffner, he refered to a study which suggests that a patient is twice as likely to get immunized if a doctor recommends a vaccine.  But today I ask this; how much more likely are patients to get vaccinated, or not, based on the information they receive from their nurse?

In honor of National Influenza Vaccination Week, please take a moment to thank a nurse, as well as all other healthcare workers, for making the health of others a priority in their profession.    I, for one, am glad that they endure what they do to help myself and my loved ones.  Even if that involves jabbing me with a needle!

  1. cia parker
    December 8, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Lisa Marks Smith was one of many who have reacted to the flu vaccine with paralysis. Hers only lasted four years, but that of many has been permanent, and many have died from the vaccine. Now that the word is out that the flu vaccine is the most reactive of the vaccines, is often ineffective, often causes the flu symptoms it was supposed to prevent, and can produce the severest of adverse events, increasing numbers not only of health care workers but of the population at large, are refusing it. Unless you pay fifty cents extra for the mercury-free version, it has the full complement of thimerosol. The aluminum in it is responsible for the twenty-fold increase in Alzheimer’s in the U.S. since 1980. Remedies like Sambucol, and homeopathic bryonia and oscillococcinum have cured me when I’ve had the flu, with none of the attendant dangers of the vaccine.

    Like

  2. Chris
    December 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Citation needed, for everything.

    Though there is this:
    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Moran.Marks-Smith%2007%2024%202009.pdf

    And this:
    Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Sep;10(9):643-51.
    Guillain-Barré syndrome after exposure to influenza virus.

    Like

  3. Steve Michaels
    December 12, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    How about a citation to document how all of those who didn’t get a flu vaccine either dropped dead, were critically ill or infected millions of people? That was the fear tactic used to pressure many health professionals into getting vaccinated (particularly during the swine flu fear mongering psuedo pandemic)…. Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to provide citations?

    Like

  4. Steve Michaels
    December 12, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    Although I do applaud you for providing a citations that link infuenza vaccines to GBS and compensation being paid out for it. Quote from your source:

    “Given that the respondent has opted not to contest this matter further by obtaining an
    expert or by challenging the evidence contained in the record, and having reviewed the medical
    records and the supporting opinion of a medical expert, the Court finds that petitioner has
    established that she is entitled to compensation.”

    I think ALL of your readers should be aware not just of a citation, but what it actually says. Particularly when it flies in the face of the general party line.

    Like

  5. Nathan
    December 12, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    Hi, Steve,

    How about a citation to document how all of those who didn’t get a flu vaccine either dropped dead, were critically ill or infected millions of people? That was the fear tactic used to pressure many health professionals into getting vaccinated

    I would love to see a citation where health professionals were pressured into getting vaccinated by telling them that if they didn’t, they would drop dead, become critically ill, or infect millions of people. This may occur in the world within your mind, but not in the real world.

    If someone told me that those things would happen if I didn’t get vaccinated, I would ask them for a citation as well. But I was told, like most, that vaccination reduces my chances of getting influenza, and reduces the chance that I will spread it to others, including children with medical conditions that put them at the highest risk from influenza disease. And yes, I can provide citations for those facts if you wish.

    I think ALL of your readers should be aware not just of a citation, but what it actually says. Particularly when it flies in the face of the general party line.

    No, that’s pretty much the party line. GBS is an extremely rare possible complication of influenza disease. Though several large epidemiological studies have not found an associatiation between GBS and influenza vaccine, such as:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1006736

    the ones that have found an association place it at less than one per one million doses. Thus, it is compensatable in vaccine court if you develop it within a certain timeframe after the vaccine, and you don’t even have to prove that the vaccine caused it.

    You might want to pay more attention to the links that Chris gave. Though the first was about a GBS court case, the second concerns GBS after influenza disease. Which, as you should expect, is far more common. Here is another such article, a study with a full text.

    http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/1/48.full

    “it can be estimated that the incidence of influenza-related GBS relative to the number of cases of influenza is 4–7 cases of GBS per 100,000 cases of influenza.”

    Even better,

    “The link between GBS and influenza has long been viewed as a link between GBS and influenza vaccination on the basis of the report of an abnormally high number of GBS cases during the mass vaccination campaign against swine influenza in the United States during 1976–1977 [6]. Our study demonstrates that there is also a risk of GBS after influenza virus infection in adults, with an expected frequency much higher than that after influenza vaccination using either inactivated vaccines (1 GBS case per 1,000,000 vaccinated persons [34–36]) or live attenuated vaccines (2 GBS cases per 2,500,000 vaccinated persons [37]). Tam et al. [38] recently provided evidence that influenza vaccination might actually protect against GBS. These authors pointed out that this finding was not inconsistent with an absolute increase in GBS risk after vaccination but that it indicated a smaller risk than that after influenza.”

    And it is worth pointing out that GBS that occurs after vaccination is compensatable, while GBS from wild influenza is not. If you don’t want to get GBS, getting your flu vaccine is the way to go.

    So, the “party line” is that although influenza vaccination may rarely cause GBS, it protects against a much greater risk of GBS.

    Like

  6. Quokka
    December 15, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Bazinga Steve Michaels!

    Like

  7. Peter Holleran, M.A., DC
    March 30, 2014 at 4:04 am

    All this ignores some important facts. There are estimated over 200 “influenza-like-illnesses” (ili’s) that produce symptoms often associated with the flu, but which re NOT flu. That means that this often quoted 36000 deaths per year figure (which is really a clever combination of pneumonia and influenza deaths, not just influenza) is off by a factor of at least twenty (as only ten percent of ili’s are associated with influenza virus’s). Further, there are ten or so strains of influenza, mutating yearly if not constantly with the flu vaccine only targeting one or two. This reduces the incidence and mortality from the flu to a much much lower figure; factoring in a population of 300,000,000 people, the percentage is statistically minuscule. It also makes the chance of protection by the vaccine very low, basically less than a crap shoot. ‘Effectiveness’ of vaccines are only measured by presence of antibody titers, moreover, and that in itself (‘humoral’ immunity) is at best half of the immunity equation, with basic ‘cellular’ immunity (T-cells, cell membrane integrity, etc., etc) being the more important half. Unfortunately, the vaccines likely suppress this part of the immune system. Further, some vaccines (i.e., measles) are notorious for actually producing low antibody titers, and also the mere presence of antibody titers is NOT always a sign of protection against a virus. The public is sold a narrow view of human immunity.

    Flu vaccines still have thimerosol to the tune of 20000 ppb, 200ppb which is the amount requiring toxic squad intervention, and 2 ppb is the maximum allowable amount in the water supply, and also the dose that can alter neurological tissue. This ingredient in flu vaccine then is far and away a much greater neuro-toxic danger than the mere chance of getting the flu. Don’t be fooled also by the claim that other vaccines (especially pediatric vaccines) do not have thimerosol (ethyl mercury) anymore: the FDA only asked pharmaceutical companies about ten years ago to stop putting it in their vaccines, they were not required to do so. Even if they have stopped, they still use it in the manufacturing process itself, with the result that there is still 2000 ppb in all the other vaccines – which is still 100x the EPA’s maximum toxic dose. And the aluminum in the vaccines synergistically augments the deleterious affects of the mercury.

    Like

  8. Lawrence
    March 30, 2014 at 8:29 am

    @Peter – can you provide actual citations for any of that?

    Like

  9. Chris
    March 30, 2014 at 11:36 am

    What is it about chiropractors posting their baseless assertions on several year old comment threads? Are they trying to prove how out of touch they are from actual medical science?

    Like

  10. Narad
    March 30, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Peter Holleran, M.A., DC :
    All this ignores some important facts. There are estimated over 200 “influenza-like-illnesses” (ili’s) that produce symptoms often associated with the flu, but which re NOT flu.

    It’s more like four: parainfluenza virus, RSV, adenovirus, and M. pneumoniae. Anyway, this is an argument in favor of the flu?

    That means that this often quoted 36000 deaths per year figure (which is really a clever combination of pneumonia and influenza deaths, not just influenza) is off by a factor of at least twenty (as only ten percent of ili’s are associated with influenza virus’s).

    No, it doesn’t, because you haven’t assessed the prevalences or case-fatality ratios. As for the “clever combination,” when flu causes pneumonia and pneumonia causes death, the death is due to flu. You might note that people don’t die of, say, cancer, but rather complications of cancer.

    Further, there are ten or so strains of influenza, mutating yearly if not constantly with the flu vaccine only targeting one or two.

    You’re utterly clueless. The seasonal influenza vaccine has long been trivalent, with quadrivalent versions this season. There are not “ten or so” strains circulating every season; in general, one is dominant. And you want to know a great way to get influenza to mutate? By giving it a host.

    This reduces the incidence and mortality from the flu to a much much lower figure; factoring in a population of 300,000,000 people, the percentage is statistically minuscule.

    This doesn’t even make sense in the context of your previous statement. How would there being “ten or so” strains of influenza reduce incidence?

    It also makes the chance of protection by the vaccine very low, basically less than a crap shoot. ‘Effectiveness’ of vaccines are only measured by presence of antibody titers

    Wrong. Influenza vaccine effectiveness is measured like this.

    As the remainder of your babbling isn’t about influenza, I’ll leave it at that.

    Like

  11. Narad
    March 30, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    And, helpful hint: Listing an irrelevant, 30-year-old master’s degree as a credential is just embarrassing.

    Like

  12. Narad
    March 30, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    In retrospect, the previous comment was outside the SoP guidelines. I retract with apologies.

    Like

  13. Peter Holleran, M.A., DC
    March 30, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Chris :
    What is it about chiropractors posting their baseless assertions on several year old comment threads? Are they trying to prove how out of touch they are from actual medical science?

    Narad :
    In retrospect, the previous comment was outside the SoP guidelines. I retract with apologies.

    Narad :
    And, helpful hint: Listing an irrelevant, 30-year-old master’s degree as a credential is just embarrassing.

    Like

  14. Peter Holleran
    March 30, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    Hey Narad, at least I stated my background. But, I do not hold that as any more reason for the truth if what I say than if I were a graduate with an MD license. It is continued open continued study tract counts.

    As per your comments, I should have stated, “there are over 200 viruses that produce influenza-like-illnesses” which are taken as the flu. My statement that there are 200 ili’s was not correct. But my point is the same – much of what people and doctors assume is the flu is not caused by or associated with the flu virus, and therefore the flu vaccine de jour is much less effective than claimed. CDC estimates that 5-20% of Americans get flu each year; if only ten percent of that is due to flu virus (whether single or trivalent), that goes down to 1/2 – 2% get the flu. Mortality among those is what – 0.001%, even with the full 36000 figure? The vast majority of deaths attributed to flu are in older and immune compromised individuals – not normal healthy people – and as a percentage of 300,000,000 people, it is very very small, and not worth the risk of serious side effects as evidenced by the EPA, CDC, pharmaceutical company inserts, and thimerosol manufacturer’s warnings themselves regarding encephalopathies and other neurological damage from mercury- as pointed out by the government statistics on such levels that I included in the rest of my post.

    And yes, Chris, I can provide references; to save myself some time, please see Vaccine Epidemic by Habakus, Holland, edited, for starters.

    Btw, that was a cheap shot, Narad, regarding my degrees. Seems like an example of shoddy logic to make a “30-year-old” degree worthy less than, say, a “one-year-old” degree. Maybe I shouldn’t have listed my education, as degrees do not seem to matter much these days.

    Imo, it boils down to, as Mark Twain once said, “Tell me what a man gits for his corn pone, and I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions is.” Which means that it is difficult for a man to be objective about what he does for a living when his salary depends on his not being objective about it. That seems to be the state of the American pediatric physicians when they arrogantly dismiss the consensus of a majority of the rest of the developed world regarding: early massive use of vaccines in infants who have not yet developed a blood-brain barrier to filter out much of the heavy metals they contain; the lack of safety testing on trivalent vaccines (DPT, MMR) and the cumulative effect multiple doses of vaccines in one visit; and top global epidemiologists who do believe a connection of autism and vaccination exist, is practically undeniable, and at the very least warrants a full double-blind study with an unvaccinated control population – which has never been done and until it is done (but who will fund it – not the drug companies) there can be no irrefutable proof of such a connection and in fact the true efficacy of any vaccine. – Peter

    Like

  15. Lawrence
    March 30, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    @Peter – that last paragraph just shows how deluded you are & that your opinions fly in the face of decades of accumulated scientific evidence, including:

    http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

    And

    http://www.tycho.pitt.edu/

    Like

  16. Chris
    March 30, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    Mr. Holleran: “And yes, Chris, I can provide references; to save myself some time, please see Vaccine Epidemic by Habakus, Holland, edited, for starters.”

    I am sorry but lawyers are not by definition qualified medical researchers, especially those who have a conflict of interest by engaging in vaccine litigation, and who does not get IRB approval for a human subject study.. What you really need to provide are PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers showing that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the diseases.

    By “qualified” I mean someone with the relevant work/education background. This leaves out lawyers (even those not engaged in vaccine litigation), geologists, computer scientists, journalists, financial consults, business school professors and even chiropractors. By “reputable” I mean someone who has not had their legal right to practice medicine revoked and has not tried to influence legislators to help their vaccine litigation.

    So, do come up with those studies showing vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases. And if you are going to continue to claim it is mercury, then also tell us which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Do not include influenza because half of the eight approved for children do not contain thiimerosal.

    (note the DTP has been replaced by the DTaP, and the MMR vaccine has never contained thimerosal)

    Like

  17. Chris
    March 30, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Another suggestion is that you actually post those studies on articles listed on the right hand side of this page under the words: “Recent Posts on Shot of Prevention”

    Like

  18. Narad
    March 30, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Peter Holleran :
    As per your comments, I should have stated, “there are over 200 viruses that produce influenza-like-illnesses” which are taken as the flu.

    As noted, this is essentially false.

    My statement that there are 200 ili’s was not correct. But my point is the same – much of what people and doctors assume is the flu is not caused by or associated with the flu virus, and therefore the flu vaccine de jour is much less effective than claimed. CDC estimates that 5-20% of Americans get flu each year; if only ten percent of that is due to flu virus (whether single or trivalent), that goes down to 1/2 – 2% get the flu.

    As also noted, this too is incorrect. “What people and doctors assume is the flu” is not how the incidence is calculated. I suggest that you actually read the link provided above which explains exactly how it is.

    Mortality among those is what – 0.001%, even with the full 36000 figure?

    Overall mortality for 1976–2007 was 2.4 per 100,000. That’s 1262 people a year. If the trivalent vaccine were only 60% effective, that’s 631 families that wouldn’t have preventably lost a loved one.

    The vast majority of deaths attributed to flu are in older and immune compromised individuals – not normal healthy people –

    I see, people 65 years and older are not “normal healthy people,” so screw ’em. And pregnant women, who are at increased risk of complications from influenza (e.g., PMID 17283611). And infants, who have zero protection without early maternal vaccination. Unlike you, they’re abnormal (indeed, from the perspective of the maternal immune system, a fetus certainly is).

    and as a percentage of 300,000,000 people, it is very very small

    You have already demonstrated that your mathematical posturing is precisely that.

    and not worth the risk of serious side effects as evidenced by the EPA, CDC, pharmaceutical company inserts

    You don’t understand the difference between a “side effect” and an “adverse event,” but that’s to be expected. Moreover, you have utterly failed to provide a meaningful comparison between vaccine risk and disease risk.

    But this is all to be expected. What you willfully ignore is that reducing the susceptible pool reduces the infected pool. This benefits more than just the individual, as evidenced by the fact that vaccinating schoolchildren protects the elderly. Then again, Japan isn’t so big on filing the latter as irrelevant social abnormalities.

    Moreover, you also ignore the individual benefit in terms of greatly improved intervals before an immunized “normal healthy” individual is likely to have to suffer this disease, somthing that not only has no redeeming qualities, but also may worsen severity if one has the misfortune of contracting a related but nonidentical strain in the short term.

    Btw, that was a cheap shot, Narad, regarding my degrees. Seems like an example of shoddy logic to make a “30-year-old” degree worthy less than, say, a “one-year-old” degree. Maybe I shouldn’t have listed my education, as degrees do not seem to matter much these days.

    It was not shoddy logic, but it was a cheap shot and not within the commenting guidelines that our host has laid down, which is why I retracted it. I tend to be cranky when the first thing that happens in the day is having to do somebody else’s homework.

    Like

  19. Narad
    March 30, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    Moreover, you also ignore the individual benefit in terms of greatly improved intervals before an immunized “normal healthy” individual is likely to have to suffer this disease

    Calculated here for your convenience.

    Like

  20. Narad
    March 30, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Chris :
    What you really need to provide are PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers showing that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the diseases.

    Chris, I would revise this criterion to “Medline indexed.” PubMed indexes all kinds of stuff, particularly OA, without much of a care in the world as to quality.

    Like

  21. Chris
    March 30, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Nah, it just makes it more interesting when someone dredges up an editorial comment or a Geier paper.

    Like

  22. Peter Holleran
    March 31, 2014 at 3:35 am

    Well this is a complicated topic, to do justice to this we would need a symposium format and discuss fine points of immunity, and also discuss each disease and vaccine separately. But a few comments. I, of course, did not mean that the elderly were not important or normal! but if the CDC itself admits that 87% plus cases of flu are in those over 65 years old, then why the full-court press campaign to inoculate everyone?

    No line will admit that vaccination prevent sone being an asymptomatic carrier; in fact, the opposite may occur. So it is not proved that my or your vaccination protects the elderly or those in a hospital.

    The assertion of greater ‘wait time’ to get the flu if you have had the shot is purely a guess. No one knows that.

    The question of why keep the high, toxic level of thimerisol in the flu vaccine is unanswered. If they have truly reduced it in pediatric vaccines, knowing of the risk, why leave it in flu shots – recommended for anyone over six – the most toxic non-radioactive substance on earth, capable of causing neural changes in as low as 2 ppb, with a minimum residue of 2000 ppb in non-flu vaccines, and 20,000 ppb in flu shots (give or take)? Most developed countries have much less problem understanding this than we apparently do. As does the IOM in numerous reports.

    Also, I for one am curious about the way they even estimate the number of cases and deaths. Everyone who goes to their doctor and test diagnosed as having the flu does not have a sophisticated analysis or blood test and lab work done proving the presence of influenza virus.

    In my practice, I think I have seen one real case of flu in the last several years. And my patients perhaps are more healthy than average, but not spectacularly so. Personally I have never had it, and I breath a lot of germs. Which brings up the subject of whether humoral (antibody) immunity is any guarantee of total immunity. Virology scientists know this is not the case: cellular immunity, while harder to pinpoint, is even more important. In fact, with some vaccines, there is a notable ABSENCE of antibodies produced, and conversely the presence of antibodies does not always guarantee protection. It gets even more complicated, but if you are interested in what few doctors will talk about, look up ADE (antibody dependent enhancement). The presence of antibodies may in some cases even decrease one’s immunity.

    One last thought tonight, I have had ONE CASE reporting to me of having shingles in thirty years – where is it happening all over the place now? Walgreens’ parking lot? (sorry for the humor). Oh I forgot, there was one other case. I know it is ‘anecdotal’, but a friend of mine is a 68 year-old nurse at Marin General Hospital who told me he had the take-the-flu-shot-or-lose-your-job last year, and then just happened to get shingles a week later. Any connection? No way to prove it, but if his immune system was under assault by toxic mercury and virus’, anything is possible.

    I say giving these shots to the elderly – pending a true study with an unvaccinated control populated, the only way to settle this argument – IS criminal. And, again, this has never been done. A study by a reputed epidemiologist found a ten-fold increase in risk of Alzheimers in those who have had five our more flu shots. At least take out the mercury. okay? They say, “it is an adjuvant”, i.e., it increases the immune response. But that in itself has NOTHING to do with increasing antibodies or immunity to the disease, although that is the sales pitch.

    Have a good evening, Peter

    Like

  23. Peter Holleran
    March 31, 2014 at 3:37 am

    sorry for the typos, it is late

    Like

  24. Narad
    March 31, 2014 at 4:32 am

    Peter Holleran :
    Well this is a complicated topic, to do justice to this we would need a symposium format and discuss fine points of immunity

    No, there is no “symposium format” required, whatever that’s supposed to mean in the first place.

    and also discuss each disease and vaccine separately.

    No, you started with influenza and you can stick with it.

    But a few comments. I, of course, did not mean that the elderly were not important or normal!

    It’s unfortunate, of course, that you explicitly stated that they were not normal and then proceeded to throw them on the trash heap along with the immunocompromised, as well as the other categories that had to be brought to your attention.

    but if the CDC itself admits that 87% plus cases of flu are in those over 65 years old, then why the full-court press campaign to inoculate everyone?

    Did you actually read the paper about how immunizing schoolchildren demonstrably protected the elderly? Give it a try.

    No line will admit that vaccination prevent sone being an asymptomatic carrier; in fact, the opposite may occur. So it is not proved that my or your vaccination protects the elderly or those in a hospital.

    This is not exactly English, but you seem to be trying to change the subject to pertussis; there is zero issue of influenza vaccination turning people into “asymptomatic carriers,” so no soap. Nobody’s talking about “those in a hospital,” anyway; the subject is keeping people out of the hospital.

    The assertion of greater ‘wait time’ to get the flu if you have had the shot is purely a guess. No one knows that.

    It is not a “guess” in the slightest. It is straightforward mathematics, and I did the calculation all by my lonesome. If you would like to refine it, which is perfectly possible, then do so. Otherwise, put your hands back in your pockets.

    The question of why keep the high, toxic level of thimerisol….

    I have already stated that I am not interested in this diversionary tactic.

    Also, I for one am curious about the way they even estimate the number of cases and deaths.

    Gee, maybe you should try reading the explanations I’ve provided you. Just a thought.

    In my practice, I think I have seen one real case of flu in the last several years.

    You’re a chiropractor. If you’re “seeing” influenza patients, you’re outside your scope of practice. If you’re idly remarking about how many people you’ve come across who you think have the flu, the existence of your practice is of no more consequence that the practice of running a bowling alley.

    In fact, with some vaccines, there is a notable ABSENCE of antibodies produced, and conversely the presence of antibodies does not always guarantee protection. It gets even more complicated, but if you are interested in what few doctors will talk about, look up ADE

    I do not need to be told to “look up” things by someone who is plainly talking out of his hat. Please do not change the subject. You have been provided the exact method by which influenza VE is determined. As I have noted, it has nothing to do with antibody titers.

    One last thought tonight, I have had ONE CASE reporting to me of having shingles in thirty years – where is it happening all over the place now? Walgreens’ parking lot? (sorry for the humor).

    Not only do I not see any “humor,” I don’t see anything resembling a coherent remark.

    I say giving these shots to the elderly – pending a true study with an unvaccinated control populated, the only way to settle this argument – IS criminal. And, again, this has never been done.

    This is literally meaningless when it comes to seasonal influenza. However, let’s set this aside, as well as the fact that you are proposing medical experimentation on the elderly. While complaining that vaccination “IS criminal.” No problem, whatever.

    Provide an endpoint and the confidence level, statistical power, and acceptable signal threshold that you would accept to reject your hypothesis, whatever it is. Then you will have the sample size. If you cannot, you’re blowing smoke, and no combination of hyperbole and capital letters will change this.

    A study by a reputed epidemiologist found a ten-fold increase in risk of Alzheimers in those who have had five our more flu shots.

    Oh, do tell. A PMID will do.

    At least take out the mercury. okay? They say, “it is an adjuvant”

    Congratulations, you don’t even know what an adjuvant is and yet bizarrely claim that “basic ‘cellular’ immunity [is] the more important half,” the last word of which strongly suggests another clue shortage. Please do everyone a favor and at least familiarize yourself with this, which would provide a convenient reckoning point for specific assertions.

    Like

  25. Narad
    March 31, 2014 at 4:35 am

    ^ I’m hoping the blockquote fail is not so bad as to warrant a do-over.

    Like

  26. Chris
    March 31, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Mr. Halleran: ” but if the CDC itself admits that 87% plus cases of flu are in those over 65 years old, then why the full-court press campaign to inoculate everyone? ”

    Go to the top of the page. Read the title, then read the next full paragraphs. This article is about nurses getting the flu vaccine to protect their patients. Why are you going on about those over 65? And why do you think we should not get influenza to protect our parents, aunts and elderly neighbors?

    “The question of why keep the high, toxic level of thimerisol in the flu vaccine is unanswered”

    Do please provide the PubMed indexed study by reputable qualified researchers that the level of thimerosal in adult vaccines is “toxic””. Make sure that its toxicity matches that of tetanospasmin.

    Then also tell us which vaccine in the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal.

    Like

  27. Chris
    March 31, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Argh (trying to do to many things at once)

    “And why do you think we should not get the influenza vaccine to protect our parents, aunts and elderly neighbors?”

    Like

  28. Peter Holleran
    April 1, 2014 at 12:17 am

    For those who, like Narad, consider it a distraction to consider thimerosal levels in vaccines, particular multiple simultaneous doses as is commonly given to infants, and for those who wonder or draw premature conclusions as to why I do not automatically trust everything the government or pharmaceutical companies, the CDC, FDA, as well as doctors who blithely choose to agree with a heavily-lobbied ‘standard of care’, do, say, or offer as proof or definitive studies (which are often little more than marketing pieces, or self-serving distorted statistical hack-jobs presented as fact), perhaps a little history will help.

    In 1999 the AAP and USPHS issued a joint statement through HHS on mercury and vaccines, saying that in the U.S. vaccine program at the time, “some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over their first six months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines.”

    What an understatement! But at least they admitted there were guidelines (why?because there was an understood danger), and that they could be exceeded. Fact is the amount of mercury in childhood vaccines grossly exceeded the EPA maximum daily adult exposure for thimerosal. The EPA set a limit of 0.1 mcg per kilogram of body weight. A five kilogram (eleven pounds) baby at two years of age should not receive more than 0.5 mcg on any doctor visit. At the time of this AAP/USPHS statement such infants received at their two-month visit 62.5 mcg or 125 times the EPA limit. Studies have suggested that for thimerosal (ethyl mercury) the accepted amount should be lowered to between 0.025 and 0.06 mcg,which would mean this babies receivers 500 times the EPA maximum exposure!

    If you factor in the practice of many pediatricians of adding missed visits to ‘catch up’ with the vaccine schedule, this may be multiplied by two or three times. Such a dosage by any reasonable standard can be catastrophic for the immature nervous system in an infant. (This also applies to the flu vaccine which is recommended be taken many times over throughout life – each dose exceeding the EPA’s maximum limit.

    In 2002, Dr. Neal Halsey, director at the Institute of Vaccine Safety at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told the New York Times:

    “My first reaction was simply disbelief ..if the labels had had the mercury content in micrograms, this would have been uncovered years ago. But the fact is, no one did the calculation.”

    What was the response of HHS?

    “Given that the risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and much smaller risk, if any, of exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first six months of life, clinicians and parents are encouraged to immunize all infants..”

    Basically what the government did was lie, and say that the known risk was both ‘unknown’ and a ‘smaller risk’ than exposure to childhood illnesses (which had all been > 95% eradicated from earlier times when they posed a significant risk.

    The mercury levels in vaccines was so high that they were classified according to hazmat standards. As outlined in Pediatrics (2008):

    0.5 ppb (parts per billion) kills human neuroblastoma cells.
    2 ppb is the EPA’s limit in drinking water.
    20 ppb destroys human neurite membrane structure.
    200 ppb in the EPA’s l;evel classified as hazardous waste.
    25,000 ppb is the amount in hepatitis B vaccine administered at birth in the U.S. from 1990 to 2001.
    50,000 ppb is the concentration in multidose DTaP and Hib vaccines, given in the 1990’s at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 18 months of age – and currently the “preservative” level in multi dose flu vaccines (in 94% of the supply), meningococcal and tetanus vaccines (for children seven or older).

    This meant that, similarly to a broken thermometer in a day school, if a vaccine being used for children spills on the clinic floor, law would require hazmat teams to come in for clean-up. The media failed to bring this to light at least through the 2009-2010 flu vaccine campaign even as toxic waste companies advertised their services to dispose of the approx. 80 million unused doses of the H1N1 vaccine when that ‘crisis’, too, failed to materialize:

    “Clean Harbors, in Norwell, Massachusetts, is offering the service to healthcare providers because multiple doses of the vaccine contain enough mercury-based thimerosal to be treated as a hazardous waste….”

    In light of this isn’t it more than absurd for Paul Offet, MD to dare to state that “an infant can handle 10,000 vaccines – there is virtually no limit” ?!!! And you think this is not relevant? Is it not the height or arrogance (or ignorance) for pediatricians to march in lock-step to the AAP and assert, “we know there lis no danger or risk.” The rest of the developed world must be stupid.

    If anyone feels secure in believing all they are told by “authorities” might do well to at least listen to one of them – the Institute of Medicine (IOM) – which in 2000 released a report (now succeeded by an even more damning report which even John Hopkins was part of) showing that hospitals and doctors are the third leading cause of death in this country:

    12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery
    7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
    20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
    80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals
    106,000 deaths/year from NON-ERROR, adverse effects of medications [including vaccines]

    It added:

    “Between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience adverse effects in outpatient settings, with 116 million extra physician visits, 77 million extra prescriptions, 17 million ER visits, 8 million hospitalizations, 3 million long-term admissions, 199,000 additional deaths [estimates are now from 250,000 to 1,000,000], and $77 billion in extra costs.”

    And there is surprise that anyone who investigates would question the kind of reports, studies, and official dictums that have been offered as proof by retractors in this email exchange?

    This is just the tip of the iceberg on this subject. One final point. When the promise of life-long immunity for a disease after vaccination did not pan out, and increasingly it is not panning out, as studies and clinical evidence show [including a latest from a doctor at Kaiser Hospital, in my own backyard — see 2012 study by Dr. David Witt – March 20212, Clinical Infectious Diseases]— for DTaP, flu, tetanus, etc., etc., there are multiple shots and boosters urgently needed more and more as viral and bacterial resistance is growing and as patients fail to respond effectively – instead of doubting the initial paradigm, the pharmaceutical giants and their students only call for yet more shots. They now shout “we need 95% vaccinated to create ‘herd immunity’ – blaming ineffectiveness of vaccines ( and the incidence of disease – at least in this country – often only in the vaccinated population) solely on the unvaccinated. Who came up with this ad hoc concept of herd immunity? Mass vaccination has NOTHING to do with true herd immunity, where a disease burns itself out in a herd over centuries, through natural immunity being gained and passed on. The only herd immunity is immunity of this herd from critical thinking.This diversionary practice shows a lack of courage and intellectual dishonesty.

    The real call is for an unbiased, randomized double blind study with an unvaccinated control population to prove safety or efficacy of any vaccine – or any other drug. I repeat this because it is not obvious to some that this is the one thing that has never been done yet, and is resisted with many excuses by the trillion dollar drug industry. (i.e., “oh we couldn’t do that, it wouldn’t be humane” – give me a break: if you want to really prove a vaccine works and is safe, that is the only way to do it)

    




    Like

  29. Peter Holleran
    April 1, 2014 at 12:25 am

    P.S.

    Studies on vaccine science have not adequately studied the impact of compounding variables on infect rates. The method by which influenza transmits itself is poorly understood. Despite what has been asserted again and again in ‘official reports’, believe it or not there is a dearth of studies on the efficacy of vaccination, and no studies examining the effects of health care workers’ hand washing or taking time off when ill with an upper respiratory infection on transmission. Studies with volunteers subjecting themselves to direct exposure to flu droplets have not shown the virus to be highly transmissible. This is contrary to conventional wisdom. – But so was a doctor swallowing live cholera to disprove Jenner’s claims for his small pox ‘vaccine’ – and nothing happened. [btw, I don’t recommend trying that]

    Like

  30. Peter Holleran
    April 1, 2014 at 12:32 am

    Chris, you said:

    “Then also tell us which vaccine in the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal.”

    I already responded to that point: after repeated efforts to bring this to light, and pressure from even the CDC, the FDA finally ‘asked’ – not required – pharmaceutical companies to not put thimerosal in pediatric vaccines. My understanding is that, even so, they still use it in the manufacturing process itself, with the result that there is still 2000 ppb in most of these vaccines – which is less than 25000 ppb, but still 100x the EPA’s maximum toxic dose. And the aluminum in the vaccines synergistically augments the deleterious affects of the mercury. But they haven’t removed it as an adjuvant in influenza shots, which are also recommended to children several times. Simply staying this is not harmful will not make it go away.

    Like

  31. novalox
    April 1, 2014 at 2:08 am

    @peter
    [citation needed]

    Like

  32. Narad
    April 1, 2014 at 2:45 am

    Peter Holleran :
    For those who, like Narad, consider it a distraction to consider thimerosal levels in vaccines

    You are either short on reading comprehension or dishonest. The latter has already been demonstrated. My remark above concerned your attempt to change the subject with a blizzard of irrelevancies. Naturally, you persist in trying to do just this.

    In 2002, Dr. Neal Halsey, director at the Institute of Vaccine Safety at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told the New York Times

    You are again plagiarizing Vaccine Epidemic. The original item, in the NYT Magazine, is here. Please exhibit some originality; simply demanding responses to material that you put zero effort into regurgitating is nothing short of obnoxious.

    None of this is of any consequence, as Halsey’s application of the precautionary principle was plainly based on a generalization from methylmercury, which has since been investigated thoroughly and found to be inappropriate.

    This meant that, similarly to a broken thermometer in a day school, if a vaccine being used for children spills on the clinic floor, law would require hazmat teams to come in for clean-up.

    Trivially false.

    If anyone feels secure in believing all they are told by “authorities” might do well to at least listen to one of them – the Institute of Medicine (IOM) – which in 2000 released a report….
    12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery
    7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
    20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
    80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals

    False. You’re quoting Starfield paraphrasing Leapes, Phillips et al., and Lazarou et al. Nosocomial infections and nonerror adverse drug reactions, moreover, are not “iatrogenic,” and Starfield noted that her own figure was derived from patients who were already sick enough to be in the hospital. The actual figure from the IOM was 44,000–96,000. It’s at www[dot]nap[dot]edu/openbook.php?record_id=9728. Go read it.

    106,000 deaths/year from NON-ERROR, adverse effects of medications [including vaccines]

    A bald-faced lie.

    It added:
    “Between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience adverse effects….”

    False. This is Starfield citing Weingart et al. The entire point of raising this was to mitigate her own inpatient figure, which is the highest of any reputable estimate.

    Mass vaccination has NOTHING to do with true herd immunity, where a disease burns itself out in a herd over centuries, through natural immunity being gained and passed on.

    You have zero understanding of the herd effect, nor do I intend to waste my time explaining it yet again to dining-room table.

    The real call is for an unbiased, randomized double blind study with an unvaccinated control population to prove safety or efficacy of any vaccine

    Any vaccine? The Salk trials satisfy your criterion. Done.

    I repeat this because it is not obvious to some that this is the one thing that has never been done yet

    As just noted, false.

    and is resisted with many excuses by the trillion dollar drug industry. (i.e., “oh we couldn’t do that, it wouldn’t be humane” – give me a break: if you want to really prove a vaccine works and is safe, that is the only way to do it)

    Put aside the “excuse” that the prospective trial that you demand would be unethical (but hey, you’ve already called for medical experimentation on the elderly, so whatever). I’ve already asked the salient question, which you completely ignored:

    Provide an endpoint and the confidence level, statistical power, and acceptable signal threshold that you would accept to reject your hypothesis, whatever it is. Then you will have the sample size. If you cannot, you’re blowing smoke, and no combination of hyperbole and capital letters will change this.

    By responding with nothing but repetition, you have de facto conceded that you have nothing at all intelligent to say on the subject.

    Like

  33. Peter Holleran
    April 1, 2014 at 3:51 am

    So what if I am copying? I am not a Cray Computer. Better than to just give a list of biased studies which do not tackle the real issues. If I give the name of a book or researcher you will probably just attack the man or the name, instead of answering key questions. Here is more plagiarism for the benefit of those who care to learn what they don’t know.

    [And, even Jonas Salk confessed that he didn’t accomplish much of anything, and that the only polio now is among the vaccinated populations].

    A bit more on thimerosal I found to answer Chris’ question re pediatric vaccines. According to the FDA’s own webpage, despite claims by pharmaceutical companies that they have stopped using thimerosal in vaccines, in 2008 these amounts are still in them. Remember that 0.1 mcg per kilogram of body weight is the EPA maximum toxic limit:

    DTaP 0.3 mcg Hep A 1 mcg
    DT 25 mcg Influenza 25 mcg
    Td 8.3 mcg
    TT 25 mcg
    Hep B 1 mcg

    Major European countries banned the use twenty years ago.

    According to Boyd Haley, PhD, chairman of UK’s chemistry department, one of the world’s foremost experts on thimerosal, said:

    “You couldn’t even construct a study that shows that thimerosal is safe. It’s just too toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a Petri dish, the culture dies…it would be shocking if one would inject it into an infant without causing damage.” (http://whale.to/v/haley.html)

    He also said:

    “..the case against thimerosal is so dramatically overwhelming that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person with the credentials to understand their research would say thimerosal wasn’t the most likely cause of autism.”

    Which gets us into another large topic which I will only briefly mention.

    No other country on earthy has the intense schedule of childhood vaccination that we do, and no other country has the astronomic rise in autism either. In the last 25 years or so we have tripled the number of infant-childhood vaccinations, a total of 68 or 70 right now. 25-30 years ago autism in the U.S. was 1-5/per 10000; now it is 1 in 88 (1 in 58 for boys). It just happens that this rise correlates extremely well with the introduction of the triple vaccines, MMR, and DPT, as well as the overall huge and rapid in increased vaccinations overall and their toxic load. In 2000 the IOM, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, at the behest of the CDC, convened to lay to rest this controversy. 13 of the world’s leading scientists on neurotoxicology were invited to come and present data about an association between autism and thimerosal. You can listen to the audio files on the IOM’s website (www.iom.edu/subpage.asp?id=18065)

    One by one the experts got up and summarized years of research in his allotted twenty minutes, leaving little doubt of the causal association between mercury in vaccines and not only autism, but virtually any neurological disorder. Even with this weighty testimony, the IOM and CDC’s conclusion was – guess what – there was no proven link between the two.
    A leading geneticist, Mark Geier, MD, summarized the day’s testimony:

    “This is about as proven an issue as you’re going to see…what is occurring is a cover-up under the guise of protecting the vaccine program. If we’re not convinced thimerosal is causing autism, I recommend that we spend $20 billion to find out what is causing it. Nobody’s doing that.” (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, January 2004)

    One lady pediatrician in our local paper was quoted last month cavalierly claiming “we don’t know what causes autism, but we DO KNOW it isn’t vaccines.” (i.e., “please come in for your well-baby visits!!) No she doesn’t, know that, there is no such knowledge. That is a bold-faced lie. Perhaps there never will be any until a double blind study is done with an unvaccinated control group, or until the light bulbs go on in people’s brains saying, “what other recent, massive environmental input could have affected such a radical change in our kids? Pollution/chemicals? No, that would be a local issue. GMO foods? Come on. Supersize-me meals? No, we are talking of infants and young kids suddenly reverting to an autistic state. A “genetic epidemic”, as some have boldly stated? There is no such thing as a genetic’ epidemic’. So, to not even question this is insane.

    The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Spring 2003, has a graph of the relationship between mercury and autism that even a first grader can understand. And for vaccines overall, two references: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the U.S., and International Mortality Statistics International (available in any decent public library or now on-line), completely back up what many point out, and what even Metropolitan Life Insurance Company stated:

    “the decline in the death rate of diphtheria, measles, and whooping cough [smallpox, polio, influenza, etc.] declined roughly 95% from 1911 to 1945, before the mass immunization programs started in the United States.”

    Anyway, I want to add a couple more comments on the flu vaccine to answer Chris’ question on why we should not take the vaccine to “protect the elderly”.

    First, in my view anyone should be free to take whatever they want, within reason, but I only say there is no justification for mandating it or threatening people with losing their job for refusing to take it.

    My answer goes back to the general criticism of the vaccine itself, which I have made some mention to in my other posts.

    There are literally hundreds of strains of influenza virus present at any given time across the U.S. During any flu season, the virus mutates several times, not only in any given locale, but even within individuals. This simple fact explains why the flu vaccine has never been effective at reducing either deaths or incidence of influenza in this country inuring the past twenty years. Even the CDC only claims about a 50% success rate. There are no real clinical trials, no risk-to-benefit studies (only repeated assertion that the benefits outweigh the risks; but an assertion, no matter who say it, is not proof): the ‘testing’ is done by giving the best-guess vaccine to the live population and then following up with unfounded editorializing (usually by a junior staff writer) from epidemiological data.

    England’s top medical publication, British Medical Journal (Jefferson, 2006) wrote:

    “Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect..Most studies are of poor methodological quality and the impact of confounders is high. Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines.”

    One might add, there are almost never any long term studies or meaningful safety studies before a vaccine gets approved for mass use:

    H1N1 – approved after 6 weeks (Sanofi Pasteur, clinical trials, 2009)

    Measles – after 28 days

    Chickenpox – approved after 42 days (www.fda.gov)

    Hep B – approved after 5 days! (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, July, 1999)

    A risk-to-benefit analysis might determine something like this: if there is a one in a million chance of dying from a disease, but a one in ten thousand, or one in a hundred thousand of dying from the vaccine, it is a negative benefit. So Dr. Gardner saying 35 deaths among so many hundreds of millions of people was not being cold-hearted – it was, statistically speaking, an insignificant figure that proved nothing regarding a need for more vaccines.

    This is in fact what Sweden concluded with the measles vaccine: that there was a only a one in 13,000,000 chance of dying from the disease, but a far greater risk with the vaccine itself. Which is just what W.H.O. found in 1984: those vaccinated have a fifteen times greater chance of getting measles than those not vaccinated. (Mendelsohn, 1984) The CDC also reported outbreaks in populations of 100% vaccination rates…”the apparent paradox is that measles becomes a disease of the unvaccinated.”

    Does any of this ever sink into the brain of the average GP?

    —————————-

    Lastly, I think I made an error about the man who drank cholera to disprove Jenner and his theory of smallpox vaccination. I have the book at my office, tomorrow I will research this, but I think the story was of a doctor who was trying to disprove Pasteur and his germ theory (which Pasteur himself recanted, in perhaps the most famous death-bed confession of all time, saying, “Bechamp is right, the terrain is everything; the germ is nothing”)

    Like

  34. Peter Holleran
    April 1, 2014 at 3:59 am

    I never advocated medical experimentation on the elderly. I leave that up to you. If they, informed of the risks, want a shot, they can have it. I just object to making it mandatory for anyone without insufficient proof.

    The figures of the study of the IOM were not the only ones, there was another more damning study which is also more updated – and which I do not have in front of me right at the moment, but can get.

    The Salk trials do NOT satisfy the crtiteria. You want too get into that? or do you insist on repeating your calumny and dismissal of any critique?

    Like

  35. Lawrence
    April 1, 2014 at 5:14 am

    @Peter – now that you’ve resorted to quoting “whale.to” – which by itself invalidates your entire argument, you’ve also now quoted a famously & blatantly false “deathbed confession” by Pasteur, you have really gone off the deep-end.

    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/pasteur.htm

    And you have again repeated the misleading point that “deaths” from diseases were decreasing before vaccines – yes, they were….but do you know why? Modern Medicine.

    Doctors were now able to treat the symptoms of these diseases (to an extent) and prevent more people from dying….what they weren’t able to do was to prevent the spread of these diseases….you really need to study and understand the difference between “incidence rates” and “mortality” rates – because people were still being infected at the same rates, until such time as the vaccine program kicked into high gear.

    So, sure – we were able to keep more kids from dying, but we could do nothing for all of the associated cases of side-effects, like blindness, deafness, sterility – and let’s not forget that iron lungs kept kids from dying from Polio, but did nothing to prevent the actual Paralysis.

    And let’s now mention the tens of thousands of cases of congenital birth defects that were a result of the last major outbreak of Rubella back in the 1960s – sure, some of those kids survived, but thousands died too.

    And, you’ve also asked for a Double-Blind Study on the safety of vaccines – so you are asking that we randomly select tens of thousands of babies at birth, give 1/2 the current pediatric vaccine schedule and 1/2 a placebo & see what happens…..are you totally nuts?

    Since even the children’s doctors would be unaware as to their patient’s vaccination status, how exactly do you deal with outbreaks or assess the risk to the child – and what happens when the unvaccinated kids start getting infected & perhaps a few die?

    You also now claim that Polio is a disease of vaccinated populations – which is a blatant lie once again – since India has now been declared Polio free & the final existing pockets of endemic Polio populations only exist in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria – in fact, the recent outbreaks in Syria can be directly attributed to foreign importation of the disease from Pakistan.

    If all goes well, Polio itself should finally be eradicated within the next 5 years (conflict-dependent, of course).

    And your understanding of herd immunity is woeful – as it has nothing to do with a population over generations (which is a different disease-concept entirely – more evolution than immunity) because new un-immune people are constantly being added to the population (i.e. babies) – this points out the real facts:

    http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/protection/

    And finally, you’ve gone down the road to show that you deny germ theory in general – which really shows how far down the rabbit hole you are – we’ve thrown you a lifeline, to show where your beliefs are certainly not backed up by any amount of Science whatsoever – so please take the time to look at the actual, factual information.

    Like

  36. May 8, 2014 at 10:28 am

    You can certainly see your expertise in the work you
    write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers such as
    you who aren’t afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.

    Like

  1. October 15, 2012 at 10:18 pm

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