Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Mom Confessions Mom Confessions

Those of you who like to say "The AAP reccomends BFing until at LEAST age two".....

Posted by Anonymous   + Show Post
Are you a hypocrite? Becuase the AAP also reccomends vaccinating.



Lets see how many of you only listen to the parts you want to agree with.



http://www2.aap.org/immunization/

ETA; Let me also say I am 100% do what's best for you, and your family, but I am against telling people what to do because you think its the ONLY right way, and then judging and putting them down. If you want to BF until 40 and not vaccinate GO FOR IT. Just don't spout off sites that agree with only part of what you're saying. That's a hypocrite.

Thanks all!
Posted by Anonymous on Feb. 9, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Replies (231-240):
Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 4:35 PM

lol

Anonymous
by Anonymous on Feb. 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM

(My responses in black, bolded)


Quoting jessi2girls:

1- Do some research on the flu shot with the CDC.. FULL of lies with that shit! The CDC has stated several times that the flu causes 36,000 deaths a year... (yes, it's the big number they often flaunt around to people to try to scare them into getting the shot).. 

BUT.. what else do they say? Well, actually they only listed 257 that were a direct cause from influenza.. They also admit (and I"ll quote from their own site: "CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year....." They argue that they base these numbers instead off of reported cases of pnemonia and such.. then state that these are often caused by influenza, but then go on to say that only 8.5% of those deaths are more likely influenza related. 

The 36,000 figure was first cited in a 2003 JAMA study, based on statistical modeling, and takes into account both influenza and influenza-related pneumonia deaths. The actual range of influenza and influenza related pneumonia deaths for the past 31 years is 3,000-49,000 per year. There is no contradiction, as the CDC is very transparent with how the estimates are calculated, as well as their limitations.

They completely contradict themselves with the flu virus, stressing that people who should get the flu shot are: People who are at high risk of developing serious complications like pneumonia if they get sick with the flu. This includes:

  • People who have certain medical conditions including asthma, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.
  • Pregnant women.
  • People 65 years and older

yet openly admit that: Some older people and people with certain chronic illnesses may develop less immunity after vaccination.  Estimates indicate that some vaccinated persons will become infected with influenza, despite having been vaccinated.

Again, where is the contradiction? The vaccine is recommended for those groups because there are at higher risk for influenza and complications from influenza; they may not mount as strong an immune response, but some protection is better than none when you are in a high-risk group.


They don't like to admit that:  For example, a study in Human and Experimental Toxicology reported that there were 590 fetal-loss reports per 1 million pregnant women vaccinated (or 1 per 1,695) during the 2009-2010 flu season (generally regarded as October-March, though flu symptoms can occur any time of the year). BUT if you'll note above.. who SHOULD get the flu shot? Pregnant women!!

Did you notice that the study was nothing more than VAERS data-mining? It was preliminary data, without establishing causality. If you stay up to date and read the follow-up studies, like this very large one, for example, the rate of fetal-loss was actually slightly lower in the vaccinated group. 

The Institutes of Medicine released a consensus report last year, which concluded that despite 135 vaccine adverse events in the study, few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines, including the flu shot.

Read that a little more carefully; the IMO concluded that evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship for the 135 adverse events. 

The CDC lists side effects... but does it really?  Well, it lists SOME of the side effects, not all.. see the ingredients in the flu shots can cause their own side effects, some of which wont appear until much later in life.. such as Alzheimer's. These aren't listed as possible side effects though.. even though the ingredients are linked directly to these sources..

Why would Alzheimer's be listed as a side-effects when there is no evidence to support the theory of aluminum causing Alzheimer's?

This is just a small look at some of it.. you also have the lies from many directors, scientists, etc, that have been arrested for fraud and money laundering for purposely falsing information to benefit a sponsor (like pharmasutical companies).  Really you could fill a book with information the CDC has lied about, made false claims about, grossly errored in their estimates on purpose, etc etc etc.

So far, all I'm reading is a bunch of misconstrued accusations....

.As far as organizations that recommend against vaccinations.. merely google it yourself, "organizations that recommend against vaccinations".. there are plenty. 

Allow me to clarify. When I said health organizations, I was referring to professional health organizations, consisting of medical and public health professionals. Please name even one that recommends against vaccination.

Do a little research yourself, really, you'd really be surprised.

Not to brag, but I've done more than "a little" research.

Now I'm not saying I personally am against all vaccinations.. I just make sure to research them before agreeing to them.. from all sources, not just the CDC.

All sources are not reliable or evidence-based.

Quoting Anonymous:

1. I'm still waiting for you to give some examples of CDC "lies".

2. Name one health organization that does not recommend vaccination.


Quoting jessi2girls:

Do they really recommend it? Or do they just make it a feature that they recommend it and bury a lot of their real admissions a bit further.. perhaps you should read more than just the first thing the CDC gives you through google.. You'd honestly be VERY surprised how much they lie and contradict themselves. But really, not a big surprise, since they collect a lot of funded by many pharmaceutical companies. 

BTW, no.. not EVERY health organization around the globe universally recommends vaccinations, that's laughable!!


Quoting Anonymous:

How do you accurately quote a passive voluntary reporting system that accepts all reports, regardless of accuracy or evidence? 

Do you have some examples of how the CDC lies?

As far as ignorantly following "one source" of information, EVERY health organization around the globe universally recommends vaccination. It's pretty ballsy to think one can do some independent research and arrive at the conclusion that they are ALL wrong, no?


Quoting jessi2girls:

AAP and WHO take advice from the CDC.. who do NOT accurately quote the VAERS (like they are suppose to). In fact, they downright LIE (the CDC that is).

Now, just to be clear, I'm not an anti-vaxer..

We do do some vaccinations.. however I'm not going to ignorantly follow just one source of information. I do my research. Not every group is going to be 100% accurate on every topic.

Quoting Anonymous:

Because anti-vaxers will use whatever source they can to validate their misguided choices. Somehow, the AAP and WHO are right when it comes to breastfeeding, but the likes of Joseph Mercola, Sherri Tenpenny, Mike Adams, et al know the troof when it comes to vaccines. 










jessi2girls
by Ruby Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The question was answered.

Quoting Anonymous:

You're deflecting instead of answering the question...


Quoting jessi2girls:

Reading comprehension could really help your misunderstaning.. please reread what I stated. 

Quoting Anonymous:

1. Again, read the full disclaimer; VAERS data does not include follow  up information. These are the initial reports, before they have been followed up on by the CDC. I can go on VAERS right now and submit report, and when lay-people go data-mining they'll see my report not knowing that I didn't have a reaction and didn't even get a vaccine.  

2. So, you're relying on what NVIC tells you, instead of going to the primary source? I did a VAERS database search myself and came up with 20. Does NVIC at least link to the raw data? Why do you trust NVIC to interprate the data for you?

Quoting jessi2girls:

I've read the disclaimer.. and if you continued to read, serious cases are : "Reports of particular interest, including all deaths and hospitalizations, are followed up by epidemiologists at the CDC or FDA."

The NVIC collected data from the CDC and FDA from the reported cases to VAERS can found this figure. 

Quoting Anonymous:

And if you read the VAERS disclaimer, reports have not been verified for accuracy and do not infer causality. For example, looking through some of the VAERS reports (not sure where you got 115, as my search yielded 20), one of the deaths was a suicide. Why would that be reported, you ask? Because health care providers are encouraged to report ALL adverse events following vaccination, even if they don't believe there is any connection.

Anyone can report to VAERS, and report anything they want, and VEARS automatically accept every entry, like the infamous entry submitted by Dr. Jim Laidler who submitted a report that a vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk. 

Quoting jessi2girls:

NVIC(National Vaccination Information Center) and VAERS(Vaccination Adverse Effects and Reporting System).VAERS is a center created specifically for reports from vaccinations of adverse effects.  Doctors are to report to them about severe and deadly side effects from vaccinations.

Quoting Anonymous:

Evidence, please :)


Quoting jessi2girls:

. in 2011, 115 deaths were reported from a direct result of the vaccination... 













ColleenF30
by Lube Girl on Feb. 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM

They get no money out of people breastfeeding so that is less likely to be biased.

findingserenity
by Gold Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM
I had chicken pox measles mumps when i was young because my family cant afford to have me vaccinated. Its horrible and dont want my kids to suffer or die from it


Quoting Anonymous:

 




Quoting peanutsmommy1:

I dont see how one has anything to do with the other
Car accidents are the leading cause of death for children, not chicken pox



 actually, chicken pox can be quite serious.  There have been deaths.  I had a severe case at the age of 8, I was extremely sick( that was 40 yrs ago and I STILL remember how horrible it was)  I was out of school almost a month, with fevers dangerously high and the pain/itch was unbearable. I did not hesitate to get my child vaccinated, and it is now mandatory to get it in order to enter school.  Then again, I have had unfortunate experiences and acquired HPV 25 yrs ago and still suffer with those affects.  I also did not hesitate to get DD the HPV vaccine.  Sometimes when your life is not so blissful and bad things happen to you, you tend to not want the same for your kids.  Those who live in la la land and who think nothing bad can happen kind of piss me off.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
jjchick75
by Gold Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Well first off you might want to get your facts straight before you make a post. The AAP doesn't recommend breastfeeding until 2, the WHO does. 

I breastfeed until baby self weans but don't vaccinate. I don't really see what one has to do with the other. No one has ever died from breastfeeding past 12 months. However people have died from vaccinations. My daughter almost died from vaccination. I don't blindly follow anybody's recommendations. It just isn't how I work. I question everything. I did my research and made a decision for my family. My own pediatrician doesn't follow the AAP or CDCs recommendation for vaccination with his own kids! It's about researching and deciding what is right for your children and your family. For us we breastfeed full term and don't vaccinate. I frankly couldn't careless what anyone else does with their kids. 

jessi2girls
by Ruby Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM


Quoting Anonymous:

(My responses in black, bolded)


Quoting jessi2girls:

1- Do some research on the flu shot with the CDC.. FULL of lies with that shit! The CDC has stated several times that the flu causes 36,000 deaths a year... (yes, it's the big number they often flaunt around to people to try to scare them into getting the shot).. 

BUT.. what else do they say? Well, actually they only listed 257 that were a direct cause from influenza.. They also admit (and I"ll quote from their own site: "CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year....." They argue that they base these numbers instead off of reported cases of pnemonia and such.. then state that these are often caused by influenza, but then go on to say that only 8.5% of those deaths are more likely influenza related. 

The 36,000 figure was first cited in a 2003 JAMA study, based on statistical modeling, and takes into account both influenza and influenza-related pneumonia deaths. The actual range of influenza and influenza related pneumonia deaths for the past 31 years is 3,000-49,000 per year. There is no contradiction, as the CDC is very transparent with how the estimates are calculated, as well as their limitations.

Let me re highlight some things I listed above that you should re-read. Yes the figure (36,000) was first cited in 2003. It's the cdc's go to number when they talk about estimates.. it's the one they purposely publicize. The actual range that they listed is a bullshit number.. with 3,000 even being high for the low ball figure.. If you'll note the 257 above (it contains a link).. you'll see that there were actually only 257 that could absolutely be determined as influenza related deaths.  This is called a gross exaggeration. 

Now, the bottom portion (which I made bold, but didn't highlight).  Please reread that portion.. I'll even sum it up... They come up with a number, based on assumptions basically and purposely exaggerating their numbers, but then later admit, more like 8.5% are influenza related.  (Yet the number 36,000 is HALF (50%) of what they prefer to report) This is called a contradiction.

They completely contradict themselves with the flu virus, stressing that people who should get the flu shot are: People who are at high risk of developing serious complications like pneumonia if they get sick with the flu. This includes:

  • People who have certain medical conditions including asthma, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.
  • Pregnant women.
  • People 65 years and older

yet openly admit that: Some older people and people with certain chronic illnesses may develop less immunity after vaccination.  Estimates indicate that some vaccinated persons will become infected with influenza, despite having been vaccinated.

Again, where is the contradiction? The vaccine is recommended for those groups because there are at higher risk for influenza and complications from influenza; they may not mount as strong an immune response, but some protection is better than none when you are in a high-risk group.

People who don’t get vaccinated often “are the most frail or [those] whose health has gone down dramatically in the last few months,” explains CDC epidemiologist David Shay. People who choose to get flu shots, in other words, are already healthier and therefore the least likely to die. The effectiveness is already quoted at 62% AT IT"S BEST (I suggest you really research how effective it really is however, because AT BEST is actually a very limited time frame.. two weeks after the flu shot.. to at best, a month following the shot, before it weakens. A flu shot doesn't even last an entire year. Now.. moving on to the elderly.. Now... it's less effective in the elderly.. the ingredients (had you done some research... you'd have noted this).. have components that WEAKEN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. So, not only is it less effective, but it's also weakening their immune system.. in someone that has medical complications, such as an already lowered immune system.. the shot itself is deadly! (this doesn't just include the elderly, but the sick and young children as well). Continue researching my dear. 


They don't like to admit that:  For example, a study in Human and Experimental Toxicology reported that there were 590 fetal-loss reports per 1 million pregnant women vaccinated (or 1 per 1,695) during the 2009-2010 flu season (generally regarded as October-March, though flu symptoms can occur any time of the year). BUT if you'll note above.. who SHOULD get the flu shot? Pregnant women!!

Did you notice that the study was nothing more than VAERS data-mining? It was preliminary data, without establishing causality. If you stay up to date and read the follow-up studies, like this very large one, for example, the rate of fetal-loss was actually slightly lower in the vaccinated group. 

The VAERS rates of 6.8 and 12.6 fetal-loss reports per million women vaccinated for those single-vaccine seasons may provide health care professionals with a sense that influenza vaccines administered during pregnancy are relatively safe, when, in reality, these rates merely reflect the low level of case ascertainment associated with VAERS and thus, grossly underestimate the true rates encountered in the US population. Just because a single vaccine has been tested and considered safe does not imply there will not be a synergistic fetal toxicity effect associated with the administration of two or more Thimerosal-containing vaccines to a pregnant women and/or a synergistic toxicity effect from the combination of the biologically active components contained in concomitantly administered vaccines.

In addition, because of the order of magnitude increase in fetal-loss report rates, from 6.8 fetal-loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated in the single-dose 2008/2009 season to 77.8 in the two-dose 2009/2010 season, further long-term studies are needed to assess adverse outcomes in the surviving children. Additional research concerning potential synergistic risk factors associated with the administration of Thimerosal-containing vaccines is warranted, and the exposure-effect association should be verified in further toxicological and case–control studies.

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.full

The Institutes of Medicine released a consensus report last year, which concluded that despite 135 vaccine adverse events in the study, few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines, including the flu shot.

Read that a little more carefully; the IMO concluded that evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship for the 135 adverse events. 

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality/summary2.pdf

The CDC lists side effects... but does it really?  Well, it lists SOME of the side effects, not all.. see the ingredients in the flu shots can cause their own side effects, some of which wont appear until much later in life.. such as Alzheimer's. These aren't listed as possible side effects though.. even though the ingredients are linked directly to these sources..

Why would Alzheimer's be listed as a side-effects when there is no evidence to support the theory of aluminum causing Alzheimer's?

ACCORDING TO HUGH FUDENBURG, MD - the world's leading immunogenetisit and 13th most quoted biologist of our time (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals) - If an individual has had 5 consecutive flu shots between 1970 - 1980 (the years of the study) his/her chance of developing Alzheimer's Disease is 10 times greater than if they had 1, two or no shots. 

A 1998 John Hopkins newsletter predicted a quadrupling of Alzheimer's cases over the next decade.
Alzheimers was but one example...Neurosurgeon/author Dr. Russell Blaylock says that many attenuated (weakened) viruses in flu shots remain in the body, mutating to possibly turning virulent. The nasal spray flu vaccines for kids contain live viruses.

There have been many vaccine injury reports for the H1N1(swine flu) shots. Recently, Finland agreed to pick up the lifelong medical tabs for treating several children with narcolepsy, characterized by uncontrollably falling asleep at any time. Their cases were conclusively linked to their swine flu shots.

Just in case you're thinking the swine flu shot is the only dangerous flu shot out there, remember the Washington Redskin cheerleader Desiree Jennings from a couple of years ago?

Desiree's words (with author's emphasis) that she wrote defending the authenticity of her condition against claims her condition was psychogenic (in her head):

"On August 23, 2009, I received a seasonal flu vaccine at a local grocery store that drastically, and potentially irreversibly, altered my future. In a matter of a few short weeks I lost the ability to walk, talk normally, and focus on more than one stimuli at a time."

Her drastic Dystonia (uncontrollable muscle spasms) condition from vaccine toxicity was confirmed by John Hopkins and another hospital. She was eventually cured by Dr. Rashid Buttar, who used chelation and orthomolecular (massive supplementation) medicines to nurse her back to health after some months.


Again.. continue iwth your research.

This is just a small look at some of it.. you also have the lies from many directors, scientists, etc, that have been arrested for fraud and money laundering for purposely falsing information to benefit a sponsor (like pharmasutical companies).  Really you could fill a book with information the CDC has lied about, made false claims about, grossly errored in their estimates on purpose, etc etc etc.

So far, all I'm reading is a bunch of misconstrued accusations....

.As far as organizations that recommend against vaccinations.. merely google it yourself, "organizations that recommend against vaccinations".. there are plenty. 

Allow me to clarify. When I said health organizations, I was referring to professional health organizations, consisting of medical and public health professionals. Please name even one that recommends against vaccination.


Do a little research yourself, really, you'd really be surprised.

Not to brag, but I've done more than "a little" research.


Now I'm not saying I personally am against all vaccinations.. I just make sure to research them before agreeing to them.. from all sources, not just the CDC.

All sources are not reliable or evidence-based.

You obviously haven't done enough research then dear. 

Quoting Anonymous:

1. I'm still waiting for you to give some examples of CDC "lies".

2. Name one health organization that does not recommend vaccination.


Quoting jessi2girls:

Do they really recommend it? Or do they just make it a feature that they recommend it and bury a lot of their real admissions a bit further.. perhaps you should read more than just the first thing the CDC gives you through google.. You'd honestly be VERY surprised how much they lie and contradict themselves. But really, not a big surprise, since they collect a lot of funded by many pharmaceutical companies. 

BTW, no.. not EVERY health organization around the globe universally recommends vaccinations, that's laughable!!


Quoting Anonymous:

How do you accurately quote a passive voluntary reporting system that accepts all reports, regardless of accuracy or evidence? 

Do you have some examples of how the CDC lies?

As far as ignorantly following "one source" of information, EVERY health organization around the globe universally recommends vaccination. It's pretty ballsy to think one can do some independent research and arrive at the conclusion that they are ALL wrong, no?


Quoting jessi2girls:

AAP and WHO take advice from the CDC.. who do NOT accurately quote the VAERS (like they are suppose to). In fact, they downright LIE (the CDC that is).

Now, just to be clear, I'm not an anti-vaxer..

We do do some vaccinations.. however I'm not going to ignorantly follow just one source of information. I do my research. Not every group is going to be 100% accurate on every topic.

Quoting Anonymous:

Because anti-vaxers will use whatever source they can to validate their misguided choices. Somehow, the AAP and WHO are right when it comes to breastfeeding, but the likes of Joseph Mercola, Sherri Tenpenny, Mike Adams, et al know the troof when it comes to vaccines. 











Anonymous
by Anonymous on Feb. 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM

No, you have not answered the questions:

1. Are you relying on NVIC instead of going to primary sources?

2. Does NVIC link to the raw data?

3. Why do you NVIC to interprate that data for you?

4. Name one professional health organization that recommends against vaccination?

5. Do you have some examples of CDC "lies"?


Quoting jessi2girls:

The question was answered.

Quoting Anonymous:

You're deflecting instead of answering the question...


Quoting jessi2girls:

Reading comprehension could really help your misunderstaning.. please reread what I stated. 

Quoting Anonymous:

1. Again, read the full disclaimer; VAERS data does not include follow  up information. These are the initial reports, before they have been followed up on by the CDC. I can go on VAERS right now and submit report, and when lay-people go data-mining they'll see my report not knowing that I didn't have a reaction and didn't even get a vaccine.  

2. So, you're relying on what NVIC tells you, instead of going to the primary source? I did a VAERS database search myself and came up with 20. Does NVIC at least link to the raw data? Why do you trust NVIC to interprate the data for you?

Quoting jessi2girls:

I've read the disclaimer.. and if you continued to read, serious cases are : "Reports of particular interest, including all deaths and hospitalizations, are followed up by epidemiologists at the CDC or FDA."

The NVIC collected data from the CDC and FDA from the reported cases to VAERS can found this figure. 

Quoting Anonymous:

And if you read the VAERS disclaimer, reports have not been verified for accuracy and do not infer causality. For example, looking through some of the VAERS reports (not sure where you got 115, as my search yielded 20), one of the deaths was a suicide. Why would that be reported, you ask? Because health care providers are encouraged to report ALL adverse events following vaccination, even if they don't believe there is any connection.

Anyone can report to VAERS, and report anything they want, and VEARS automatically accept every entry, like the infamous entry submitted by Dr. Jim Laidler who submitted a report that a vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk. 

Quoting jessi2girls:

NVIC(National Vaccination Information Center) and VAERS(Vaccination Adverse Effects and Reporting System).VAERS is a center created specifically for reports from vaccinations of adverse effects.  Doctors are to report to them about severe and deadly side effects from vaccinations.

Quoting Anonymous:

Evidence, please :)


Quoting jessi2girls:

. in 2011, 115 deaths were reported from a direct result of the vaccination... 















CallMeSwarley
by on Feb. 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM
You know what I say?

Live, and let live.
SuDoNim
by Silver Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 4:51 PM

(My responses in black, bolded, underlined)


Quoting jessi2girls: Let me re highlight some things I listed above that you should re-read. Yes the figure (36,000) was first cited in 2003. It's the cdc's go to number when they talk about estimates.. it's the one they purposely publicize. The actual range that they listed is a bullshit number.. with 3,000 even being high for the low ball figure.. If you'll note the 257 above (it contains a link).. you'll see that there were actually only 257 that could absolutely be determined as influenza related deaths.  This is called a gross exaggeration.                                                                 Me: No, it's called not understanding the numbers. Again, the figure contains all influenza and influenza-related pneumonia deaths; 257 of which are from influenza, the remainder are from pneumonia as a complication of influenza. The CDC is very explicit about this. 
Now, the bottom portion (which I made bold, but didn't highlight).  Please reread that portion.. I'll even sum it up... They come up with a number, based on assumptions basically and purposely exaggerating their numbers, but then later admit, more like 8.5% are influenza related.  (Yet the number 36,000 is HALF (50%) of what they prefer to report) This is called a contradiction.                                                                                         Me: Again, you're not understanding the number. The 8.5% are deaths attributed only to influenza, while the remainder are attributed to influenza-realated deaths. 
People who don’t get vaccinated often “are the most frail or [those] whose health has gone down dramatically in the last few months,” explains CDC epidemiologist David Shay. People who choose to get flu shots, in other words, are already healthier and therefore the least likely to die. The effectiveness is already quoted at 62% AT IT"S BEST (I suggest you really research how effective it really is however, because AT BEST is actually a very limited time frame.. two weeks after the flu shot.. to at best, a month following the shot, before it weakens. A flu shot doesn't even last an entire year.                                                              Me: I am well aware of the limitations of the vaccine; it's no secret that it isn't as effective as we'd like it to be. But, 62% effectivness is the average. The actual range for effectiveness is 39%-67% against influenza A and 56%-80% against influenza B. It's not great, but it is certainly more protective than not getting the vaccine at all. I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that immunity only lasts a month "at best"; most people seroconvert within 2 weeks, with immunity lasting through 1 flu season, although at least one trial demonstrated immunity that persisted through 2 flu seasons.  Of course, the universal flu vaccine being developed will likely eliminate the need for annual flu shots.  
Now.. moving on to the elderly.. Now... it's less effective in the elderly.. the ingredients (had you done some research... you'd have noted this).. have components that WEAKEN THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. So, not only is it less effective, but it's also weakening their immune system.. in someone that has medical complications, such as an already lowered immune system.. the shot itself is deadly! (this doesn't just include the elderly, but the sick and young children as well). Continue researching my dear.                                                                                                                  Me: assuming you are referring to the aluminum adjuvant, it works by enhansing the immune response to the vaccine's antigen. You know what does weaken the immune system? Influenza infection.  At any rate, I'd love to see your research demonstrating that the vaccine is "deadly".
The VAERS rates of 6.8 and 12.6 fetal-loss reports per million women vaccinated for those single-vaccine seasons may provide health care professionals with a sense that influenza vaccines administered during pregnancy are relatively safe, when, in reality, these rates merely reflect the low level of case ascertainment associated with VAERS and thus, grossly underestimate the true rates encountered in the US population. Just because a single vaccine has been tested and considered safe does not imply there will not be a synergistic fetal toxicity effect associated with the administration of two or more Thimerosal-containing vaccines to a pregnant women and/or a synergistic toxicity effect from the combination of the biologically active components contained in concomitantly administered vaccines. In addition, because of the order of magnitude increase in fetal-loss report rates, from 6.8 fetal-loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated in the single-dose 2008/2009 season to 77.8 in the two-dose 2009/2010 season, further long-term studies are needed to assess adverse outcomes in the surviving children. Additional research concerning potential synergistic risk factors associated with the administration of Thimerosal-containing vaccines is warranted, and the exposure-effect association should be verified in further toxicological and case–control studies.http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.full                                                                                                                                                                               Me: Again, data-mining in VAERS is not research. Did you read the link I posted? There have been case-controlled studies demonstrating that the vaccine increases the risk of fetal harm, but we do know that influenza infection DOES increase the chance of fetal harm.  
ACCORDING TO HUGH FUDENBURG, MD - the world's leading immunogenetisit and 13th most quoted biologist of our time (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals) - If an individual has had 5 consecutive flu shots between 1970 - 1980 (the years of the study) his/her chance of developing Alzheimer's Disease is 10 times greater than if they had 1, two or no shots.                                                                                                                  Me: Fudenburg (nice copy-and-paste, btw)... he was one of Wakefield's cronies, correct? The one who has had a little trouble keeping his medical license clean, with the South Carolina medical board finding him guilty of engaging in unethical, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct? Dig a little deeper and you'll discover that he has yet to produce data substanciating that claim regarding Alzheimer's and flu shots.    
A 1998 John Hopkins newsletter predicted a quadrupling of Alzheimer's cases over the next decade.                                                                                  Me: Have you read the newsletter for yourself? No where in it are influnza vaccines or aluminum even mentioned, let alone implicated..
Alzheimers was but one example...Neurosurgeon/author Dr. Russell Blaylock says that many attenuated (weakened) viruses in flu shots remain in the body, mutating to possibly turning virulent. The nasal spray flu vaccines for kids contain live viruses.                                                                                        Me: And like Fudenberg, Blaylock neglects to submit actual data or research to back-up his claims.         
There have been many vaccine injury reports for the H1N1(swine flu) shots. Recently, Finland agreed to pick up the lifelong medical tabs for treating several children with narcolepsy, characterized by uncontrollably falling asleep at any time. Their cases were conclusively linked to their swine flu shots.                                                                                                                       Me: Yes, an association between the two has been confirmed, but causality has not been established. More research is being done, especially in light of what China experienced during the H1N1 pandemic: they experienced a 3-fold increase in narcolepsy cases, but it was among those who experienced H1N1 infection.
Just in case you're thinking the swine flu shot is the only dangerous flu shot out there, remember the Washington Redskin cheerleader Desiree Jennings from a couple of years ago?Desiree's words (with author's emphasis) that she wrote defending the authenticity of her condition against claims her condition was psychogenic (in her head): "On August 23, 2009, I received a seasonal flu vaccine at a local grocery store that drastically, and potentially irreversibly, altered my future. In a matter of a few short weeks I lost the ability to walk, talk normally, and focus on more than one stimuli at a time.Her drastic Dystonia (uncontrollable muscle spasms) condition from vaccine toxicity was confirmed by John Hopkins and another hospital. She was eventually cured by Dr. Rashid Buttar, who used chelation and orthomolecular (massive supplementation) medicines to nurse her back to health after some months.     Me: If I recall correctly, the neurologists she saw at Johns Hopkins believe that her case was not neurological, but psychogenic in nature (ie. all in her head), which is why she ended up seeing the infamous Dr. Buttar and experienced her miraculous cure from an otherwise incurable disorder.
You obviously haven't done enough research then dear                             Me: Or perhaps my research standards are too high...



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)