Re: RE : O/T FLU SHOTS - Is it REALLY off-topic?

[Guest guest]

Thank you for understanding. It is rather scary to think that, with all the

other toxins in my body, I might be putting something equally as or more

toxic into my body because of a doctor, pharmacists and the media all

telling me to do such! This is just so ludicrous and heart breaking to know

that we cannot even trust anyone these days to give us sound medical

advice. Of course, I've known for a long time, not to completely trust

doctors... but this is way over the top! .... sorry... just venting!

Thanks for all the info.

Blessings,

On 10/30/07, ginloi <ginloi@...> wrote:

>

> So glad you posted this and I understand 'technically' why it is listed

> as " off-topic " but for people whose immune systems have been 'shot' - no pun

> intended - it is important to consider whether adding another possible

> immune triggering element is a good idea. We all need to consider this as

> the FDA, AMA, ADA, CDC and EPA all share the same 'big bed.'

>

> If these guys don't care that some workers are not protected and, by that

> I mean agricultural workers are somewhat protected, but not school and

> office workers, and most of all kids, why would they care if the 'immune'

> response is raised, while in overdrive from toxic exposure, your body is

> fighting the onslaught of deadly disease/cancer or chronic disease, like

> asthma [that can be deadly too].

>

> We have read about mold corn this week and the corn industry has

> infiltrated every aspect of food production in this country. Just read the

> labels and you will see some form of corn in almost all foods, either as a

> sweetener or as a starch.

>

> Make sure you trust the doc that wants to give you a flu shot. Look up

> 'swine' flu shots from the 70's - if you doubt for a minute that the drug

> industry would not inject your already over working immune system with

> something that may harm you in the long run. Be fully informed before you

> sign the authorization form.

>

> ***NOT LEGAL ADVICE***

>

>

> tigerpaw2c <tigerpaw2c@... <tigerpaw2c%40>> a écrit : FLU

> SHOTS AND THE NEW ADJUVANTS: BEWARE!

> http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri6.htm

> Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO

> May 1, 2006

> NewsWithViews.com

>

> Vaccination of “every man, woman and child†has been in the

> planning for at least the last several years. The current concept,

> originated by former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary,

> Tommy ,[1] is being advanced by his successor, Mike Leavitt.

> [2] Of course, envisioned mass vaccination using the

> smallpox vaccine. But times have changed, and the flu shot now

> appears to be the instrument of choice for those pursuing the

> universal vaccination agenda.

>

> The fact that the flu shots are ineffective in every age group

> hardly seems to matter to those who continually promote their use.

> Multiple studies published in highly reputable publications have

> documented that flu shots are ineffective in all ages. For example,

> The Cochrane Collaboration produced a series of articles in 2005

> reviewing the published literature to determine the effectiveness of

> the flu shot. Nothing substantiating its usefulness was found.

>

> In a review of 51 studies involving more than 260,000 children,

> including 17 papers translated from Russian, researchers concluded

> that there was “No evidence that injecting children 6-23 months of

> age with flu vaccines is any more effective than placebo.†[3] For

> healthy adults, the results were similar. A total of 25 studies were

> reviewed that included more than 60,000 study participants. Again,

> The Cochrane Group found that vaccination reduced risk of influenza

> by a meager 6% and reduced the number of days missed from work by

> less than one (0.16) day. Researchers concluded, “Universal

> immunization of healthy adults was not supported by the results of

> this review.†[4]

> For the elderly population, the prime target group for flu shots,

> The Cochrane Group reviewed 64 studies and chided that, “The

> runaway 100% effectiveness that's touted by proponents [of the flu

> shot] was nowhere to be seen…What you see is that marketing rules

> the response to influenza, and scientific evidence comes fourth or

> fifth.†[5]

>

> A new study, soon to be released in the prestigious medical journal,

> Vaccine, resulted in the same conclusion. The study was undertaken

> to determine whether the incidence of influenza had decreased in

> Ontario, Canada following the introduction of the Universal

> Influenza Immunization Campaign (UIIC) in 2000. All laboratory-

> confirmed influenza cases†" diagnosed between January 1990 and

> August 2005†" were analyzed. It was determined that, “…despite

> intensified vaccination distribution and the increased financial

> resources used to promote vaccination,†the incidence of influenza

> had not been decreased by the national flu shot campaign.[6]

>

> Perhaps something needs to be done to strengthen the flu shot so

> that it will work better?

> During the week of April 17, 2006, The Washington Post ran a story

> that not only extolled the use of the influenza vaccines but pushed

> for a new and improved version by saying, “Why wait for the

> pandemic to benefit from better flu vaccines?†[7] The story went

> on to say that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is planning

> to strengthen the flu shot “destined for the elderly†by adding

> an immune-boosting compound to the shot called an adjuvant.

>

> An adjuvant is a substance added to produce a high antibody response

> using the smallest amount of virus (antigen) possible. By definition

> adjuvants are considered to be “pharmacologically active drugs.â€

> They are designed to be “inert without inherent activity or

> toxicity†and yet they are required to “potently augment effects

> of the other compounds†in the vaccines.[8] It is difficult to

> explain how a substance can be defined as “pharmacologically

> active†and at the same time be described as “inert and have no

> activity or toxicity.â€

>

> The limiting factor for approval of new adjuvants has been that most

> are far too toxic for use in humans. However, one adjuvant has been

> approved in Europe and its approval is on the way for use in the

> U.S. It is an oil-based adjuvant called MF-59, a compound primarily

> composed of squalene.

> On first blush, squalene seems like a good choice for an adjuvant.

> Manufactured naturally in the liver, squalene is a precursor for

> cholesterol. In addition, squalene can be purchased at health food

> stores in its more commonly known form, “shark liver oil.â€

> However, ingested squalene has a completely different effect on the

> body than injected squalene. When molecules of squalene enter the

> body through an injection, even at concentrations as small as 10 to

> 20 parts per billion, it can lead to self-destructive immune

> responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.[9]

>

> Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain this reaction.

> Metabolically, squalene stimulates an immune response excessively

> and nonspecifically. More than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific

> papers from ten different laboratories throughout the U.S., Europe,

> Asia, and Australia have been published documenting the development

> of autoimmune disease in animals subjected to squalene-based

> adjuvants.[10] A convincing proposal for why this occurs includes

> the concept of “molecular mimicry†in which an antibody created

> against the squalene in MF59 can cross react with the body’s

> squalene on the surface of human cells. The destruction of the

> body’s own squalene can lead to debilitating autoimmune and

> central nervous system diseases.

>

> The squalene in MF59 is not the only cause for concern. One of its

> components, Tween80 (polysorbate 80) is considered to be “inertâ€

> but is far from it. A recent study (December 2005) discovered that

> Tween80 can cause anaphylaxis, a sometimes fatal reaction

> characterized by a sharp drop in blood pressure, hives, and

> breathing difficulties. Researchers concluded that the severe

> reaction was not a typical allergic response characterized by the

> combination of IgE antibodies and the release of histamines; it was

> caused by a serious disruption that had occurred within the immune

> system.[11]

>

> Vaccine manufacturer, Chiron, is already using MF59 in its European

> influenza vaccine for seniors called Fluadâ„¢. It remains to be seen

> if Chiron will gain approval for using this adjuvant-containing

> vaccine in the U.S. In the mean time†" and for the first time†" all

> children from age six months to five years will be targeted for the

> flu shot this fall. Expect even more children to be on the vaccine

> list as early as 2007; discussions are underway to mandatorily

> vaccinate the healthy five to nine year-old group as a school

> requirement.

>

> With a record 120 million vaccine doses expected to be produced for

> the 2006-2007 flu season, be prepared for a huge push to get

> everyone vaccinated this fall. Consider it to be psychological pre-

> conditioning. The plan is to get each person ready†" and eager†" to

> roll up their sleeve for an injection of the “pandemic†flu

> vaccine when it becomes available.

>

> Retaining the right to refuse will become increasingly important,

> especially in the face of concentrated pressure from self-appointed

> experts at the CDC and the WHO. But keep this in mind: The “bird

> flu†vaccine will not be any more effective than the annual flu

> shot. Even worse, there is a high probability it will contain MF-59.

>

>

> Footnotes:

> 1, CIDRAP News. " US pledges smallpox vaccine for world stockpile. "

> December 4, 2004.

> 2, Department of Health and Human Services FY 2007 Budget

> announcement. February 6, 2006

> 3, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. " Vaccines for

> preventing influenza in healthy children. " 1-(2006).

> 4, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews " Vaccines for

> preventing influenza in healthy adults. " . 1-(2006)

> 5, Rosenthal beth. " Two Studies Question the Effectiveness of

> Flu Vaccines. " The New York Times. September 21, 2005.

> 6, Groll, DL, , DJ. " Incidence of influenza in Ontario

> following the Universal Influenza Immunization Campaign. " Vaccine.

> April 5, 2006. PMID: 16624458

> 7, Neergaard, . " Experts Say Elderly Need Better Flu Shot. "

> The Washington Post. April 17, 2006

> 8, Kenney, R. T., Edleman, R. " Survey of human-use adjuvants, "

> Expert Review of Vaccines 2 (2) (2003): 167-188.

> 9, Ref. No. 1: Svelander, L., Holm, B. C., Buchtt, A., Lorentzen, J.

> C., Svelander, L. " Responses of the rat immune system to

> arthritogenic adjuvant oil, " Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 54

> (2001): 599-605. PMID: 11902335.

> 10, Matsumoto, . Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment

> That's Killing Our Soldiers and Why GIs Are Only the First Victims

> Vaccine. (New York: Basic Books)

> 11, Coors, Esther A., Seybold, Heidi, Merk, Hans, Mahler,

> Vera. " Polysorbate 80 in medical products and nonimmunologic

> anaphylactoid reactions, " ls of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

> 95 (2005): 593-599.

> © 2006 Sherri Tenpenny -

>

> Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is respected as one of the country's most

> knowledgeable and outspoken physicians regarding the impact of

> vaccines on health. Through her education company, New Medical

> Awareness, LLC, she spreads her vision of retaining freedom of

> choice in healthcare, including the freedom to refuse vaccination.

> A portion of this article is an excerpt from her new book, FOWL!

> Bird Flu: It's Not What You Think, released in April, 2006. For

> daily updates on the bird flu, including the real reasons behind the

> hype, and a bi-weekly e-Newsletter with Dr. Tenpenny's commentary go

> to www.BirdFluHype.com <http://www.birdfluhype.com/>

> Dr. Tenpenny is a regular columnist for

www.NewsWithViews.com<http://www.newswithviews.com/>.

> Her 3-

> hour vaccine DVD, Vaccines: The Risk, The Benefits and her new book

> FOWL! is available through this site; other tapes and materials are

> available www.DrTenpenny.com <http://www.drtenpenny.com/>

> Website: www.nmaseminars.com

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers

> Mail

>

>

[Guest guest]

I read recently that we have a multi-system, multi-symptom disease. And what do

we have for medical care in the US multi-level problems. What motivates the

insurance companies is different than what motivates pharmaceutical companies

and the patient is the last on the list. We also have former and future

pharmaceutical and insurance company executives making the rules with the

patient being the last on the list. It makes my blood boil when I hear that

they are going to make flu shots mandatory and it makes me equally angry that

the public buys this hook line and sinker. My rant.

Sharon

Olin <legal.winner@...> wrote:

Thank you for understanding. It is rather scary to think that, with all the

other toxins in my body, I might be putting something equally as or more