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

[Guest guest]

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@...> 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.â€[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.â€[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?â€[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

Dr. Tenpenny is a regular columnist for 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

Website: www.nmaseminars.com

---------------------------------

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