Should children living here have a yearly flu vaccine?

[attrayant]

A series of independent documentaries on Vaccines, that you will not see on corporate sponsored TV channels

http://www.brasschecktv.com/index.php?call=search&key=vaccines

Independent documentaries? Really? Those are two words that just don't work together. When it comes to scientific consensus, I don't want independent opinions. I want as much peer review and agreement as possible about the findings.

[Jockey]

The truth is out... there IS a link between vaccines and autism and it has been known for over a decade by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) but the CDC has been actively covering up the data.

CDC Whistleblower Reveals Widespread Manipulation of Scientific Data and Top-Down Pressure on CDC Scientists to Support the Fraudulent Application of Government Policies on Vaccine Safety http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=19191

Natural News again. This "item" has already addressed in this very thread. If you're not going to read the thread, just stay out of it. Or at the very least, stop posting and reposting the same garbage and paranoia over and over.

"Posting and reposting the same garbage over and over"! If YOU read the thread you will see every post I have made has revealed completely different points. It seems to me you are so polarized in your view that you can not accept clear hard evidence and you are acting foolish to the point of complete "head in sand" denial. To be honest I try to avoid debating anything with your type. If there's an elephant in the room you'd deny it was there.

A doctor who worked in a very senior position for the CDC for 12 years and the doctor states the CDC have been lying and covering up the link between Autism and Vaccines for at the very least over 10 years. but you think this hugely important information is something you can just dismiss as "Garbage and Paranoia" just because it was reported in Natural News (amongst many other sites). I think you are the one who should take a hard look at your postings as its so obvious you will dismiss any evidence by trying to disassociate the facts by using your obvious dislike for the Natural New website. Do you really think that because this story is covered by Natural News somehow its untrue? Get a grip - the story is out there whether you like it or not. Do you think the doctor is lying? Do you think its all made up?

1 in 68 children in the USA are now inflicted with autism. The CDC have been accused of lying, fraud and cover up by a senior insider. You can't see the elephant.

As for the original posters question regarding the flu vaccine, they finally took mercury out of most of the vaccines but they keep using mercury in the flu vaccine. For that reason alone keep your child well away from it. Injecting mercury into the blood veins of a child is criminal in my opinion as mercury poisons the brain. Do you really trust the CDC who claim its "safe"?

[MAJIC]

A thousand baht is a small price to pay for a flu jab to rid your child of the risk of the dreadful risks and symptoms of Influenza! Those suffering from COPD,Astma, and many other serious diseases,are dependant on survival by flu jabs.

Perhaps this link may help you to see the importance of the flu jab for children!

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/children.htm

[h90]

The anti vaccination lobby certainly makes its presence felt, however I think it important to understand how they have come to their belief. I am sure that there is a generational component to this particularly in the Western countries. Most people under the age of 60 have not seen polio, pertussis, rubella, mumps and so on. Most have never seen the pictures of smallpox let alone know how it came to be eliminated in the wild. I really do not think there is any hope of altering the understanding of those who are anti vaccination and base their opinions on some sort of acquired fuzzy belief system. In the early days of vaccinations for example there were the same sort of people objecting using the same sort of logic defying propaganda, but vaccinations soon became accepted because the vast bulk of the population saw immediate benefits - smallpox anyone?

I do however, have great store in the pragmatic wisdom of Thai women. They have seen what happens when a child gets whooping cough or whatever, or are one step removed from someone who has. They do listen to their doctor's advise and act on it. I have great sympathy for the wife of the original OP, her voice is not heard heard in this context.

I don't have any great wisdom to offer here other than to continue reinforce the need for vaccination, (annual flu and MMR are of course critical) and to continue to support those who may feel intimidated and to encourage and inform those who ask for advise.

Regarding ebola (I loved the phrase 'when ebola comes knocking at your door! well done that man!), ebola is expanding faster than we are dealing with it, I am sure that colloidal silver and a 'healthy raw fresh diet,' simply does not cut it, I note that there is hope (in this morning's news) that an ebola vaccine may soon become available, though very limited quantities. It would be fascinating to see how the the anti vaccine lobby react if ebola knocked on their door and they had the option of a vaccine.

On a final note, I mentioned in a previous post that there it the potential for ebola and flu to become interacted. A good example why flu vax is important.

I am 43 years old. When I was young I (and no one) was not vaccinated against rubella and mumps. Most of the time half the school class got it at the same time. I had of course both. Mumps unusual strong. Both were seen as very inconvenience, but harmless for children. A thing that just about everyone gets in school. Something you stay at home for a week.

You must have been vaccinated (in 1970), if you had NOT been vaccinated then the diseases would have been much worse than just 'inconvenient'. The vaccine does not necessarily stop you getting the disease it stops you from getting the serious form. Again you and your other class members must have been vaccinated. It sounds as though you have been very fortunate to have received the vaccination

I was born 71 and not vaccinated against mumps in Austria (But if you ask me if I am 100% sure, I must tell no, I just wrote an email to my mother she'll confirm), got it strong and what I recall I got it a second time in the recovery of the first time (Doc said on the second side), just what I recall from it.

It was a week or 2 in bed.

I recall polio vaccination. As I can recall it must have been between 1976-1980, surely not as baby.

Real information: I was not vaccinated and when I was a kid both were normally not vaccinated in Austria. On the mumps the doc came for a visit at home, but he was a good friend of the family....no one was concerned about mumps.

On rubella: I got it during holidays. My mother went to a doctor, no one was amazed by rubella and our holiday was not interrupted.

So at this time no one regarded these diseases as serious.

[fantom]

It has been known for many years, at least 50 years, that rubella causes damage to the unborn child. The vaccine has been around for at least 50 years too.

All people in the health professions have long been aware of the serious nature of rubella, Including the doctor your mother went to.

[fantom]

As I have pointed out - as have others - that there is a generational shift in perception regarding these diseases

You may be interested in the following - link here http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/rubella

I strongly suspect that your doctor would, though not very concerned about you, have have been most concerned on your mother's behalf (and other women in your close circle) to discover that you had rubella.

A woman who contracts rubella infection during pregnancy can pass the infection to the developing fetus. Such pregnancies are at risk of spontaneous abortion or premature birth. If the fetus survives, the child may suffer from a wide range of birth defects, including deafness, eye defects, cardiac defects, mental retardation, bone lesions, and other abnormalities. Together, the defects are known as Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS). Of children whose mothers are infected during their first trimester of pregnancy, studies suggest that between 50% and 90% will suffer from CRS.

Complications

Rubella is not normally a serious illness in children, and, in fact, its symptoms are often mild. The chief danger of the disease is Congenital Rubella Syndrome.

From 1964-1965, before the development of a vaccine against the disease, a rubella epidemic swept the United States. During that short period there were 12.5 million cases of rubella. Twenty thousand children were born with CRS: 11,000 were deaf, 3,500 blind, and 1,800 mentally retarded. There were 2,100 neonatal deaths and more than 11,000 abortions – some a spontaneous result of rubella infection in the mother, and others performed surgically after women were informed of the serious risks of rubella exposure during their pregnancy.

As of 2004, rubella was declared eliminated in the United States, and transmission of the rubella virus in the World Health Organization’s Region of the Americas was halted in 2009. Globally, about 100,000 rubella cases were reported for 2012 in the member states to the World Health Organization, though it is probable that the number of actual cases is much higher. The countries with the largest number of cases in 2012 were Timor-Leste, Macedonia, Thailand, Tajikistan, and Syria. The number of estimated CRS cases each year is more than 100,000.

[h90]

It has been known for many years, at least 50 years, that rubella causes damage to the unborn child. The vaccine has been around for at least 50 years too.

All people in the health professions have long been aware of the serious nature of rubella, Including the doctor your mother went to.

As male child something like 8-12 years old it was very unlikely that I am pregnant.

[fantom]

Of course not, the danger is to the foetus of any pregnant woman you may have knowingly or otherwise come in contact with. You may wish to read my post again.

[h90]

Of course not, the danger is to the foetus of any pregnant woman you may have knowingly or otherwise come in contact with. You may wish to read my post again.

your logic is a bit difficult to understand.

Because it is dangerous for pregnant woman you should vaccinate the boys so they can't infect the pregnant women? Is that your point, or do I complete misunderstand something?

Because than it would be sufficient to either vaccinate female babies only, or girls who didn't get it with say 10 or 12 years.

[fantom]

To h90

You may wish to read Sheryl's excellent post relating to vaccine on 137

All toddlers of both sexes are commonly given the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine which was developed in the 1970 s.

The rubella vaccine is to ensure that kids don't get rubella (or german measles as it used to be called) and subsequently infect a pregnant woman with resulting serious consequences to the unborn child.

You may wish to look at the Australian immunisation schedule for more information , this also contains basic information regarding annual flu vaccination schedule

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/immunisation/

I am not sure how to make it any simpler.

[attrayant]

[Note: This reply is spread out over several posts due to the forum's limit on the number of quote tags per post]

A doctor who worked in a very senior position for the CDC for 12 years and the doctor states the CDC have been lying and covering up the link between Autism and Vaccines for at the very least over 10 years.

This fairy tale comes to us courtesy of Mike Adams of - you guessed it - Natural News. Adams "reports" on the story fabricated by Andrew Wakefield (a former surgeon who falsified data in the hopes of cashing in on his autism detection kits) and Brian Hooker, a biochemist. Hooker has an autistic child (whose autism he blames on mercury-containing vaccines). You don't suppose there could be just a touch of bias there? I would no more trust these two to report fairly on vaccines than I would trust Kim Jong Un to tell me how nice a vacation spot North Korea is.

Hooker befriended a CDC scientist named William Thompson (and secretly recorded conversations between them for almost a year). The snippets of the recordings that have been made publicly available are just that - only snippets, heavily edited, spliced together and missing the surrounding context. Hooker's personal "reanalysis" of the Destefano study is simply wrong. It's no secret. The study is out there. Anyone can read it. In fact it has been out there for 13 years, available for the public and hundreds of thousands of researchers to read. That's some great cover-up job by the CDC, eh?

Here's a summary of the study and Hooker's attempted "reanalysis". In a nutshell: A team of research scientists discuss how to report the data of a small study. The group eventually comes to a consensus. Thompson doesn't agree with the consensus. The study is published, as studies always are, reporting the general consensus. That's it. That's the "cover-up". That's as far as I'll go with this story because it's really quite a joke. Suffice it to say that Wakefield and Hooker did some pretty slimy things to get the snippets of Thompsons words to come out sounding just the way they wanted. You can read about how it all unfolded over at Science Blogs: A bad day for antivaccinationists

So what's next? We still haven't seen a reassessment of the raw data. All we have is some spliced-together audio and Thompson's statement. The next step would be to open the study again and have a team of scientists analyze it. But what if the same thing happens again? What if nine scientists reach a consensus and one dissents? Is that another CDC cover-up waiting to be re-re-exposed ten years from now?

but you think this hugely important information is something you can just dismiss as "Garbage and Paranoia"

You have yet to demonstrate how this reanalysis reveals anything hugely important. I await your careful analysis of the Destefano study with bated breath.

just because it was reported in Natural News (amongst many other sites).

Natural News, Age of Autism, Australian Antivaccination Network, assorted Alex Jones websites, Jenny McCarthy's blog... did I miss any? All picked up the story from the same source. Just because multiple sites echo the same lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Do you really think that because this story is covered by Natural News somehow its untrue?

No, thats not the only reason its untrue. It's untrue for a whole host of reasons. Being on Natural News is just the icing on the crackpot cake. That site has a huge credibility problem. Let's find out what kind of sound advice we can learn from that bastion of medical science:

-People get sick from an acid/alkaline imbalance
-Aloe Vera is a miracle cure!
-Malaysia flight 370 clearly a government cover-up!
-MSG is some kind of neurotoxin
-Homeopathic medicine works
-HIV/AIDS denial
-Plastic water bottles are toxic
-Cancer is your body's natural healing system
-Adams calls for the murder of all those who don't accept his misinformed world view (see link below for more on this)

In short, Mike Adams is a dangerous loon.

Edited September 9, 2014 by attrayant

[attrayant]

[continued]

The story is out there whether you like it or not.

So are stories of bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. "Story is out there" is not the same thing as "true story is out there".

Do you think the doctor is lying? Do you think its all made up?

It sounds like you haven't bothered to listen to the clips. As I said, they are heavily edited and spliced together. And William Thompson has issued a statement through his lawyer:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.

[snipped for length]

1 in 68 children in the USA are now inflicted with autism.

Not exactly. One in 68 is inflicted with ASD, which is a broad category of several afflictions. But what's your point? Does making this statement prove causality? ASD is almost 5 times more common among boys than among girls. Do boys get vaccinated five times more often than girls do? Children born to older parents are at higher risk of ASD, vaccination notwithstanding. Children who don't get vaccinated can still become afflicted with ASD. That's certainly some smoking gun you've got there.

Edited September 9, 2014 by attrayant

[attrayant]

[continued]

The CDC have been accused of lying, fraud and cover up by a senior insider.

And Hillary Clinton has been accused of being a shape-shifting alien lizard by David Icke. What's your point? All we need for the truth to be out is an accusation?

Injecting mercury into the blood veins of a child is criminal in my opinion as mercury poisons the brain. Do you really trust the CDC who claim its "safe"?

They've done the research. I believe any one or any organization who has done research that can be duplicated by other people or international organizations. Exactly what research have you done?

By the way, are you referring to thimerosal? Because that's not the same thing as mercury. I'd have thought an accomplished, decorated researcher like you would know that. It's a sodium salt of mercury. And until such time as evidence arises to prove that it's unsafe, I will continue to subscribe to the broad scientific consensus that it poses no threat when used as a vaccine preservative.

I wonder why people don't fly into a hissy fit over sodium - a metal that explodes on contact with water. Or chlorine - a noxious, poisonous gas that was used to kill over a million people in the two world wars. How do you feel about injecting those two chemicals into the veins of children? Well guess what? We do that by the thousands of liters every day, in the form of sodium chloride, or saline solution. It must be a cover-up! Quick, somebody call Mike Adams!

[fantom]

Thank you. I appreciate the clarity of your post.

[h90]

To h90

You may wish to read Sheryl's excellent post relating to vaccine on 137

All toddlers of both sexes are commonly given the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine which was developed in the 1970 s.

The rubella vaccine is to ensure that kids don't get rubella (or german measles as it used to be called) and subsequently infect a pregnant woman with resulting serious consequences to the unborn child.

You may wish to look at the Australian immunisation schedule for more information , this also contains basic information regarding annual flu vaccination schedule

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/immunisation/

I am not sure how to make it any simpler.

yes but it isn't logic. To vaccinate the women would be logic. Or the toddlers and the adult women who were not vaccinated.

Just from the point of logic and avoiding that many vaccinations.

Every of this vaccination makes sense....but the total number of vaccinations in the first year is scary.

[fantom]

The consequences of not vaccinating are far far more scary

[Jockey]

Thimerosal is made up of 49.6% mercury, a known neurotoxin. There are 25 mcg of mercury included in each regular season flu shot. The EPA sets the toxicity limit of mercury at .1 mcg. This is a 250 times greater amount than the EPA considers the toxic level in each injection. While denial by vaccine makers and welfare scientists exist as to the effects of ethylmercury compared to methylmercury, there can be no denial that mercury, in any form, is harmful to the brain.

Consider now the size of a baby or indeed an unborn baby in the mothers womb that has to absorb this poison for each injection made.

Mercury is not the only dangerous substance contained in vaccines. Squalene, aluminum, polysorbate 80, and many other dangerous substances are included in most vaccines. All of these substances are capable of irreversible harm.

Vaccines containing high concentrations of neurotoxic aluminum were added to the child immunization schedule when several vaccines containing mercury were removed. Two-month old babies now receive 1,225 mcg of aluminum from their vaccines -- 50 times higher than safety levels! Although the FDA, CDC and World Health Organization are aware of the dangers, they expect parents to play Russian roulette with their children.

As I stated earlier, there are no official tests whatsoever to see if giving babies 4 times the amount of vaccines that was given to babies in the 1980's has any detrimental effects to the babies bodies, brains or natural immune systems. We see chronic conditions such as AHD, Asthma and Autism reach epidemic levels, proportionate to the increase in vaccines given to babies, but anyone brave enough to suggest vaccines may be the cause of these epidemics, or even question the amount of vaccines given to babies, opens themselves up to fanatical condemnation, ridicule and ostrichisation, particularly if they work within the medical profession.

Any patient, especially a parent, should be aware of the risks and dangers associated with vaccination and should make their decision accordingly, regardless of the orders of their doctor or the propaganda. Remember, doctors used to advertise the health benefits of smoking cigarettes!

[attrayant]

Content lifted directly from nutjob Alex Jones' inforwars website. It will be given all the consideration it is due.

I hate to break it to you, but those are just cartoon drawings of doctors. But I'll wait until you can find the numbers on how many health organizations and agencies (not just a stray doctor here or there) actually used to push cigarettes on their patients.

The myth: Cigarettes were once ‘physician’ tested, approved

Executives at tobacco companies knew they had to take action to suppress the public’s fears about tobacco products. “Tobacco companies asked themselves: How can we go about reassuring the public that particularly cigarettes, but also cigars and pipes, are not harmful?” Jackler told HemOnc Today. The answer was to use medical research and physicians to show the public that cigarettes were not harmful. Although the doctors in these advertisements were always actors and not real physicians, the image of the physician permeated cigarette ads for the next two and a half decades.

Cigarette companies even went so far as to run ads in medical journals, but they never convinced any medical professionals to endorse their poison. They finally gave up around 1950 when they were unable to get any actual doctors on board.

Not that this even matters one whit. You can always find a few quacks who'll say almost anything. What counts is the broad scientific consensus.

Does the fact that medieval geologists (such as they were) were wrong about the shape of the earth mean that we can't trust any modern-day geologists? We used to think the sun revolved around the Earth. Now we know better. But I guess since astronomers made that mistake in the 1500's, we can't trust them with anything now, right? Because that's exactly what your scary tobacco story means.

Before you become an authority on thimerosal, first tell me why it doesn't bother you that extremely high concentration of two known toxins - sodium and chlorine - are routinely injected into children in emergency rooms every day? Why is the toxin mercury bad but the toxin chlorine not bad?

[h90]

[Note: This reply is spread out over several posts due to the forum's limit on the number of quote tags per post]

This fairy tale comes to us courtesy of Mike Adams of - you guessed it - Natural News. Adams "reports" on the story fabricated by Andrew Wakefield (a former surgeon who falsified data in the hopes of cashing in on his autism detection kits) and Brian Hooker, a biochemist. Hooker has an autistic child (whose autism he blames on mercury-containing vaccines). You don't suppose there could be just a touch of bias there? I would no more trust these two to report fairly on vaccines than I would trust Kim Jong Un to tell me how nice a vacation spot North Korea is.

Hooker befriended a CDC scientist named William Thompson (and secretly recorded conversations between them for almost a year). The snippets of the recordings that have been made publicly available are just that - only snippets, heavily edited, spliced together and missing the surrounding context. Hooker's personal "reanalysis" of the Destefano study is simply wrong. It's no secret. The study is out there. Anyone can read it. In fact it has been out there for 13 years, available for the public and hundreds of thousands of researchers to read. That's some great cover-up job by the CDC, eh?

Here's a summary of the study and Hooker's attempted "reanalysis". In a nutshell: A team of research scientists discuss how to report the data of a small study. The group eventually comes to a consensus. Thompson doesn't agree with the consensus. The study is published, as studies always are, reporting the general consensus. That's it. That's the "cover-up". That's as far as I'll go with this story because it's really quite a joke. Suffice it to say that Wakefield and Hooker did some pretty slimy things to get the snippets of Thompsons words to come out sounding just the way they wanted. You can read about how it all unfolded over at Science Blogs: A bad day for antivaccinationists

So what's next? We still haven't seen a reassessment of the raw data. All we have is some spliced-together audio and Thompson's statement. The next step would be to open the study again and have a team of scientists analyze it. But what if the same thing happens again? What if nine scientists reach a consensus and one dissents? Is that another CDC cover-up waiting to be re-re-exposed ten years from now?

but you think this hugely important information is something you can just dismiss as "Garbage and Paranoia"

You have yet to demonstrate how this reanalysis reveals anything hugely important. I await your careful analysis of the Destefano study with bated breath.

just because it was reported in Natural News (amongst many other sites).

Natural News, Age of Autism, Australian Antivaccination Network, assorted Alex Jones websites, Jenny McCarthy's blog... did I miss any? All picked up the story from the same source. Just because multiple sites echo the same lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Do you really think that because this story is covered by Natural News somehow its untrue?

No, thats not the only reason its untrue. It's untrue for a whole host of reasons. Being on Natural News is just the icing on the crackpot cake. That site has a huge credibility problem. Let's find out what kind of sound advice we can learn from that bastion of medical science:

-People get sick from an acid/alkaline imbalance

-Aloe Vera is a miracle cure!

-Malaysia flight 370 clearly a government cover-up!

-MSG is some kind of neurotoxin

-Homeopathic medicine works

-HIV/AIDS denial

-Plastic water bottles are toxic

-Cancer is your body's natural healing system

-Adams calls for the murder of all those who don't accept his misinformed world view (see link below for more on this)

In short, Mike Adams is a dangerous loon.

"-People get sick from an acid/alkaline imbalance

-Aloe Vera is a miracle cure!

-Malaysia flight 370 clearly a government cover-up!

-MSG is some kind of neurotoxin

-Homeopathic medicine works

-HIV/AIDS denial

-Plastic water bottles are toxic

-Cancer is your body's natural healing system

-Adams calls for the murder of all those who don't accept his misinformed world view (see link below for more on this)

"

Many if not most Doctors and ALL pharmacies in Europe sell you Homeopathic and advise you which sugar balls with nothing helps against which problems. The same people tell you vaccinations are complete safe.

Than you are surprised that the people get confused?

I am not against vaccinations but just as precaution I would try to limit them, at least first till there is more data.

And consider that only a few crazy people told that the earth is round and not flat....against any knowledge and common sense. As well consider if vaccinations would cause Autism (I don't believe it), and all the victims would sue the pharma company, it would mean a complete brakedown of the system. So surely it would be hidden (like the non existing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).

The main problem is that everyone fakes and cheats and that people start to doubt everything, even the things that aren't wrong.

[Jockey]

Pattaya Pat "Every year my wife gets a flu vaccine for our daughter and every year it causes a row as I'm sure it is not needed and it is just a ploy from the hospital to extract more money out of you. They tell her that our daughter should have it done and of course she just meekly agrees. There goes another thousand baht in the hospital coffers..

Or, am I wrong? I've always believe that flu vaccines are only for old people and/or if you live in a cold country and the winter is approaching?

Thanks".

Despite the fanatics who promote vaccines as if they are on some sort of religious crusade, I recommend you take the advice of this man who is actually an expert on the subject:

Dr. Russell Blaylock Warns: Don’t Get the Flu Shot — It Promotes Alzheimer’s

“The vaccine is completely worthless, and the government knows it,” says Dr. Blaylock. “There are three reasons the government tells the elderly why they should get flu shots: secondary pneumonia, hospitalization, and death. Yet a study by the Cochrane group studied hundreds of thousands of people and found it offered zero protection for those three things in the general community. It offered people in nursing homes some immunity against the flu — at best one-third — but that was only if they picked the right vaccine.”

The government also says that every baby over the age of six months should have a vaccine, and they know it contains a dose of mercury that is toxic to the brain. They also know the studies have shown that the flu vaccine has zero — zero — effectiveness in children under 5.

Here’s the bottom line: The vast number of people who get the flu vaccine aren’t going to get any benefit, but they get all of the risks and complications.

Flu vaccines contain mercury in the form of thimerosal (ethylmercury), a brain toxin, which accumulates in the brain and other organs. “It’s incorporated into the brain for a lifetime,” says Dr. Blaylock. “After five or 10 years of flu shots, enough mercury accumulates in the brain that every single study agrees is neurotoxic. Mercury is extremely toxic to the brain even in very small concentrations, and there are thousands of studies that prove it.”

The changes that we see in the brain associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are all easily produced by mercury in these doses.

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author of numerous published papers, and lecturer. Dr. Blaylock serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association. He is the associate editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He now serves as a Visiting Professor in the Department of Biology at Belhaven College.

Check out his excellent paper titled "The Danger of Excessive Vaccination During Brain Development - The case for a link to autism spectrum disorders (ASD)" https://secure.eznettools.net/D305742/X367201/science/health-issues/vaccinationDanger-brain.html

[fantom]

Dr Russell Blaylock???? He appears to have 'views inconsistent with the scientific consensus' (Wikipedia) at one end of spectrum and something akin to a fur coated, copper bottomed ocean going nutter at the other. Interestingly it is also suggested he has not only made himself very rich peddling his nonsense but he belongs to the conspiracy brigade as well.

From: http://www.skepdic.com/blaylock.html

Blaylock also has his opponents. Joe Schwarcz of the Montreal Gazette considers Blaylock to be a man whose mind is filled with conspiracy theories.

'He [blaylock] opines that the social drug problem in the United States was created by the nefarious former Soviet Union "to weaken the resistance of Western society to Soviet invasion, undermine religion and make the youth unable to resist collectivism." And, oh yes, the Soviets were also responsible for an epidemic of hepatitis, AIDS, venereal diseases and highly resistant tuberculosis.'

According to Blaylock, current attempts at health-care reform in the U.S. are being masterminded by the self-chosen "elite" (read President Barack Obama, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and other such organizations) who want to establish a New World Order in which people judged to be a burden on the state, such as the infirm elderly and the disabled, are to be removed from society by positive or negative euthanasia. In Blaylock's esteemed opinion, "this is really not that far away from the German National Socialist Party's thinking." In other words, Obama's health-care reforms have Nazi overtones, with plans to reduce the population of elderly, who are bankrupting the social security system.'

From: http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/505-russell-blaylock.html

[fantom]

RE: Blaylock

I omitted to add the following comment from the site http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/505-russell-blaylock.html

'Well, of course Blaylock doesn’t only identify the problem (science-based medicine); he also promotes the solution (pseudoscience), and you can buy medicine and supplements he sells under the label ”Brain Repair Formula” from his website.

These supplements can apparently treat and prevent a range of ailments, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, by maximizing ”your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation.” He may, according to himself, also have found the (secret) cure for cancer. Suzanne Somers included a section on Blaylock and his cancer approach in her quackfest book Knockout.'

[Jockey]

Notice a pattern here? ANYONE, no matter how qualified, no matter how clear the argument, no matter the evidence provided, ANYONE who questions the supreme authority and judgments regarding the safety of vaccines is immediately characterized as a loony, yet if you take the time to read what these men have to say, you realize that they are not loony's, but actually experts and leaders in their fields of medicine who challenge the supreme authority of the establishment, backed up with very convincing evidence.

Here is what Dr. Russell Blakelock has to say on the matter. Read it and judge for yourself if this man is talking sense or is some kind of loony as the establishment would wish you to believe:

In 1976, children received 10 vaccines before attending school. Today they will receive over 36 injections. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control assured parents that it was safe to not only administer these vaccines, but that multiple vaccines could be given at one time with complete safety. Is this true? Or are we being lied to on a grand scale?

The medical establishment has created a set of terms that they use constantly to boost their egos and firm up their authority as the unique holders of medical wisdom—the mantra is “evidence-based medicine,” as if everything outside their anointing touch is bogus and suspect. A careful examination of many of the accepted treatments reveals that most have little or no scientific “evidence-based” data to support them. One often cited study found that almost 80% of medical practice had no scientific backing.

This is not to say that medical practice should be entirely based on pure and applied science, as understood in the fields of physics and chemistry. Medicine, as pointed out by many of the great men of medicine, is an art. For those interested, the paper, Regimentation in Medicine and the Death of Creativity (located on the Internet website http://www.russellblaylockmd.com) discusses the proper role of medicine.

Most medical practitioners recognize that some things are obvious without a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study. For example, there has never been such a study to see if smashing your finger with a hammer will be painful, but we accept it without such pristine evidence. The same is true with removing brain tumors or sewing up severe lacerations.

I find it interesting that there exists an incredible double standard when it comes to scientific evidence versus vaccination-supporting evidence. The proponents of vaccination safety can just say they are safe, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and the public is expected to accept this without question. They can announce that mercury is not only safe but also that it seems to actually increase the IQ, and the public is to accept such pronouncements as the truth. They can proclaim Thimerosal safe to use in vaccines without ever having conducted a single study on its safety in over 70 years of use, and we are to accept it.

Yet, let anyone else suggest that excessive vaccination can increase the risk of not only autism but also schizophrenia and neurodegenerative diseases, and the vaccine apologists will scream like banshees: Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence? When independent researchers produce study after study questioning vaccination-program safety, the vaccine apologists always proclaim them either as presenting insufficient evidence or as having design “flaws.” More often than not, they just completely ignore the evidence. They have continued to do this even after independent researchers have produced dozens of published peer-reviewed studies that not only demonstrate clinical and scientific links between vaccination and/or vaccine ingredients and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) but also clearly show the mechanism by which the damage is being done—even on a molecular level. These include cell culture studies, mixed cell cultures, organotypic tissue studies, in vivoanimal studies using multiple species, and even human studies. To the defenders of vaccine safety, this ever-increasing body of evidence is never sufficient and what independent researchers accept as a proven reality—the vaccine apologists either ignore or treat as a non-reality.

In the 1950s, there was no proof that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. The connection was as obvious as the layman’s observation that smashing your finger with a hammer would cause pain and even the town drunk knew it was true, but, to the medical establishment’s position was, “there is no proof.”

No one had ever produced lung cancer in animals by exposing them to cigarette smoke. In fact, my pathology professor, Dr. Jack Strong, had trained monkeys to chain smoke, and after years of smoking, none developed lung cancer. Yet, he was convinced that smoking caused lung cancer. Dr. Alton Oschner, founder of the famed Oschner Clinic in New Orleans, led the charge in proclaiming the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It took almost another decade before the medical establishment was willing to admit that smoking caused most cases of lung cancer.

Almost 30 years passed from the time some iconoclastic men of medicine tried to convince the medical establishment that smoking caused most cases of lung cancer until it became generally accepted. The question that needs to be asked is: How many people died of lung cancer, the most prevalent cause of cancer death in the United States, during this time? Data from the National Cancer Institute estimated that in the year 2004, 157,000 people died of lung cancer. If 80% were secondary to smoking, that would be 125,000 dead. Over a ten-year period that would be over one million dead and, over 30 years, almost 4 million people would have died from a preventable cause of death that, at the time, was still being hotly debated by the medical establishment. Lung-cancer death rates were actually higher during that time period.

Thus, when questions of medical importance are obscured by the medical establishment’s demands for conclusive causal proof that is acceptable to the establishment, the cost can be ongoing harm to the health of the public and millions of lives.

Today, there are over one million U.S. children and adults with autism, millions more with other identified neurological and behavioral disorders, and the numbers continue to grow. This is a medical disaster of monumental proportions. The link to the vaccine program is scientifically and logically compelling and, a recent vaccine-injury case, Hannah Poling v. Sec. HHS, has even been conceded by the medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC). However, the vaccine apologists are still refusing to listen.

Like smoking and lung cancer, there is more than enough proof today to call a halt to the present excessive vaccine program and ban any level of mercury in vaccines. In 1983, before the autism epidemic began, children received 10 vaccinations prior to school entry and the U.S. autism rate was on the order of 1 in 10,000. Today, children receive 23 or more vaccines prior to the age 2 years and 36 or more by the time of school entry and the U.S. autism rate is now greater than 1 in 150. Medical “experts” have provided no plausible alternative explanation for this dramatic and sudden increase in ASD cases, despite their frantic efforts to find one.

Medical “experts” attempted to blame the increase on a genetic factor, but independent geneticists were quick to respond that genetic disorders do not suddenly increase in such astronomical proportions. The vaccine apologists then said it was because of better diagnosis, despite the facts that: a) the diagnosis is obvious in virtually every case and the criteria officially accepted for diagnosis has become more, not less, restrictive.

When trapped by a lack of evidence, defenders of a nefarious position resort to their old standby—the epidemiological study. Statisticians will tell you that the least reliable type of study is an epidemiological study because it is easy to manipulate the data so that the study tells you anything you wish it to. Every justification offered by vaccine defenders is based on such studies and never the actual science. Moreover, the epidemiological studies conducted and/or pointed to by the vaccine apologists suffer from the post-publication refusal of the contact authors to provide the datasets they used so that independent researchers could confirm the validity of the design and findings of their studies. Then, the vaccination-safety defenders have had an Institute of Medicine review committee that they hired and charged to review the initial studies and announce that the issue is settled and no further studies need be done. In addition, in subsequent epidemiological studies conducted by those who defend vaccine safety, the papers have also made these “it is settled” claims even though all know that no epidemiological study can disprove the possibility of a link – it can only determine the statistical probability that there may be a link in the population studied. Of course, vaccine apologists tout their findings to the mainstream media who, because of the advertising dollars they receive from the healthcare establishment, are only too happy to publish such pro-vaccination propaganda as if it were factually accurate.

After the media has been informed that the issue has been settled, those who continue to present the evidence are considered kooks and the great unwashed ignorant.