Categorized Autism, Pharma/FDA
H1N1 Flu Mist Insanity
Posted on 22 September 2009 by C. Linderman Sr. - ATO Press
C. L. Linderman Sr. ATO
Opinion Press
As public health departments and physicians across the country prepare for the impending “pandemic” we know affectionately as The Swine Flu, many of them will not be paying attention to anything but the hype and lies that are being propagated by the Centers for Disease Control and other mainstream medical associations. There is little doubt from those that pay attention to the inherent conflicts of interest within these governmental and medical organizations (primarily the CDC and FDA) that there seems to be far more concern with the bottom lines of the vaccine manufacturers than there is with the health and well being of the American public.
For any discerning physician that cares to educate themselves on the facts behind the live H1N1 nasal spray vaccine and continues to vaccinate those individuals targeted by our government for inoculation, I consider them to be criminals and domestic terrorists. Many of us have heard that pregnant women and children will be among the first to receive the H1N1 vaccine and because of the all-too-real concern regarding the mercury content of the injected H1N1 vaccine, many parents and expectant mothers will opt for the nasal vaccines for their children. This decision could be the mistake of a lifetime.I have before me as I am writing this, the PDF copy of the H1N1 2009 Monovalent Intranasal Vaccine insert and what I am reading is disturbing to say the least. On the very first page of this 21 page PDF, under the heading of “Use in Specific Populations” I am reading; “Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, Live Intranasal, have not been studied in pregnant women or nursing mothers.” On the very same page in the “Full Prescribing Information Contents” sections, #8 reads; “Specific Population” 8.1 states clearly; “Pregnancy” and 8.2 states “Nursing mothers”. So while there have been no studies regarding how this vaccine will affect the fetus of a pregnant mother or her nursing infant, they are still being targeted as those that should be subjected to this vaccine!
If this weren’t enough for worried expectant mothers, 8.1 Pregnancy category C, states “Animal reproductive studies have not been conducted (with this vaccine). It is not known whether (this vaccine) can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproductive capacity.” This same paragraph goes on to clearly suggest that the vaccine “should be given to pregnant women only if clearly needed“, Yet pregnant women are one of the main groups targeted so I feel that it is safe to assume that this fills that criterion for vaccination despite the fact that they have no idea what the side effects will be. Section 8.3 (Nursing Mothers) gets even better. “It is not known whether (this vaccine) is excreted in human milk. Therefore, as some viruses are excreted in human milk and additionally, because of the possibility of shedding of vaccine virus and the close proximity of a nursing infant and mother caution should be exercised if (this vaccine) is administered to nursing mothers.”It just gets worse as we read on. How many in this country have been asked (or will be asked) if their children are asthmatic prior to being vaccinated at the local WalMart or grocery store pharmacy? It seems that this particular vaccine increases the potential risk of wheezing, asthma attacks and hospitalization. Also, this document states that if there has been a history of Guillain Barre’ Syndrome within 6 weeks of a previous influenza vaccination, “the decision to give Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, Live, Intranasal or Flu Mist should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and potential risks.” So contracting a disorder that paralyzes you could possibly indicate that perhaps you shouldn’t receive another poisonous injection? Am I the only one that finds this bizarre?The CDC also warns you that this vaccine “may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.” To be honest with you, to call the CDC disingenuous would be a serious understatement given that last year’s seasonal flu vaccine was determined to be 90% ineffective yet they continued to tell the American public that they should get the vaccine anyway.
Here are a couple of other side effects that one should consider before subjecting themselves or their children to this idiotic measure to supposedly protect them from a virus that by all indications is far less virulent than the common seasonal flu: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh Syndrome), Gastrointestinal disorders (i.e. nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) Immune system disorders (anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and uticaria) Guillain Bare’ syndrome and Bells Palsy, Respiratory, thoracic and mediatinal disorders and skin and tissue disorders.
Add to this previous nonsense the fact that this nasal spray vaccine is a LIVE virus and therefore must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity, one must assume that this will allow the H1N1 virus to be shed to those that come in contact with the ones that have recently been vaccinated. Many doctors believe that this infectious stage lasts up to 21 days! Let’s not also forget that the cribiform plate, the paper thin bone at the top of the nasal passages will allow this live virus to infect the brains of a small portion of those that receive the vaccines, causing a brain infection known as encephalitis which, pardon me for mentioning, is far more deadly than this benign “pandemic”.With all this information, one should get only one message: DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Dr. Jay Gordon on Swine Flu Vaccine
Hello and merry meet to all my new readers! Welcome. :)
I just received an e-mail from Dr. Jay Gordon regarding the swine flu vaccine and I thought I'd share it with you, loyal readers. I have a far more comprehensive piece on the swine flu planned for early next week.
I will say though, I completely agree with Dr. Gordon.
Without further ado, here's his thoughts on the topic:
Greetings!
I have seen more children and adults with influenza-like illness: 104 degree fevers, muscle soreness, sore throat and negative tests for strep, than in any summer I can remember. I haven't used the "flu swab" to test anybody, but I'm sure that many if not most of these sick people had Swine Flu. They all felt miserable, and they are all feeling just fine now.
Preventing outbreaks of this "novel H1N1" influenza may be a mistake of huge proportions. Yes, sadly, there will be fatalities among the 6 billion citizens of the planet. Tens of millions of cases of any illness will lead to morbidity and mortality, but this is completely (tragically) unavoidable. The consequences of not acquiring immunity this time around, however, could be really terrible and far outweigh a mass prevention program.
Here's my rationale for not using Tamiflu: If (if, if, if) this virus circles the globe as the rather innocent influenza it now appears to be, but mutates and returns as a very virulent form of influenza, it will be quite wonderful and life-saving to have formed antibodies against its 2009 version. These antibodies may be far from 100% protective, but they will help. This is incredibly important but being ignored in the interest of expediency.
In 1918, it appears that influenza A (an H1N1, by the way) did this globe-trotting mutation and killed millions. The times and state of medical care are not comparable, but a milder parallel occurrence is possible. Perhaps this happens every 100 years or so, perhaps every three million.
Whenever possible, we should form antibodies against viruses at the right stage of their existence and at the right stage of our lives (For example, chickenpox in childhood and EBV/mono in early childhood. There are many other examples.) Getting many viral illnesses confers lifetime immunity, and very few vaccines do.
Tamiflu is a very powerful drug with little proven efficacy against this bug, and with its major side effect being tummy upset. I'm not using it at all. Psychiatric side effects are also possible.
I also won't be giving the flu shot to the kids and parents in my practice unless there are extraordinary risk factors. I anticipate giving none at all this year. I doubt that there will be any really large problems with the vaccine, but I also doubt any really large benefits. As I said, I think that this year's version of this particular H1N1 is as "mild" as it will ever be and that getting sick with it this year will be good rather than bad. The chances that a new "flu shot" will be overwhelmingly effective are small.
I consider this, and most seasonal and novel influenza A vaccines, as "experimental" vaccines; they've only been tested on thousands of people for a period of weeks and then they'll be given to hundreds of millions of people. Not really the greatest science when we're in that much of a hurry. Yes, one can measure antibodies against a certain bacterium or virus in the blood and it may be associated with someone not getting sick, but there are very few illnesses common enough or enough ethics committees willing enough to do the right tests. That is, give 1000 people the real vaccine and 1000 placebo shots, expose all of them to the disease and see who gets sick. Seriously. I know it sounds terrible.
This is, obviously, a difficult public discussion because it touches on the concept of benefits and risks, again, of morbidity and mortality. Few public officials have the courage or inclination to present all facets of this difficult decision. I give vaccines to my patients every single day, but I always err on the side of caution. Implying that this is a dangerous new shot is not scientifically or statistically correct and represents hyperbole and even dishonesty on the part of the so-called "anti-vaccine" camp.
It sure isn't "sexy" to suggest handwashing, good nutrition, hydration, extra sleep and so on. It's not conventional to suggest astragalus, echinacea, elderberry and vitamin C. Adequate vitamin D levels are crucial, too.
I just think that giving this new H1N1 vaccine is not the cautious nor best thing to do.
Best,
Jay Gordon, MD FAAP
More to come! In the meantime, stay healthy loyal readers. :)
I just received an e-mail from Dr. Jay Gordon regarding the swine flu vaccine and I thought I'd share it with you, loyal readers. I have a far more comprehensive piece on the swine flu planned for early next week.
I will say though, I completely agree with Dr. Gordon.
Without further ado, here's his thoughts on the topic:
Greetings!
I have seen more children and adults with influenza-like illness: 104 degree fevers, muscle soreness, sore throat and negative tests for strep, than in any summer I can remember. I haven't used the "flu swab" to test anybody, but I'm sure that many if not most of these sick people had Swine Flu. They all felt miserable, and they are all feeling just fine now.
Preventing outbreaks of this "novel H1N1" influenza may be a mistake of huge proportions. Yes, sadly, there will be fatalities among the 6 billion citizens of the planet. Tens of millions of cases of any illness will lead to morbidity and mortality, but this is completely (tragically) unavoidable. The consequences of not acquiring immunity this time around, however, could be really terrible and far outweigh a mass prevention program.
Here's my rationale for not using Tamiflu: If (if, if, if) this virus circles the globe as the rather innocent influenza it now appears to be, but mutates and returns as a very virulent form of influenza, it will be quite wonderful and life-saving to have formed antibodies against its 2009 version. These antibodies may be far from 100% protective, but they will help. This is incredibly important but being ignored in the interest of expediency.
In 1918, it appears that influenza A (an H1N1, by the way) did this globe-trotting mutation and killed millions. The times and state of medical care are not comparable, but a milder parallel occurrence is possible. Perhaps this happens every 100 years or so, perhaps every three million.
Whenever possible, we should form antibodies against viruses at the right stage of their existence and at the right stage of our lives (For example, chickenpox in childhood and EBV/mono in early childhood. There are many other examples.) Getting many viral illnesses confers lifetime immunity, and very few vaccines do.
Tamiflu is a very powerful drug with little proven efficacy against this bug, and with its major side effect being tummy upset. I'm not using it at all. Psychiatric side effects are also possible.
I also won't be giving the flu shot to the kids and parents in my practice unless there are extraordinary risk factors. I anticipate giving none at all this year. I doubt that there will be any really large problems with the vaccine, but I also doubt any really large benefits. As I said, I think that this year's version of this particular H1N1 is as "mild" as it will ever be and that getting sick with it this year will be good rather than bad. The chances that a new "flu shot" will be overwhelmingly effective are small.
I consider this, and most seasonal and novel influenza A vaccines, as "experimental" vaccines; they've only been tested on thousands of people for a period of weeks and then they'll be given to hundreds of millions of people. Not really the greatest science when we're in that much of a hurry. Yes, one can measure antibodies against a certain bacterium or virus in the blood and it may be associated with someone not getting sick, but there are very few illnesses common enough or enough ethics committees willing enough to do the right tests. That is, give 1000 people the real vaccine and 1000 placebo shots, expose all of them to the disease and see who gets sick. Seriously. I know it sounds terrible.
This is, obviously, a difficult public discussion because it touches on the concept of benefits and risks, again, of morbidity and mortality. Few public officials have the courage or inclination to present all facets of this difficult decision. I give vaccines to my patients every single day, but I always err on the side of caution. Implying that this is a dangerous new shot is not scientifically or statistically correct and represents hyperbole and even dishonesty on the part of the so-called "anti-vaccine" camp.
It sure isn't "sexy" to suggest handwashing, good nutrition, hydration, extra sleep and so on. It's not conventional to suggest astragalus, echinacea, elderberry and vitamin C. Adequate vitamin D levels are crucial, too.
I just think that giving this new H1N1 vaccine is not the cautious nor best thing to do.
Best,
Jay Gordon, MD FAAP
More to come! In the meantime, stay healthy loyal readers. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)