Sixth study in recent months linking mercury in flu shots to brain damage/autism

[SilverMoon010]

What more evidence do they need? Also, if mercury was removed from all other vaccines for "safety" issues, then why hasn't it been removed from the flu vaccine, a vaccine required for school entrance for children of all ages (at least in my state it is)? 

Now that they've established mercury toxicity, it would be nice if they start studies on all other toxins, such as aluminum and formaldehyde to name a few, and the effect of accumulation of those toxins over time.

http://www.naturalnews.com/031870_flu_shots_brain_damage.html 

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/28/11 at 5:24am

[D_McG]

From what I can tell, this is what the study says:

There is a need to interpret neurotoxic studies to help deal with uncertainties surrounding pregnant mothers, newborns and young children who must receive repeated doses of Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs). This review integrates information derived from emerging experimental studies (in vitro and in vivo) of low-dose Thimerosal (sodium ethyl mercury thiosalicylate). Major databases (PubMed and Web-of-science) were searched for in vitro and in vivo experimental studies that addressed the effects of low-dose Thimerosal (or ethylmercury) on neural tissues and animal behaviour.

Information extracted from studies indicates that: (a) activity of low doses of Thimerosal against isolated human and animal brain cells was found in all studies and is consistent with Hg neurotoxicity; (b) the neurotoxic effect of ethylmercury has not been studied with co-occurring adjuvant-Al in TCVs; (c) animal studies have shown that exposure to Thimerosal-Hg can lead to accumulation of inorganic Hg in brain, and that (d) doses relevant to TCV exposure possess the potential to affect human neuro-development. Thimerosal at concentrations relevant for infants’ exposure (in vaccines) is toxic to cultured human-brain cells and to laboratory animals.

The persisting use of TCV (in developing countries) is counterintuitive to global efforts to lower Hg exposure and to ban Hg in medical products; its continued use in TCV requires evaluation of a sufficiently nontoxic level of ethylmercury compatible with repeated exposure (co-occurring with adjuvant-Al) during early life.

[BeckyBird]

Also, investigate the possible reactions of fluoridated water with those vaccine chemicals. What a harmful cocktail!

[no5no5]

There are flu shots without mercury, which are recommended for pregnant women and young children.  After all, the fact that mercury is toxic is not new information. 

But, that said, the "sixth study" cited by your article appears to actually be a review.  And it was apparently written to promote a change in developing nations, where mercury is still commonly used as a preservative in childhood vaccines.  The whole article doesn't appear to be available yet, but, based on the abstract's focus on early childhood, it doesn't sound like it'll have much to say about the mercury in flu shots given to non-pregnant adults. 

I'm not sure what the other five studies are, but I don't think your article is terribly reliable, just based on the inaccuracy of calling this a study and implying that it is about flu shots and autism. 

[SilverMoon010]

Quote:

Originally Posted by no5no5 

There are flu shots without mercury, which are recommended for pregnant women and young children.  After all, the fact that mercury is toxic is not new information. 

But, that said, the "sixth study" cited by your article appears to actually be a review.  And it was apparently written to promote a change in developing nations, where mercury is still commonly used as a preservative in childhood vaccines.  The whole article doesn't appear to be available yet, but, based on the abstract's focus on early childhood, it doesn't sound like it'll have much to say about the mercury in flu shots given to non-pregnant adults. 

I'm not sure what the other five studies are, but I don't think your article is terribly reliable, just based on the inaccuracy of calling this a study and implying that it is about flu shots and autism. 

But doesn't it make you wonder  if years from now, researchers will be coming back with the same type of info on formaldehyde and aluminum, etc, once they start doing more studies on it all? I sure do! Whether the non-mercury flu shot is given to children or pregnant women, there is still mercury in some formulations of the flu vaccine depending on the brand.  People are still getting mercury-filled vaccines, especially during seasons where the flu vaccine is in high demand and the supplies are fewer and fewer. Unless you are reading the insert each time you get the flu shot, you have no way of knowing.  I think the thing that boggles my mind is that if mercury is toxic, and they have removed it from all other vaccines, then why haven't they removed it from all vaccines.  Some people are still receiving it with the flu shot, and to me, whether pregnant, children, or just regular adults, I sure wouldn't want it!

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/29/11 at 12:29pm

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

But doesn't it make you wonder  if years from now, researchers will be coming back with the same type of info on formaldehyde and aluminum, etc, once they start doing more studies on it all? I sure do! Whether the non-mercury flu shot is given to children or pregnant women, there is still mercury in some formulations of the flu vaccine depending on the brand.  People are still getting mercury-filled vaccines, especially during seasons where the flu vaccine is in high demand and the supplies are fewer and fewer. Unless you are reading the insert each time you get the flu shot, you have no way of knowing.  I think the thing that boggles my mind is that if mercury is toxic, and they have removed it from all other vaccines, then why haven't they removed it from all vaccines.  Some people are still receiving it with the flu shot, and to me, whether pregnant, children, or just regular adults, I sure wouldn't want it!

I do think that it makes sense to be extra cautious, especially with young children.  And I do believe that our knowledge will keep expanding, and we will change our actions as a result.  I also think that there is a difference between caution and paranoia, though. 

As for why mercury is still used, well, the answer is simple.  Vaccines with preservatives can be shipped in multi-dose containers, which saves money.  Personally, I think it probably makes sense to remove the mercury from all vaccines, but I also think that it makes sense to run a cost-benefit analysis first.  If, for instance, one mercury-containing flu shot per year would have no measurable effect on a non-pregnant adult, but changing the system to only single dose containers would cost lots & lots of money, it might not be worth it. 

[SilverMoon010]

I'm not sure how it is considered paranoia.  I'm not sure what's wrong with wanting to keep our children free from toxins that we have no idea what effect they are having on the body (until years later with studies like these), especially for the flu. I'm certainly not paranoid.  I just see it as completely unncessary and want the best for my child, as do all parents, and how each of us comes to that conclusion is obviously very different.  Cost-benefit analysis? Who cares.  To say they are saving money by using multi-dose vials just goes to show their lack of concern for people's health. More money for them, more problems for the people.  Do they care? No. I personally do not vaccinate, but I can maybe see some people's concerns with one or two diseases, the flu is certainly not one of them. JMO. 

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/29/11 at 1:50pm

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

I'm not sure how it is considered paranoia.  I'm not sure what's wrong with wanting to keep our children free from toxins that we have no idea what effect they are having on the body (until years later with studies like these), especially for the flu. I'm certainly not paranoid.  I just see it as completely unncessary and want the best for my child, as do all parents, and how each of us comes to that conclusion is obviously very different.  Cost-benefit analysis? Who cares.  To say they are saving money by using multi-dose vials just goes to show their lack of concern for people's health. More money for them, more problems for the people.  Do they care? No. I personally do not vaccinate, but I can maybe see some people's concerns with one or two diseases, the flu is certainly not one of them. JMO. 

I didn't mean to imply that you were paranoid.  Obviously we all weigh our own options and we put different weight on different things.  I am just saying that there's a line and I want to stay on one side of it.  I don't want to be questioning the safety of something unless I have a valid reason to do so.

While I can understand why someone who sees vaccines as useless would not approve of a cost-benefit analysis, as someone who believes that vaccines save lives, I personally would not want to see the cost increased unless there was a good reason that would outweigh the harm that reduced access from a price increase would inevitably cause.

[stik]

The influenza virus is also very toxic.  It's potentially deadly to my asthmatic 3yo, and to my 95 yo grandfather.  The additional cost of single vs. multi-dose vials is trivial to me personally, but it's not at all trivial in a global perspective, and my family is not the only one that could face a catastrophic loss as a result of a case of flu. 

I'm more concerned about a disease that kills people on a regular basis than I am about a vaccine that has never been conclusively proven to cause damage.  Thimerosal is toxic to brain cells, but we don't inject it into people's brains. 

ETA: The article at naturalnews.com is substantively similar to the press release it is based on.  The press release is posted at prnewswire.com - which is a hosting service for press releases that people want to put up.  It's got small type and it looks really serious, but I could put a press release up there if I wanted.  The press release mentions six studies, but only sites the article review examined by another poster further up thread.  That's a cute little racket, don't you think?  First I post unsubstantiated "press releases," in which I say whatever I want and I don't bother to cite evidence, and then I persuade online "news outlets" that agree with my point of view to cover my "press releases."  Now they look like real news! 

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by stik 

The influenza virus is also very toxic.  It's potentially deadly to my asthmatic 3yo, and to my 95 yo grandfather.  The additional cost of single vs. multi-dose vials is trivial to me personally, but it's not at all trivial in a global perspective, and my family is not the only one that could face a catastrophic loss as a result of a case of flu. 

I'm more concerned about a disease that kills people on a regular basis than I am about a vaccine that has never been conclusively proven to cause damage.  Thimerosal is toxic to brain cells, but we don't inject it into people's brains. 

ETA: The article at naturalnews.com is substantively similar to the press release it is based on.  The press release is posted at prnewswire.com - which is a hosting service for press releases that people want to put up.  It's got small type and it looks really serious, but I could put a press release up there if I wanted.  The press release mentions six studies, but only sites the article review examined by another poster further up thread.  That's a cute little racket, don't you think?  First I post unsubstantiated "press releases," in which I say whatever I want and I don't bother to cite evidence, and then I persuade online "news outlets" that agree with my point of view to cover my "press releases."  Now they look like real news! 

Your personal case may be different.  That's fine, but to mandate the flu vaccine for every single child entering school is ridiculous.  I am in a state where they push vaccines, so maybe I have a completely different outlook than others. I'm also in a state with one of the highest autism rates, if not the state with the highest.  It is disturbing to me that they have the ability mandate so many vaccines in order for school entrance.

Just me, but if there is any hype surrounding any kind of adjuvant /preservative/chemical in vaccines being potentially dangerous to my child, I am certainly going to look into it further whether or not one website seems suspicious.  I will then use my own judgment on what I know.  I'm not going to just go with the flow and take their word for it that it is safe and that there is not enough evidence that it does damage.  I don't need someone mandating it for me and the "upper beings" telling me it is safe.  Let me make that decision for myself.

Regarding you last paragraph, I find the same thing about mainstream media trying to scare everyone with "outbreaks" and how everyone needs to go get their vaccine, only to find out the true story and that the majority of those infected with the "outbreak" were already vaccinated.  I'm much more suspicious of the mainstream rather those other articles where they are confirming mercury is toxic.  Isn't it common sense that mercury is toxic?  You're right,  it's not injected into the brain (scary); however, with many vaccines being injected over and over again artificially, the body is unable to dispose of all of the toxins, thus building up in human tissue and causing damage to the brain and other areas.  I'm not a scientist, but it makes sense.  It can be argued that the media, via news outlets and magazines, does not use scare tactics, but by looking at the number of ads pushing vaccines, number of retail pharmacy stores saying  "Get your vaccines here," you can tell it is certainly a  money-making business and people seem to misunderstand that or just totally deny themselves to believe it.  Can you really say they are not pushing these for a profit? No one can ever say that they aren't pushing for profits with 100% confidence.

If you were trying to sell something, wouldn't you only tell the people the wonderful aspects of the product rather than focusing on the defects of that product, and wouldn't you want to try to make the person you're selling it to think they needed it?  If not, you wouldn't make any money.  Same goes for the vaccine industry.

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/30/11 at 7:46am

[Marnica]

Healthy Vitamin D levels and homeopathic flu nosodes are what me and my family do to prevent the flu. Vit D has been found in studies to cut the risk of flu by 50%.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010).

I don't believe the flu shot to be effective - The Cochrane Collaboration didn't find it to be either after reviewing dozens of clinical trails encompassing over 70,000 people - over half of which were industry sponsored.

 The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.

Despite this (That almost half the the studies were industry sponsored so much more lilely to publish favorable results ) their conclusion was that 99% of the time the viral strain for that flu season is not even a match. In the best case scenario (which doesn't happen all that often) when the strain did match 4% of controls got the flu and 1% of the vaccinated folks did.

 The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations.

also it is even less effective in kids under 2 yrs of age:

In a review of more than 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children it was found there was “no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo.

  and in kids with asthma:

 A study 800 children with asthma, where one half were vaccinated and the other half did not receive the influenza vaccine. The two groups were compared with respect to clinic visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations for asthma. CONCLUSION: This study failed to provide evidence that the influenza vaccine prevents pediatric asthma exacerbations.

 

Reference: “Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations.” Christly, C. et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Aug;89(8):734-5.
 

and:

 “The inactivated flu vaccine, Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine.”

 

Reference: The American Thoracic Society’s 105th International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego.

 

  and about those elderly folks:

 In a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, for elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not (significantly) effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia.

Reference: “Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3(2006).

I am an asthmatic myself and have been since I was a child. Actually I should rephrase that - I WAS an asthmatic. I relied on daily inhalers and at times steroids as a child and young adult. It was impressed upon me how important it was as a kid, teen and young adult for me to get my flu shot since I was so vulnerable. And for many years I did as I was told - and was constantly ill and got the flu practically every year (never hospirtalized with complications despite my vulnerability though) Since I have made the transition to natural medicine, I would not say I am an asthmatic anymore. I haven't needed an inhaler or any other medication for this condition in over 7 years - go figure. I guess I just outgrew a lifelong condition in my 30's!!! All anecdotal I know - but my experience nontheless.

[no5no5]

Since you seem to trust the Cochrane Collaboration, I'll try to stick to that:

The review authors found that in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus (82% of illnesses were prevented) than injected vaccines made from the killed virus (59%).

If 82% or even 59% of illnesses in children 2 & up were prevented that sounds better than a 50% reduction to me.  Not to mention that vitamin D supplements are prohibitively expensive for many people, whereas flu shots are cheap and often free.  Which is not to say that vitamin D isn't important; I know very well that it is, but just because it's important doesn't mean it is a realistic option. 

Flumist's own website indicates that it is contraindicated in anyone with asthma.  As for children who receive the flu shot, if your measure is the number of days of asthma symptoms or hospitalizations, it would of course be very hard to show a difference.  The flu shot is not designed to treat asthma.  It is designed to prevent the flu.  Anyway, the Cochrane Collaboration also says:

Few trials have been carried out in a way that tests whether asthma attacks following influenza infection (as opposed to following the vaccination) are significantly reduced by having influenza vaccination, so uncertainty remains in terms of how much difference vaccination makes to people with asthma. The included studies suggest that the vaccine against influenza is unlikely to precipitate asthma attacks immediately after the vaccine is used.

As for the elderly, the Cochrane Collaboration's current view seems to be this:

Due to the poor quality of the available evidence, any conclusions regarding the effects of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older cannot be drawn. The public health safety profile of the vaccines appears to be acceptable.

And for healthy adults, the Cochrane Collaboration seems to be focusing on a cost-benefit analysis.    They're saying that, because not everyone is exposed or susceptible to the flu virus each year, it will take 33-100 adults getting the vaccine to avoid one adult getting the flu.  So they're not saying that it doesn't work; rather they're saying that it may not always be necessary for healthy adults, who are not all that likely to get the flu anyway.  Personally, I don't get a flu shot every year.  But I am very glad that it is an option.  And I think that it is important that it remains an option for people who are not as fortunate as I am. 

[no5no5]

Oh, and I also wanted to add that my sister had severe asthma as a child and has also seemingly grown out of it...despite the fact that she's a heavy smoker, a junk-food eater, and a workaholic.  She keeps her meds around, but considering that she was hospitalized for asthma regularly in her 20s, and hasn't needed meds in years now, I'd say she's doing pretty well.  I don't think it's that uncommon. 

[choli]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

Oh, and I also wanted to add that my sister had severe asthma as a child and has also seemingly grown out of it...despite the fact that she's a heavy smoker, a junk-food eater, and a workaholic.  She keeps her meds around, but considering that she was hospitalized for asthma regularly in her 20s, and hasn't needed meds in years now, I'd say she's doing pretty well.  I don't think it's that uncommon. 

Not at all uncommon - my sister and I both outgrew severe asthma. In fact, I had the impression that it is more uncommon NOT to outgrow it.
 

[Marnica]

Happy for all who outgrew it

This was not the case for me - of this I am sure