Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://aap-ca.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ExemptionRequest-InfluenzaVaccine09-252015cm.pdf

Dear Secretary Dooley:
Re: Request for temporary exemption for use of thimerosal-containing vaccine
Due to delays in the delivery of preservative-free flu vaccine across the U.S., we request a temporary
exemption be granted to allow health care providers in California to administer thimerosal-containing
vaccine to children under three years of age and pregnant women.
The United States is experiencing a national shortage of Fluzone pediatric pre-filled syringes,
manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur. This is the only preservative-free injectable vaccine that can be
administered to children ages 6-35 months under California law (California Health and Safety Code
Section 124172 ). Additionally the delivery of FluMist, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) that is
administered intranasally, is also delayed throughout the country. FluMist has no preservative and can
be administered to a two-year old child if there are no contraindications. The manufacturer reports that
the vaccine is delayed due to production and shipping issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
That's stupid. I'm pregnant and would much rather forgo a flu shot entirely than get one with thimerosal in it. Especially given its low effectiveness to begin with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,724 Posts
I hope they don't get the exemption

But if they get it I suppose it'll give a thimerosal/non-thimerosal comparison set among pregnant women and young children. Slightly unethical study!

Wonder why they have delays in production in CA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
Wonder why they have delays in production in CA.
The majority of flu vaccine for the US is made in Pennsylvania.

If you call up and ask for it most place don't even have an idea what you are asking for - it's just FLU vaccine in the minds of many health care professionals. It's not even stocked at most "flu clinics", either is the mist. Jab only unless you got to a specialist - each state is all totally different as to where things can be obtained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
I hope they don't get the exemption

But if they get it I suppose it'll give a thimerosal/non-thimerosal comparison set among pregnant women and young children. Slightly unethical study!

Wonder why they have delays in production in CA.
Such exemptions are rubber-stamped.

Back a few years ago, when the public was campaigning to get thimerosal out of infant and early childhood vaccines, the AAP was testifying in state legislatures to keep it in. This is one of several reasons that a fair number of people in the US don't trust the AAP. They also take money from formula manufacturers and from junk food purveyors. Many states still allow flu vaccines for children under 3 and for the pregnant to get vaccines with thimerosal.

The ability to compare those who get exposure and those who do not has been available consistently in the US for quite a long time now. As far as I know, no such study has been done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
guess so much depends on who one wants to listen to.................ah


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm

How much thimerosal-free influenza vaccine is expected to be available for the 2015-16 season?

For the 2015-16 season, manufacturers will produce influenza vaccines containing thimerosal and some vaccines that do not contain thimerosal.

Approximately 116 to 118 million doses of thimerosal-free influenza vaccine will be produced for the 2015-2016 flu season.

these people didn't get the same memo - from Aug 20, 2015

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (≥ 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose.
trace must now mean FREE - who knew the definition changed?


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

Hope no one in NJ was preggers but they can just do a "do over" as they didn't even get the right amount and apparently had the multi dose not the single use, those contain that "stuff" but so what it's not REALLY harmful- right?
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...330777592.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
guess so much depends on who one wants to listen to.................ah


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm

How much thimerosal-free influenza vaccine is expected to be available for the 2015-16 season?

For the 2015-16 season, manufacturers will produce influenza vaccines containing thimerosal and some vaccines that do not contain thimerosal.

Approximately 116 to 118 million doses of thimerosal-free influenza vaccine will be produced for the 2015-2016 flu season.

these people didn't get the same memo - from Aug 20, 2015

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228



trace must now mean FREE - who knew the definition changed?


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

Hope no one in NJ was preggers but they can just do a "do over" as they didn't even get the right amount and apparently had the multi dose not the single use, those contain that "stuff" but so what it's not REALLY harmful- right?
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...330777592.html
And keep adding "trace amounts" continuously over time with years of recommended vaccines, particularly states that require the annual flu vaccine for school, and those amounts are not so "trace." Aren't we supposed to be decreasing our exposure to sources of mercury for "public health measure?"

Hasn't it been found that ethylmercury, the so-called "less harmful" form of mercury (thimerosal) actually metabolizes to methymercury, the very harmful form of mercury, in the brain, and then to inorganic mercury and hides in the tissue? I recall seeing studies in the past regarding that on rats and monkeys where they were injected with ethylmercury and later actually found both ethylmercury and methylmercury present in the blood, with the conclusion that ethylmercury converts to Methylmercury? Anyone know what happened with those studies? Buried? Refuted?
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
And keep adding "trace amounts" continuously over time with years of recommended vaccines, particularly states that require the annual flu vaccine for school, and those amounts are not so "trace." Aren't we supposed to be decreasing our exposure to sources of mercury for "public health measure?"

Hasn't it been found that ethylmercury, the so-called "less harmful" form of mercury (thimerosal) actually metabolizes to methymercury, the very harmful form of mercury, in the brain, and then to inorganic mercury and hides in the tissue? I recall seeing studies in the past regarding that on rats and monkeys where they were injected with ethylmercury and later actually found both ethylmercury and methylmercury present in the blood, with the conclusion that ethylmercury converts to Methylmercury? Anyone know what happened with those studies? Buried? Refuted?
.
:lurk yup! just keeping adding these numbers up - maybe a PRO vaccer who is so deeply concerned over math will weigh in @teacozy or a scientist who knows math @prosciencemum will enlighten us on the numbers and DATA we can't seem to do!

Once while in womb, two the first time, lets says over 18 years with those other vaccine that also (still!) have it in plus those with "trace" amounts, all injected and you get 20+ doses =HEALTHY right? and continue it past 18+ years (life) and no problems at all! - And where again are these long term studies?

How many micrograms of thimerosal is safe? Oh I guess none of this sillyness matters - the risk ALWAYS out weighs the benefits! It use to when we made our faces all white with lead and when we used leaches to suck out our blood - geeze modern science is SUPER! :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
I'm going to slightly disagree with some of my fellow pro vaccine members and say that I hope and think they should get the exemption.

When roughly 10% of all maternal deaths in the US are due to the flu, this is an important issue. I think women should have the choice to choose between thimerosal containing vaccines or no vaccine. They shouldn't be essentially forced to choose the no vaccine route due to a shortage that is out of their control. Especially since studies have shown that getting the flu during pregnancy may increase the chance that the baby will develop autism, schizophrenia, and an almost 4 fold increase of bipolar disorder (not to mention pregnant women are significantly more likely to die from the flu than the average adult population).

If given the choice between a thimerosal containing vaccine or no vaccine, I'd choose the thimerosal vaccine (especially since there isn't any good evidence that the tiny amount present in the flu vaccine is harmful). I understand that others would make a different choice, but I think it should be a choice all the same.

The real risks of the flu during pregnancy are scarier to me than possible theoretical risks from the flu vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
See, here's the funny little thing about SB277. It's not about protecting children. It's not about protecting the immunocompromised.

It's about protecting doctors.

And with no liability and a cashload of forced-vaxxed patients, the post-SB277 Love Fest is already starting.

A recent physician's op-ed, (whose link I can't find), demanded a Gardasil/Cervarix requirement.

They're storing vaccines poorly. And not only to they get to weasel out of accountability and offering so much as a refund, but their patients are strong-armed into be repeat customers to just to get their kids re-vaccinated and back in school.

And now they're demanding thimerosal.

With no liability, and with every possible obstacle to stop parents from saying no, the sky's the limit. There's no telling where this little joyride is going to take them. :irked
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
Also considering thimerosal was found to be one of the top five allergens, and studies have been very limited on the use of thimerosal and dangers associated with it, inflammation?, autoimmune?, and no long-term studies done, I am not surprised people would promote the use of it, because that's how it's done in vax land.

(Nickel is another popular allergen in which the device Essure (which was initially deemed as "safe and effective," which I mentioned in another thread about the FDA severely dropping the ball) is known to have caused thousands of women with autoimmune disorders and systemic complications due to their allergic reaction to the metal in their body).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
I'm going to slightly disagree with some of my fellow pro vaccine members and say that I hope and think they should get the exemption.

When roughly 10% of all maternal deaths in the US are due to the flu, this is an important issue. I think women should have the choice to choose between thimerosal containing vaccines or no vaccine. They shouldn't be essentially forced to choose the no vaccine route due to a shortage that is out of their control. Especially since studies have shown that getting the flu during pregnancy may increase the chance that the baby will develop autism, schizophrenia, and an almost 4 fold increase of bipolar disorder (not to mention pregnant women are significantly more likely to die from the flu than the average adult population).

If given the choice between a thimerosal containing vaccine or no vaccine, I'd choose the thimerosal vaccine (especially since there isn't any good evidence that the tiny amount present in the flu vaccine is harmful). I understand that others would make a different choice, but I think it should be a choice all the same.

The real risks of the flu during pregnancy are scarier to me than possible theoretical risks from the flu vaccine.
From the CDC data:

The graph below shows percentages of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States in 2011 caused by

  • Cardiovascular diseases, 15.1%.
  • Non-cardiovascular diseases, 14.1%.
  • Infection or sepsis, 14.0%.
  • Hemorrhage, 11.3%.
  • Cardiomyopathy, 10.1%.
  • Thrombotic pulmonary embolism, 9.8%.
  • Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, 8.4%.
  • Amniotic fluid embolism, 5.6%.
  • Cerebrovascular accidents, 5.4%.
  • Anesthesia complications, 0.3%.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pmss.html

perhaps influenza is under infection or sepsis?

This page doesn't include the 10%, either.

The tricky thing for me is always a question of exposure. If you get the flu vaccine your exposure is 100%. Whatever risks exist for you or the baby--you have taken them on. You still have the risks of the vaccine failing or of getting another form of influenza not in the vaccine or of coming down with an influenza like illness.

If you don't get the vaccine, you have fairly good odds of avoiding getting influenza during pregnancy, particularly if you take reasonable precautions. Your odds of getting the types of influenza not in the vaccine or of coming down with an influenza like illness have not worsened.

Overall, the risks of dying during or following pregnancy are fairly low in the US whether you get the flu vaccine or not.

I think this is an example of the difficulties of evaluating a low-risk situation.

But one thing is quite clear. You don't want to be black and pregnant in the US. Your chance of dying is about 3 times as high. Being black is hugely more dangerous than skipping the flu vaccine. Seems a bit unfair.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
I don't think I would take a flu vaccine with thimerosal if I were pregnant but I don't think I would take that choice away from someone else if there's no thimerosal free option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
I don't think I would take a flu vaccine with thimerosal but I don't think I would take that choice away from someone else if there's no thimerosal free option.
As long as someone has full informed consent so it is a real choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
From the CDC, this is the number of births from 2010 3,932,181 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm

Wow, that is a lot of opportunities to vaccinate...

But, back on topic. From my other CDC link above, there were about 1700 deaths related to pregnancy in one year. Of those 1700, according to teacozy (no link provided), 10% of those deaths are due to influenza, which would be 170. Whether all 170 are due to confirmed influenza and whether all deaths are related to not having gotten the vaccine is unknown.

However, the odds of making it through your pregnancy without dying from influenza seem pretty good, with or without the vaccine. And the odds of managing to avoid getting a vaccine "preventable" case of influenza during pregnancy also seem pretty good.

I'm not at all sure it is worth the risk of exposing a fetus to even a tiny dose of thimerosal. The number of vaccines doses needed to prevent even one death are quite high, that is if the vaccine is effective at preventing deaths. And the massive exposure of millions of women and fetuses to the vaccine also seems a bit excessive.

I'm still waiting for a study comparing outcomes in developmental stuff between children who got doses of thimerosal containing vaccines in the womb and those who did not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top