H1N1 vaccines linked to Guillaine Barre Syndrome.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/11/h1n1-vaccines-linked-to-guillain-barre-syndrome-but-not-birth-defects/?iid=obnetwork

H1N1 Vaccines Linked to Guillain-Barre Syndrome but Not Birth Defects
Two new studies confirm that the benefits of getting a flu shot outweigh the very small risks

How safe are flu vaccines? Two new studies show that the H1N1 vaccine poses no risk of birth defects when given to pregnant women, but does slightly increase the risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a reversible autoimmune disorder, in patients over 50.
In the studies, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, scientists tracked the rates of birth defects and developmental problems such as low birth weight and preterm birth in babies born to Danish women who were vaccinated against H1N1 in 2009-10 during pregnancy. A separate group of scientists in Quebec looked at the risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome in millions of people given the vaccine in Canada, also in 2009-10.


Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/11/h1n1-vaccines-linked-to-guillain-barre-syndrome-but-not-birth-defects/?iid=obnetwork#ixzz217Xy80Qf

A few years back our son's doctors nurse asked about giving our son a flu shot . I replied hell no! To make sure they understood , I said this. I've told you people no! Should anybody here give him that shot after my saying no, I will come back here and give them a shot, got it! Raised some eyebrows but damn sure got my point across! Now I find this and who knows what other health problems will show up years from now due to these swine flu and other flu shots!??--Tyr

[Kathianne]

I do think parents should have a say on immunizations that are new or cover behaviors. However, the ones basically 'required' by schools in most cases are to prevent death and brain damage. If the parents want their children opted out of these basics, then they need to home school. While not in and of itself removing the public health threat, most parents would opt into the immunizations.

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-is-whooping-cough-raging-utah?cid=db_articles


Why is whooping cough raging in Utah?


whooping cough vaccine (http://www.examiner.com/topic/whooping-cough-vaccine)
July 17, 2012
By: Charles Simmins (http://www.examiner.com/healthcare-in-national/charles-simmins)

Asked about whooping cough, Ilene Risk, epidemiology bureau director for the Salt Lake Valley Health Department, told the Salt Lake Tribune "It’s [infecting] record numbers, and it’s raging through the county (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54477353-78/cough-whooping-cases-pertussis.html.csp)." It is an alarming statement from a public health official. Why is pertussis "raging" in Utah?


Utah is one of eighteen states with whooping cough incidence rates (http://www.examiner.com/article/alarming-whooping-cough-infection-rates-many-states) higher than the national average. Through July 5, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show the state experiencing pertussis cases (http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks.html) at a rate of 14.1 per 100,000 of population. The national incidence rate is just 5.2 per 100,000.


Through July 7, Utah has reported 412 cases of whooping cough (http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_reps.asp?mmwr_year=2012&mmwr_week=27&mmwr_table=2G) to the CDC for 2012. For all of 2011, Utah saw 618 confirmed and probable (http://health.utah.gov/epi/diseases/pertussis/2011%20Final%20Pertussis%20Report.pdf) pertussis cases. The incidence rate in 2011 was 21.7 whooping cough cases per 100,000 of population.


Utah requires that children entering kindergarten (http://www2.cdc.gov/nip/schoolsurv/schoolrpt1.asp?st1=822520) have received at least four doses of pertussis vaccine (http://www.examiner.com/topic/pertussis-vaccine/articles). It requires a booster before entering seventh grade. It allows for medical, religious and personal exemptions. Parents can claim an exemption from requirements based on a personal belief (http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE53A/htm/53A11_030205.htm) opposed to immunization.


In the last school year reported to the CDC, 2010-2011, Utah had 1,770 children in kindergarten and 1,532 seventh graders that had been granted the personal exemption. That represents 3.5 percent of all students in those two grades. Applied at all grade levels, there were over 20,000 school children without immunizations of the 576,245 students enrolled (http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Fingertip-Facts/2011_FingertipFacts.aspx) in 2011.


A great deal of data suggests that the idea that whooping cough outbreaks are cyclical (http://news.yahoo.com/whooping-cough-not-cyclical-182900813.html) is an old wives tale. The overwhelming majority of pertussis cases in 2010 and in 2012 are in the 21 states that allow a personal belief exemption from immunizations. Thirteen of the eighteen states with incidence rates greater than the national rate are personal belief states.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, does not oppose immunization (http://www.lds.org/liahona/1978/07/immunize-children-leaders-urge?lang=eng). In July of 1978. the First Presidency stated



We urge members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to protect their own children through immunization. Then they may wish to join other public-spirited citizens in efforts to eradicate ignorance and apathy that have caused the disturbingly low levels of childhood immunization.


The data suggests that a large pool of children exists in Utah who have not been immunized against whooping cough. Adults who had personal belief exemptions when in school may also not be immunized against pertussis. The outbreak of whooping cough "raging" in Utah is due to the large numbers of individuals who have never been immunized against the illness.

[revelarts]

that's a bit of a relief.

heres more news along that line.


...What the Science Says About the Flu Vaccine
Let's briefly review the evidence for and against the flu vaccine based on an independent objective scientific, comprehensive review of ALL the evidence. And let's look at a few logical holes in our current thinking and public policy about vaccines.
Top line, here are the conclusions. For those who want to dig deep and decide for themselves I encourage you to read the recent review paper by the international, independent, non-profit Cochrane Collaboration group published in July of 2010.
1. A comprehensive of the flu research in healthy adults aged 18-65 from 1960 to the present including over 40 clinical trials with over 70,000 people found no evidence of benefit for the flu vaccine. Most trials were poorly done, or inadequate to reach clear conclusions. Only the best 50 studies were included in the final analysis.
2. The only studies that showed benefit were industry funded. Despite this bias they tended to be published in the most prestigious journals and were the ones most widely quoted, while the publicly funded studies were less likely to show favorable conclusions.
3. They found cases of severe harm and inadequate reporting of adverse effects of the flu vaccine.
4. There are different 200+ strains of flu and viruses that infect people every year. The vaccine covers only about 10 percent of the virus strains that make people sick.
5. If the vaccine strain given in a particular vaccination happened to match the virus caught by the vaccinated person, the likelihood of getting sick from the flu was only reduced from 4 percent to 1 percent.
6. There was NO evidence that the vaccine reduced transmission of the flu (a major rationale for mass vaccination) or complications such as pneumonia (another major justification).
7. These conclusions included the data from biased industry studies yet still found no benefit except small reductions in flu symptoms in some industry studies.
8. They warned that their already negative conclusions may be UNDERSTATED because of the inclusion of industry funded studies in their review.
Authors of scientific papers tend to understate their conclusions. They report findings in neutral language and let that data speak for itself. However, these independent researchers concluded this review with the following statement about the flu vaccine.

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. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.
...The results of this review seem to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases. That is why it is perplexing to me that our Centers for Disease Control recently changed its policy advising vaccination only for sick or at risk populations to ALL Americans over six months of age.
If the science doesn't support use in healthy adults from 18 to 65, then what about other at risk populations? Unfortunately the story is not much better there....
...

Many vaccine advocates suggest that it is unethical to withhold vaccinations from the population because of the evidence (however weak we now know) of benefit. Giving some vaccines and other sham vaccines to study effectiveness and safety is not unethical. It is called science, and until we have clear evidence of benefit from randomized controlled trials we should not have government policy advocating mass vaccination while protecting vaccine manufacturers lawsuits due to any harm.
Individuals self-selecting to get a vaccine while understanding the risks and potential benefits (or lack thereof) are one thing. But government policies, advocacy and marketing of unproven vaccines that generates billions in profits for industry while absolving them manufacturers of proving effectiveness and protecting them from any liability must be changed to match the objective evidence. Shouldn't the government be in the business of protecting citizens and not corporations.
The false sense of safety from vaccination often prevents people from doing the very things we know work to prevent viral illness including washing our hands, staying home when sick, getting more sleep, eating a healthy diet, getting moderate exercise and taking some basic nutritional supplementation. A randomized trial of 1200 U of vitamin D a day reduced the risk of getting the seasonal flu by 42 percent. Now that's an easier pill to swallow.

Mark Hyman, M.D. is a practicing physician, founder of The UltraWellness Center, a four-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in the field of Functional Medicine. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on YouTube, become a fan on Facebook, and subscribe to his newsletter.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html



Vitamin D proven far better than vaccines at preventing influenza infections
.....A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections (http://www.naturalnews.com/infections.html) in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 (http://www.naturalnews.com/2010.html) issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

The results (http://www.naturalnews.com/results.html) are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children (http://www.naturalnews.com/children.html), half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3 (http://www.naturalnews.com/vitamin_D3.html). In other words, this was a "rigorous" scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence (http://www.naturalnews.com/scientific_evidence.html).

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza (http://www.naturalnews.com/influenza.html) over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

Flu vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/vaccines.html), according to the latest scientific evidence (http://www.naturalnews.com/evidence.html), achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html).

This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.

To further support this, what really needs to be done is a clinical trial directly comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines with four total groups:

Group #1 receives a vitamin D placebo
Group #2 receives real vitamin D (2,000 IUs per day)
Group #3 receives an influenza vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/vaccine.html) injection
Group #4 receives an inert injection

Groups 1 and 2 should be randomized and double blind while groups 3 and 4 should also be randomized and double blind. The results would reveal the comparative effectiveness of vitamin D versus influenza vaccines.

Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won't subject vaccines to any real science (http://www.naturalnews.com/science.html) that compares it to vitamin D.

Vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/Vitamin_D.html) also significantly reduced asthma (http://www.naturalnews.com/asthma.html) in childrenGetting back to the study, another fascinating result from the trial is that if you remove those children from the study who were already being given vitamin D by their parents, so that you are only looking at children who started out with no vitamin D supplementation before the trial began, the results look even better as vitamin D reduced relative infection (http://www.naturalnews.com/infection.html) risk by nearly two-thirds.

More than six out of ten children who would have normally been infected with influenza, in other words, were protected by vitamin D supplementation.

Also revealed in the study: vitamin D strongly suppressed symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/symptoms.html) of asthma. In children with a previous asthma diagnosis, 12 of those receiving no vitamin D experienced asthma attacks (http://www.naturalnews.com/asthma_attacks.html). But in the vitamin D group, only 2 children did.

While this subset sample size is small, it does offer yet more evidence that vitamin D prevents asthma attacks in children, and this entirely consistent with the previous evidence on vitamin D which shows it to be a powerful nutrient for preventing asthma.....




Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html#ixzz217fOsMWb



I heard 5000 IU of D per day is ideal,
but if you'd rather follow the status quo rather than the science your free to do so please support others to make their own choices as well.

[revelarts]

one more


A cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington recommends avoiding the flu shot and taking vitamin D instead. Donald Miller, MD, says “Seventy percent of doctors do not get a flu shot.”
Health officials say that every winter 5–20 percent of the population catches the flu, 200,000 people are hospitalized, and 36,000 people will die from it. The National Vital Statistics Reports compiled by the CDC show that only 1,138 deaths a year occur due to influenza alone, and more than 34,000 of the “36,000″ flu deaths are what officials estimate are “influenza-associated” pneumonic and cardiovascular deaths.

There is also a lack of evidence that young children benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD004879).

A randomized trial found that the incidence of influenza in infants whose mothers had a flu shot during their pregnancy was 4%. The incidence of flu in infants whose mothers did not have a flu shot was 10%. (NEJM 2008;359:) In the study, flu shots reduced the relative risk of influenza illness in infants by a seemingly impressive 63%, yet only 6 out of 100 infants actually benefited from the shot. The other 94 received no benefit – 4 got influenza anyway – and all are at risk from being harmed by the vaccine, particularly from the mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde in it. – Donald Miller, MD
Flu shots contain a number of substances which may have adverse effects on health, especially for children:

Mercury: Two-thirds of the vaccines made for the 2008–09 flu season contain full-dose thimerosal, an organomercury compound, 49% mercury by weight. It is used to disinfect the vaccine. Each of these flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury, a mercury content of 50,000 part per billion, 250 times more than the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit. Mercury is a neurotoxin, with a toxicity level 1,000 times that of lead.
Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agentis used to inactivate the virus.
Aluminum, added to promote an antibody response,is a neurotoxin that may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease.
Other additives in the flu vaccine include:

Triton X-100 (a detergent)
Polysorbate 80
carbolic acid
ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
gelatin
various antibiotics such as neomycin, streptomycin, and gentamicin that can cause allergic reactions



So why does the CDC push the flu shot every year? The CDC’s 15-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations each year on who should be vaccinated. Almost all the ACIP members who make these recommendations have financial ties to the vaccine industry.

http://1.rp-api.com/1490742/via.pngEco Child's Play (http://s.tt/19inX) (http://s.tt/19inX)

http://ecochildsplay.com/2008/11/18/doctor-recommends-avoiding-flu-shot-vitamin-d-instead/

[Kathianne]

Are schools requiring the flu vaccine? None I know of.

[revelarts]

CONNECTICUT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENTS
ATTENDING CONNECTICUT SCHOOLS
2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR
Revised 2/17/2011
PRESCHOOL
(Children entering after age 3 but before age 5)
DTaP: 4 doses
Polio: 3 doses
MMR: 1 dose on or after the 1st birthday
Hep B: 3 doses, last one on or after 24
weeks of age
Varicella: 1 dose on or after the 1st birthday or
verification of disease
Hib: 1 dose on or after the 1st birthday
Pneumococcal 1 dose on or after the 1st birthday
Influenza: 1 dose administered each year between August 1-December 31st
(2 doses separated by at least 28 days required for those receiving flu for
the first time)
Hepatitis A 2 doses given six months apart, 1st dose on or after 1st birthday

http://www.westport.k12.ct.us/parents/parents-home-page/


New Jersey




<tbody>
Required Immunizations for Day Care/Preschool and Sixth Grade



In 2008, four vaccines were added to the schedule of immunizations children must have to attend school, preschool and licensed child care centers in New Jersey. ...


</tbody>


NOVEMBER 2009 Guidance on Influenza Vaccine (http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/documents/guidance_flu_vaccine_1109.pdf) http://www.state.nj.us/health/images/new.gif

As of September 2008, children attending licensed child care or preschool were required to receive two additional vaccines:


annual, seasonal influenza vaccine by December 31 of each year, and
pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.

However, because seasonal influenza vaccine is currently in such limited supply, the Commissioner is temporarily suspending, for the 2009-2010 academic year, the requirement that children six months through 59 months of age attending a child care center or preschool facility receive at least one dose of influenza vaccine.
DOH still strongly recommends that that these children receive seasonal influenza vaccine if it becomes available.


http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/req_imm.shtml

that's 2

[Kathianne]

So you found two states? I've not read through to find out if 'required' or 'suggested.'

However, when dealing with polio, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis? No way would I want my children in schools with those unprotected.