Posted by Larry Hoover on September 30, 2009, at 8:33:27
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by bleauberry on September 29, 2009, at 19:39:43
This is a thoughtful discussion. I appreciate the depth and diversity of thought presented.
> I used to get a flu shot religiously every year. 3 or 4 months later I always got the flu.
>
> One year I was so busy I accidentally didn't get the flu shot. That year I did not get a cold or flu.
>
> Ever since then, about 15 years now, I have not had a flu shot. I have not had a flu in 15 years. It's weird that during the 6 years I did get the shots, I got sick.I raised my concern about anecdote already. Your experience is your experience, but population statistics show significant benefit accorded by influenza vaccination programs. I'd like to suggest to you that there are numerous other variables in your life that confound your observation. Your relatively recent attention to nutritive and dietary elements, and focus on healthy behaviours are personal factors that have likely changed, but there are also changes in medical guidance (e.g. stay home if you have a fever, wash your hands regularly, etc.), and not the least of which, significant improvements in vaccine effectiveness. You benefit from everyone else who gets a vaccine, whether you can quantify that or not. I'm only saying that there are more independent variables than the one which you have selected.
One limit to influenza vaccines in general is that they are somewhat akin to handicapping horses at the race track. They're trying to pick a "winner" amongst various flu strains, based on past performance. To make it even worse, unlike horses, the flu can change into a different creature, one that wasn't even entered into the race, during the period of time it takes to mass-produce a vaccine.
> A problem with the mercury preservative in flu shots is that when Autistic mothers have their children undergo a provoked urine test, their mercury levels are extremely elevated. Those children have not been alive long enough to accumulate that much mercury from the environment. These accounts are numerous. Where did the mercury come from if not the shots?
Doesn't that entire argument presuppose that mercury is the causative agent? I can't recall which Nordic country it is, but there was a recent country-wide statistical analysis of exposure to thimerosal vs. autism. A few years ago, they banned thimerosal from vaccines, on the precautionary principle, i.e. why take the risk. They have complete health records on every person, so they could compare the incidence of autism before the ban on thimerosal to after the ban. What they found was that the incidence of autism has continued to rise unabated, despite the absence of thimerosal exposure. There wasn't so much as a blip in the incidence statistic.
If there is no correlation between thimerosal exposure and autism incidence, there cannot be causation.
Flat out, I am NOT defending thimerosal's presence in vaccines. If all vaccines were packaged in individual doses, the problem would disappear altogether. Unfortunately, supply is so limited, that we cannot practically accomplish this, yet.
There are other variables in vaccination itself. I'm trying to keep an open mind about possible associations between vaccination and autism. However, a recent study of that issue found that unvaccinated children had nearly twice the incidence of autism as those vaccinated. That was one study, of one vaccine, but I just want to say we're looking for the root cause. I see no evidence that we've yet identified it.
> I know the amount in one shot is small, but there are factors to consider such as repeated accumulation (how many shots does a kid get, at least a dozen or more yeah?), genetic variation in ability to detoxify, and susceptibility to respond negatively to even miniscule amounts.Yes, absolutely. Individual variation can dramatically alter the outcome of any medical intervention. A person who has demonstrated sensitivity to vaccinations, to mercury, is not the person I'm speaking to, however. For myself, I have severe adverse reactions to many psychotropic medications. But I most certainly do not generalize my experiences as being indicative of the drugs' general effects. Just as statistics cannot predict individual experience, individual experience cannot be used to project statistics.
> There is a lot more mercury in a shot than a tuna sandwich.
I want to be very clear just what I said. I very carefully chose my language. I said, "The dose of mercury from one vaccination is about on par with that from a tuna sandwich." I researched the concentration of mercury in a flu vaccine, determined the volume of the vaccine injected, to verify the dose of mercury from one vaccination. I determined the mean and standard deviation of mercury content in canned tuna, estimated a sandwich content of said tuna (mass), and calculated a range of mercury content from such a sandwich. Only then did I present my summary statement, quoted above. There is significant variation in mercury exposure from specific tuna samples, and from the sandwich size, but my quoted sentence is correct. The tuna could contain much more mercury, in fact, because there is substantial variability in that tuna. I don't fear tuna sandwiches.
> Furthermore, it is going straight into the blood system and the brain, bypassing any possible filtering of the digestive system.
No, it does not. It goes into a muscle compartment. And the very same blood filtering occurring following absorption from the digestive tract also occurs with all blood flowing through the body. It is not as absolute a contrast as you suggest here.
> Normal flora in the intestines, probiotics and yeast, have a high affinity for mercury. They help protect us by using, neutralizing, and excreting mercury.
Intestinal flora actually convert elemental mercury into organic mercury, enhancing its absorption into the body by over 100 times. It is precisely because they excrete it that it becomes more bioavailable.
> Mercury going straight into the blood system is a completely different far more potent scenario.
I'd like to see an actual comparison study before I come to such a conclusion.
> Mercury is in fact one of the most potent poisons to the nervous system on the entire planet. No amount of mercury is safe. Some people do have strong detox systems and strong genes to overcome the presence of mercury molecules, so not everyone gets symptoms. Who is to know in advance which child will get symptoms or not? It aint cool. Not a good risk. If someone feels at risk of the flu, safer options would include washing hands very frequently, avoiding crowds, avoiding touching the mouth, nose, and eyes, consuming healthy foods, consuming beverages or supplements high in vitamin C, E, zinc, and selenium, and taking an Olive Leaf extract capsule per day. There are several herbs that are healthy foods and at the same time prevent viral replication. There is miniscule risk of autism or any other complication from that kind of flu prevention.
That's all good advice, absolutely. Thank you. Sensitive individuals should make decisions based on their own experience. I reiterate, though, that population statistics indicate an overwhelming benefit of vaccination over pandemic disease. Smallpox is eradicated from the Earth (save stockpiles held by military entities). Polio would be gone, if it had not been for the propogation of vaccine myths. I'm old enough to remember photographs of hundreds of people in iron lungs, with withered limbs, caused by polio. And then there's post-polio syndrome that strikes later in life.
> Humankind putting mercury in anything, be it shots or tooth fillings or whatever, has got to be one of the most arrogant and ignorant behaviors of all history. The smarter mankind thinks he is, the more foolish he is proven to be.I agree with you there.
> I have little faith, and there is no way anyone will ever know, that a vaccine would have prevented any of the major epidemics of history such as the Spanish flu. It is hopeful thinking.
Of course we cannot predict such a thing. I can give you 100% assurance with respect to smallpox, however. Even after exposure, we can prevent rabies. Tetanus. Polio. Tuberculosis (partial, for sure, maybe total in some). Etc.
If you want to consider the risk of going unvaccinated, check out the consequences for a pregnant woman contracting measles. The vaccine was developed to close off the vector provided by infected young children potentially going home to a potentially pregnant mother with one of the most highly contagious diseases in existence. IMHO, vaccines are a social responsibility.
> A Lyme vaccine was recalled and taken off the market because of the outcry of people witnessing that they got persistent Lyme symptoms from the vaccine. Enough so that at a public hearing in front of the CDC panel there was no choice but to recall the vaccine. To save face and embarrassment, the recall was said to have been due to "lack of profit", not that in fact it made people sick.
When I said, "Every vaccine in existence has a far, far lower risk profile than does the disease for which it was developed.", I again very carefully chose my words. I did not intend to suggest that there have never been vaccines that had adverse effects. But those vaccines are not presently used, right? They're not still in existence. And whether current vaccines will later show unintended consequences will only be determined retrospectively. Risk analysis is predictive, not absolute.
> The vaccine had dead bacteria in it, so there is no way the many people got Lyme from the shot. I think it showed that perhaps Lyme symptoms are not just direct insults by the bacteria themselves, but rather the body's immune reaction to them. The mere presence of them, dead or alive, throws the body into a chaotic cascade of malignant events. My LLMD said the same thing. He said my symptoms were not from the Lyme bacteria themselves so much, but from the way Lyme twisted my immune system and inflammation cascade systems, which ultimately impact everything attached to the nervous system. Apparently dead pieces of the bacteria do the same thing.
There may be homology (similar structures) between some Lyme's proteins and essential human proteins. Cross-reactivity could lead to auto-immune responses. It's most certainly a possibility, but we couldn't have known that before a vaccine trial. Obviously, they'd have to identify the offending proteins, and develop a vaccine that still had specificity for the Lyme's spirochete, but without the cross-reactive components.
> Why do researchers not work on curing immune system dysfunctions that kill thousands more people than the flu? Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, MS, Lyme. These diseases do not kill in days or weeks like the flu, but they certainly send people to an early premature grave they didn't deserve. Not to mention the tons of suffering along the way. But no one ever died of Lyme disease. Until you take a look at their heart and brain under a microscope.
They are working on that. I understand your frustration. I have two disorders that would fall within your parameters.
> I think it is gross arrogance for mankind to believe he has geniusly figured out how the immune system works, with the result of that great wisdom being a flu vaccine. I have not looked into to it, but my initial hunch is that a vaccine prevents the flu at about the same percentage difference as an antidepressant outperforms a placebo, which is statistically significant but in the real world not much.
No, vaccination is absolute, but if and only if the match is perfect. The difficulty is that influenza is off mutating for the six months or a year that it takes to develop a vaccine which is based on what it used to be like. The effectiveness is in direct proportion to the retained characteristics of the mutated virus, whatever they may be.
> In the break room at work today I listened as people were talking about the free flu shots. Everyone was saying no way. The reasons were: every year they get a shot they get sick, every year they don't get a shot they don't get sick; they have seen enough in newspapers, magazines, and TV reports to know that the mercury in shots is enough of a risk to avoid. Plainjane laypeople have somehow caught even wisdom as to feel that messing with the immune system in an unknown way just doesn't sit well with them. Might be perfectly harmless, but there is enough doubt as to not take the leap.
Plain jane people are constantly being barraged with false estimates of risk. Risk perception is not supported by risk analysis. If every person in the United States took Serzone, each individual would be more likely to die from lightning strike than from liver failure due to drug exposure. Years ago, the agricultural chemical Alar was detected in apple juice. In order to even have a physiological effect, a person would have had to drink something like 118,000 litres of apple juice a day. The water intake (from the juice) would be fatal at far less than 1,000th of that dose, but nobody got bent out of shape over that. The thing is, we can detect stuff now that used to show up as being absent during chemical analyses only a few years ago. The risk hasn't changed one iota.
> Flu shots are available without mercury. The problem I have found is that when you ask the person giving the shot, they typically don't know if it is mercury free or not. One has to shop around for a knowledgable source.
Look for single-dose ampoules. That's the key factor. If it's not single-dose, it's more likely, if not probable, that it contains thimerosal.
> I don't think anyone has or can prove that mercury in shots did not or does not cause Autism. It depends on too many variables for a human being, who is born flawed to the bone, to account for. The body is exceedingly complex and mysterious for a mere human to gain expertise over. Actually, if someone wanted me to make the case that it does, it could be done "seemingly" conmvincely. If someone wanted to make the case that it doesn't, it could be done "seemingly" convincingly. There are so many ways to gather data, problems in patient sample selection methods, sorting data, biased data, filled in gaps, things left out, interpretations, ignorance, arrogance, preconceived desired results, exaggerated or diluted highlights, etc, one can pretty much make a seemingly indisputable case no matter what side.
>
> I find it interesting that there are now researchers gathering information from mothers on what is working well with their autistic children in order to give the researchers areas to explore. Think about that. IAN is one of the organizations gathering data to help researchers. The brightest supposedly geniuses are asking advice of mere mothers of children, as those mothers have become experts by no choice of their own, but by necessity. The mothers have discovered by heartfelt trial and error...hardcore research...what works and what doesn't. By the time the scientists and statisticians come to the same level of knowledge, it will be 20 years later.I've said it myself many times, what matters is how the patient feels. You have to do the experiment.
Virtually any medical advance you can name (other than things like heart surgery) arose from anecdotal observations. That's the nature of the beast. The problem is that we don't know what causes autism. If the cause is ultimately genetic, then all we ever have are coping strategies. I accord great influence to the effect of having a caring and supportive parent, no matter what overt intervention has been chosen.
> One of the biggest ones that comes up again and again is mercury chelation. Where did it come from?
Chelation therapy influences far more minerals than simply mercury, and far more powerfully, also. There are confounds coming out the yin-yang on chelation. If mercury is the culprit, then selenium supplementation should be of great benefit. When selenium is incorporated into e.g. methionine, in place of the sulfur atom in the sulfhydryl group, it becomes extremely reactive to mercury. The resultant selenium-mercury compound is so stable and unreactive that less than one molecule will dissolve in a liter of water......it's one of the most insoluble compounds in existence. If mercury is sequestered, it cannot do any damage.
> Sometimes anecdotal evidence is so huge as to quickly overwhelm commonly held scientific so-called facts.
I disagree entirely. The plural of anecdote is not data.
> In any case, I'm not taking sides. I'm just sharing my experience that I do a whole lot better without flu shots or mercury of any amount.
You've certainly provided food for thought. Thank you.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:918589
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090921/msgs/919120.html