12 Reasons Not To Get The Flu Shot

Oct 13, 2004
Author: Wendy Callahan

Flu Vax Facts

1. This vaccine is made with 25 micrograms of thimerosal. 49% of thimerosal is mercury. There is no safe amount. The version you are getting today may have 5 micrograms or less. Since mercury is used in the manufacturing process there will always be a trace.

2. The CDC says on its website that mercury is a neurotoxin and to avoid eating fish because it may contain mercury. They state as an example a person weighing 110 lbs should have no more than 5 micrograms of mercury. This shot contains 25 micrograms. You need to weigh at least 550 lbs for this vaccine to be safe. When pressed for clarification, the CDC said and I quote “you could die from the flu”. Do you see the risk/benefit here? Better to be brain damaged than get the flu?

3. This vaccine contains formaldehyde. There is no safe amount that can be injected into people unless they are being embalmed.

4. This vaccine has Guillain-Barré as a possible side effect. A temporary, Multiple Sclerosis like illness. Also reported are breathing problems, hoarseness or wheezing, hives, paleness, weakness, a fast heartbeat, or dizziness.

5. This vaccine is not 100% effective. From the package insert of the vaccine; “The effectiveness in preventing influenza illness often ranges from 30%–40%.”

6. The cities picked for this year’s vaccine strains are Fujian, New Caledonia and Shanghia. The mucus of sick people in these cities is used to create the vaccine 10 months in advance.

7. From the package insert: “Influenza virus is remarkably capricious in that significant antigenic changes may occur from time to time. It is known definitely that Influenza Virus Vaccine, as now constituted, is not effective against all possible strains of influenza virus. Protection is limited to those strains of virus from which the vaccine is prepared or against closely related strains.” This involves a lot of guesswork since the vaccine is made almost a year in advance.

8. The package inserts published by the flu vaccine manufacturers state that "Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with this vaccine and it is also not known whether influenza virus vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.”

9. From the package insert: “Administering vaccine before October should generally be avoided in facilities such as nursing homes, because antibody levels can begin to decline within a few months after vaccination.” If this vaccine worked, this would not happen.

10. Neurological disorders temporally associated with influenza vaccination such as encephalopathy, (brain swelling) optic neuritis/neuropathy (Inflammation of the Optic Nerve) partial facial paralysis, and brachial plexus neuropathy (decreased movement or sensation in the arm and shoulder) have been reported.

11. This vaccine is made in chicken eggs. Vaccine manufacturers have been asked by the FDA to screen for diseases like avian leukosis (bird leukemia). The new yellow fever vaccine is made in chicken eggs and has a label reflecting its “avian leukosis free” status. No one is sure if this virus is the same virus that causes human leukemia. Do you want to take that chance? What other viruses might be hiding in this vaccine?

12. Half of our flu shot doses had to be discarded for contamination. Can you be sure this vaccine is bacteria free? The idea is to avoid virus. Not have it injected in.

These chemicals were found in breast cancer tumors

ethyl-methyl-butyl-propyl Parabens

Are parabens safe when used on the skin?

BBC News Item 11/01/04

Chemicals from underarm deodorants and other cosmetics can build up inside the body, according to a study.

British researchers have found traces of chemicals called parabens in tissue taken from women with breast cancer.

While there is no evidence parabens cause cancer, the scientists have called for the use of parabens to be reviewed.

The cosmetics industry insists the chemicals, which are used as preservatives and are approved for use by regulators, are safe.

Dr Philippa Darbre and colleagues at the University of Reading carried out tests on samples of 20 different human breast tumors.

Writing in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, they say they found traces of parabens in every sample.

Their tests suggested the chemicals had seeped into the tissue after being applied to the skin.

"This is the first study to show their accumulation in human tissues," said Dr Darbre.

"It demonstrates that if people are exposed to these chemicals, then the chemicals will accumulate in their bodies."

‘Drive tumors’

Dr Darbre said there may be reason for people to be concerned about the findings.

"Their detection in human breast tumours is of concern since parabens have been shown to be able to mimic the action of the female hormone estrogen," she said.

"Estrogen can drive the growth of human breast tumors. It would therefore seem especially prudent to consider whether parabens should continue to be used in such a wide range of cosmetics applied to the breast area including deodorants."

Dr Philip Harvey, European editor of the journal, said the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

"Further work is required to examine any association between estrogenic and other chemicals in underarm cosmetics and breast cancer."

Chris Flower, director general of the UK’s Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association, welcomed the study.

"It is welcome additional information and we will want to examine the findings in detail," he told BBC News Online.

Caution

"Further research is needed to establish the source of the chemicals found in the breast tumor samples and what, if any, the relationship is to breast cancer."

A spokesman for the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry said government scientists would examine the findings.

"However, British scientists will examine this study."

Health-Report Comment: Well here we go again. We have been warning people about the potential toxic effects of parabens for ages and how the increase in breast cancer and all cancers could be directly attributed to chemicals in the body. (This includes of course the shocking revelations that HRT was directly responsible for another 20,000 women to contract cancer recently.) Not just from using underarm deodorants either. Virtually all so-called "skin Care" products have dangerous chemicals in them. Parabens are just one of a large bunch of toxic chemicals that no-one has any idea of what the long term effects are if you use them every day on your skin.

The hollow platitudes of reassurance from the chemical industry are starting to sound like a stuck record as more and more damning evidence is mounting against them and their toxic assault on the human species. Despite what they say, the studies have never been done on the long-term effects of any of these chemicals let alone the effects of perhaps ten or twenty or 100 chemicals interacting in the body.

I repeat my message THE ONLY SAFE SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL IS ONE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH!

Read You Labels!!!

NONE of International Health’s Products Contain Parabens.

Check Your Progesterone Cream, Lotions, Shampoos. Etc.

Antibiotic use linked with breast cancer risk

Last Updated: 2004-02-16 16:07:34 -0400 (Reuters Health)

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – The use of antibiotics appears to be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and fatal breast cancer, according to the results of a new study reported in this week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. However, the investigators add that although a relationship has been found, their findings do not prove that antibiotic use is the cause of breast cancer in these women and they note that other factors may be involved.

Earlier reports have suggested a link between antibiotics and increased cancer risk, lead author Dr. Christine M. Velicer of the University of Washington, Seattle and colleagues note. The effects of these drugs on the microorganisms normally found in the intestines and the way estrogen is processed, as well as their effects on the immune system and on inflammation, have been suggested as possible ways antibiotics may influence the development of cancer.

To further investigate a possible relationship, Velicer’s group evaluated data collected for 2266 women with primary, invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 2001, and 7953 randomly selected women without breast cancer who were enrolled in the same health plan.

"We found that increasing cumulative days of antibiotic use and increasing cumulative number of antibiotic prescriptions were associated with increased risk of incident breast cancer, after controlling for age and length of enrollment," they report.

When compared with women with no history of antibiotic use, women with cumulative antibiotic use for 1 to 500 days had a 2.5-fold increase risk of breast cancer. "Increasing cumulative days of antibiotic use was also associated with death due to breast cancer, controlling for age, length of enrollment, and ever use of postmenopausal hormones," they write.

The investigators stress, however, that "it cannot be determined from this study whether antibiotic use is causally related to breast cancer, or whether indication for use, overall weakened immune function, or other factors are pertinent underlying exposures."

"This observation is potentially worrisome in that antibiotic exposure is common and sometimes nonessential," Drs. Roberta B. Ness and Jane A. Cauley of the University of Pittsburgh comment in an accompanying editorial. "Thus, if real, the risk of breast cancer attributable to the use of antibiotics could be large and partially preventable."

The study provides more questions than answers, they add.

Both the authors and editorialists agree that the clinical implications of the study are unclear and than more studies are needed to explore the relationship between antibiotic use and cancer risk.

SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association, February 18, 2004.

Drugs to combat superbugs

‘will soon be useless’

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 01/03/2005)

The world may run out of effective antibiotics by the end of this decade and faces a gap of at least five years before new drugs can be developed to combat superbugs, according to one of the world’s most influential scientists.

The warning that the age of infectious disease control is almost over has come from Prof George Poste, Director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University and an advisor to the US president.

“Frankly, most governments are asleep at the switch,” said Prof Poste. He predicts that from 2010 to 2015 will be a “window of vulnerability” when the toll of the superbug will reach its peak as a result of antibiotic resistance.

“We are facing a relentless increase in antibiotic resistance across all classes of drug,” said Prof Poste, who began his 40-year career in Britain. The superbugs of most concern are strains of MRSA, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus.

Last week, it emerged that deaths caused by MRSA in British hospitals have doubled in four years to almost 1,000 a year. “If we think we have problems today, the problems at the end of the decade will be that much more dramatic,” he told The Telegraph. “We are facing serious challenges.”

The bacterium is resistant to many more antibiotics than methicillin alone. Some strains are now resistant to all common antibiotics – penicillin, cephalosporin, methicillin and its cousin flucloxacillin – as a result of overprescribing of antibiotics, their use in animal feeds, and poor infection control in hospitals compared with measures used in the days before penicillin.

In the mid 1960s, the US Surgeon General said the battle against infectious disease had been won. Even a few years ago, biologists could still turn to the “antibiotic of last resort”, vancomycin.

Now some degree of resistance to vancomycin exists in all MRSA. “Once you have an increasing prevalence of vancomycin resistant Staph, you have limited therapeutic options for those patients,” said Prof Poste.

Meanwhile, he said, half a dozen leading manufacturers of antibiotics have given up developing new types. One reason is that they are unable to profit much from the development of variants on the theme of a given class of antibiotic.

Aside from doing more to reinstate old fashioned infection control, more has to be done to encourage drug companies to create novel classes of antibiotic, he said.

Dr John Lee Audio

The following are audio files of an interview that our Glenn, Director of Research and his wife Judy had with Dr John Lee about hormone balance & more. Scroll through the list of audio files below and click to play: