Did you get a flu shot this year?

[Ellen]

I never took a flu shot in my life. The last time I caught the flu was like 37 yrs ago.

Me either. I've had several flu's in my life, mainly when I was younger. That gave me a natural immunity. If I get one now, it's such a mild version, I can keep right on going with my life. But it's rare to get one.

 

[Jambalaya]

But maybe you were just lucky! The shot isn't perfect by any means, but it's better than nothing. People who've had flu say they were SO sick they thought they were going to die. And when you get older it can be downright dangerous. I'm not sure there's such a thing as natural immunity to flu because each year's strain is different. Same as the common cold.

 

[Jambalaya]

ETA: I haven't had mine yet but I'm going to as soon as possible.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

I never took a flu shot in my life. The last time I caught the flu was like 37 yrs ago.

Yep, the only time I've ever had the flu was from the flu shot, even though some think it's "impossible"....and that was 28 yrs ago.

 

[Ellen]

But maybe you were just lucky! The shot isn't perfect by any means, but it's better than nothing. People who've had flu say they were SO sick they thought they were going to die. And when you get older it can be downright dangerous. I'm not sure there's such a thing as natural immunity to flu because each year's strain is different. Same as the common cold.

I don't believe in luck, but, I have certainly been blessed with fairly good health!

Actually, the shot is far from perfect. I've had pharmacists tell me it's about 40-50% effective. And that's if it doesn't make you sick. People will repeat to the death it can't do that, but it can and does. I know several people who got violently ill, with one literally almost dying when her entire system started shutting down. She will be on meds the rest of her life. And Sandy in this thread and others have mentioned the same thing. I will keep repeating this, at some point is stops being a "coincidence". And I won't even go into how some of the ingredients in vaccines don't belong in a body at all, and especially being injected, which can cause a more severe reaction. It's interesting how there are now "preservative fee" versions. I wonder why they took the neurotoxin mercury out? Could it be because enough people refused to be told that something they KNEW was happening, wasn't happening? That sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's great to hear they offer these "free" versions, except, doing a quick search, it seems that is for single doses. It's still in multiple dose versions from what I've read.

Yes, getting the flu can be dangerous, so can crossing the street. The beauty of being a born again Christian is that you know Who is in control of your life, and you know where you're going when you die. I have absolutely no fear of a flu or anything else.

And there is a natural immunity to getting the flu, but that doesn't make anyone any money. And if you think that's a crazy, unfair statement, I would suggest doing some homework on how doctors are paid for each vaccine they give, plus Big Pharma on the whole, and of course the pharmacies. You might also want to look into just how many health care workers (including physicians) refuse to get a flu vaccine, or, any other.

Now this article is still pro vaccine for all the obvious reasons, but it proves my statement on immunity.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/does-the-flu-provide-better-immunity-than-a-flu-shot/

Getting the flu itself can provide much stronger immunity than any flu shot does. But getting the flu is dangerous, so getting a flu shot is a better option.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

@Ellen, I give you a lot of credit for putting all of that out there, it is not a popular view to question any part of vaccination and if you do you are labeled and dismissed immediately.

Actually had a conversation with the postman the other day and the flu shot came up and when I told him I don't do flu shots or any shots for that matter he looked at me like I was crazy. Of course in the same conversation I told him I cover gas pumps and try to avoid touching handles and keypads so yeah I probably look like a loon all considered

 

[AGBF]

Hey, Ellen. You are a brave woman.
That doesn't mean I have the same opinion. As I wrote, I got my 'flu shot. I just happen to love you and think you are great.

Hugs,
(((Ellen)))
Deb

 

[msop04]

The one time I got a flu shot was the sickest I have ever been in my life, knocked me out for two weeks, and I'm a tough cookie. Took me a lot longer than that to completely recover from it. I don't believe I will ever volunteer to get it again.

I'm sorry to hear that, but... you do realize that the flu vaccine was not what caused you to be sick, right??

 

[ksinger]

Recently I got a flu after having had the shot, but I didn't blame the shot. And for a flu, it was pretty mild, so I'd like to think the shot provided a bit of moderation of symptoms.

And yes, I got my shot this year, as I always do these days. I SO do not want to have any more risk that I must, for getting the flu. Flu is particularly risky for someone in my decrepit condition, so better to avoid it if at all possible.

 

[luv2sparkle]

@Ellen, I 100% agree with you. I feel the same way. I would rather take my chance in getting the flu and dying from it, than putting some of those chemicals in my body and living with the ramifications of doing it. I know who holds my life in His hands and nothing can get me there any sooner than He decides.

I have a friend who contracted a severe form of the flu a couple years ago and was hospitalized. The doctors told her that most of the people hospitalized had had their flu shots. We went on a cruise together. None of the rest of us contracted the flu. I think she was more susceptible to it because she takes a lot of pain meds for neck and migraine pain-injectibles. They have no idea what causes the pain. But all of that pain med in your system has got to lower your natural immunity.

@msop04, it may have not been the direct cause of her catching the flu but putting that amount of junk into her body certainly can lower your immunity. Your body has to fight off the foreign substances included in the vaccine-whether it be thimerosal, or formaldehyde, which is in every single vaccine. They can inject me with all the formaldehyde they want after I am dead, but not before.

 

[msop04]

@msop04, it may have not been the direct cause of her catching the flu but putting that amount of junk into her body certainly can lower your immunity. Your body has to fight off the foreign substances included in the vaccine-whether it be thimerosal, or formaldehyde, which is in every single vaccine. They can inject me with all the formaldehyde they want after I am dead, but not before.

Actually, it's a misconception that the flu vaccine weakens or decreases your natural immunity.

ETA: ...and thimerosal is not in every single vaccine. It's not in any except the multi-use vials of flu vaccine.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Me either. I've had several flu's in my life, mainly when I was younger. That gave me a natural immunity. If I get one now, it's such a mild version, I can keep right on going with my life. But it's rare to get one.

Yup, no flu shot for me. I'd like my odds after 37 yrs of not catching the flu.

 

[luv2sparkle]

@msop04, the CDC lists it and formaldehyde in every single vaccine. So as a consumer, I would have to believe the people wanting to sell me the vaccine that it is not included in that particular vial, or that I was not getting vaccine from a multi-use vial.

I also cannot agree that there is no chance of a flu vaccine decreasing my immunity by adding chemicals to my body that my immune system then has to fight. It's just not for me, but I understand other people wanting to get it. I am hoping that the flu season this year is not as bad as last and many less people get the flu. Last year was a horrible flu season for many. There are some vaccine I would consider getting, just not a flu shot.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

@Ellen, I agree with you. I find it NO coincidence that I never had the flu before the flu shot, or since the flu shot, only at the time I got the flu shot. That sort of empirical evidence is convincing enough for me.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist in the least, but I find it frightening that the general populace trusts that vaccines produced by who??? are in our best interests. What if the creators puts something in those shots that could cause some sort of epidemic at some point? Are we all brainwashed to just take it because we've been told it will "save us"? With so many of these products made in china to lower costs, I am uber-hesitant to rely on its efficacy or safety. I'll take my chances with the flu bug, after all, I've never had it before or since I got the flu shot....and that was awful.

 

[Ellen]

@Ellen, I give you a lot of credit for putting all of that out there, it is not a popular view to question any part of vaccination and if you do you are labeled and dismissed immediately.

Actually had a conversation with the postman the other day and the flu shot came up and when I told him I don't do flu shots or any shots for that matter he looked at me like I was crazy. Of course in the same conversation I told him I cover gas pumps and try to avoid touching handles and keypads so yeah I probably look like a loon all considered

Thanks Stephanie. I am all too familiar with that attitude and behavior. Been there, done that. It's what made me adopt my current sig. You know that saying, The truth hurts? It's not just a saying.

Too funny about the mail man, better bake him some really good cookies for Christmas.

Hey, Ellen. You are a brave woman.
That doesn't mean I have the same opinion. As I wrote, I got my 'flu shot. I just happen to love you and think you are great.

Hugs,
(((Ellen)))
Deb

Deb, that is one of the nicest things I think anyone on here has ever said to me. Thank you. I think an awful lot of you, I think you know that. If everyone on this board could handle opposing views with other posters with the grace you show to me, it would be a far, far better place. If the world would adopt that attitude, think what might be accomplished.

@Ellen, I 100% agree with you. I feel the same way. I would rather take my chance in getting the flu and dying from it, than putting some of those chemicals in my body and living with the ramifications of doing it. I know who holds my life in His hands and nothing can get me there any sooner than He decides.

I have a friend who contracted a severe form of the flu a couple years ago and was hospitalized. The doctors told her that most of the people hospitalized had had their flu shots. We went on a cruise together. None of the rest of us contracted the flu. I think she was more susceptible to it because she takes a lot of pain meds for neck and migraine pain-injectibles. They have no idea what causes the pain. But all of that pain med in your system has got to lower your natural immunity.

@msop04, it may have not been the direct cause of her catching the flu but putting that amount of junk into her body certainly can lower your immunity. Your body has to fight off the foreign substances included in the vaccine-whether it be thimerosal, or formaldehyde, which is in every single vaccine. They can inject me with all the formaldehyde they want after I am dead, but not before.

Yes.
I have a SIL who works in an office with several people. She told me one time that every year they all get the flu shot, but she doesn't. And every year, they all get sick, but she doesn't..... And yeah, anything that doesn't naturally/normally belong in your system will eventually have some sort of negative effect, if not many. Our bodies were not meant for all sorts of foreign substances to be put/injected into them. Especially mercury, one of THE most toxic substances on earth. (Hello?) I laughed at your formaldehyde comment, though I know you weren't joking!

@Ellen, I agree with you. I find it NO coincidence that I never had the flu before the flu shot, or since the flu shot, only at the time I got the flu shot. That sort of empirical evidence is convincing enough for me.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist in the least, but I find it frightening that the general populace trusts that vaccines produced by who??? are in our best interests. What if the creators puts something in those shots that could cause some sort of epidemic at some point? Are we all brainwashed to just take it because we've been told it will "save us"? With so many of these products made in china to lower costs, I am uber-hesitant to rely on its efficacy or safety. I'll take my chances with the flu bug, after all, I've never had it before or since I got the flu shot....and that was awful.

Sadly, a large part of the populace is. People do themselves no favors when they blindly believe what anyone has to say, about anything for that matter. But in particular, anyone that stands to gain something from that kind of naiveté. (the vaccine industries projected income for 2020 is 59 Billion, with a B folks) I'm not a conspiracy theorist, at all. I am however, a realist. I refuse to stick my head in the sand. I've been shown the truth, as ugly as it is, (it's right there, hidden in plain site if someone wants to see it), and I will act accordingly.


A couple interesting quotes, that can well apply to what we're discussing here, among many other things in this country.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels


“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” ~ Joseph Goebbels


So, let's ask ourselves. If vaccines are really good for us, and the government is FORCING some of us to get them (I do predict someday all), again, because they're really, really good for us, then why did the drug makers get complete exoneration from any adverse reactions to said vaccines? Think about that. I mean, REALLY think about that. They can inject you with whatever they deem "healthy/necessary", and if your body responds negatively, you lose (that can mean all the way to death). Now ask yourself this. Why would they need that kind of protection, from something so very healthy and good for us? Please.


"To understand how this happened, we have to turn the clock back to 1982. That is when four big drug companies (Merck, Wyeth, Lederle, Connaught) blackmailed Congress by threatening to stop selling vaccines in America unless a law was passed giving them complete immunity from prosecution. 21

On February 23, 2011, one day after the Supreme Court blocked lawsuits against drug companies for failing to make vaccines safer, they cleared the way for lawsuits against car manufacturers for failing to make seat belts safer. "24

https://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx

Wake up America.

 

[Jambalaya]

Ellen, thank you for posting that long reply to me, and for all the subsequent info. I am going to read that NYT article you linked.

 

[Ellen]

You're welcome J. I hope it all helps you sort things out.

 

[msop04]

@msop04, the CDC lists it and formaldehyde in every single vaccine. So as a consumer, I would have to believe the people wanting to sell me the vaccine that it is not included in that particular vial, or that I was not getting vaccine from a multi-use vial.

Here is the CDC link showing ingredients used in all US vaccines (all manufacturers)... as you can see, thimerosal and formaldehyde are certainly not in all of them.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

For those interested, but don't want to read through it all, here is a list of vaccines (with MFR/trade name) containing formaldehyde

Anthrax (Biothrax)
DTaP (all)
DTap-IPV-Hib (Pentacel)
Hib (Actihib, Hiberix... adult versions only)
Hep A (Vaqta) - 1/2 manufacturers
Hep B (Recombivax) - 1/3 manufacturers
Japanese Encephalitis (Ixiaro)
Meningococcal (Menactra, Menavo) - 2/4 manufacturers
Polio (all)
Td (all)
Tdap (all)
Typhoid (Typhim Vi) - 1/2 manufacturers


List of vaccines (with MFR/trade name) containing no formaldehyde:

Adenovirus
BCG
Cholera
DTap-Hib-IPV
Hib (pediatric version by PedvaxHIB)
Hep A (Havrix)
Hep B (Energix-B, Heplisave-B)
Hep A/Hep B combo (Twinrix)
HPV (Gardasil 9)
Meningococcal (MenB - Bexsero, Trumenba)
MMR (MMR-II)
MMRV (ProQuad) *frozen
MMRV (ProQuad) *refrigerator stable
Pneumococcal PCV13 (Prevnar)
Pneumococcal PPSV23 (Pneumovax)
Rabies (Imovax, RabAvert)
Rotavirus (RotaTeq, Rotarix)
Smallpox (Vaccinia, ACAM2000)
Typhoid (Vivotif)
Varicella (Varivax) *frozen
Varicella (Varivax) *refrigerator stable
Yellow Fever (YF-Vax)
Zoster (Shingrix, Zostavax)



This link shows the actual concetrations of thimerosal in flu vaccines:
https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#cstat

Since the topic is Flu vaccines, here is a list of those with formaldehyde, thimerosal, or neither:


NONE
Influenza Tri & Quad (Flublok)
Influenza Tri & Quad (Flucelvax)
Influenza Quad (FluMist)*
*FluMist contains LIVE Vaccine, thus there is a chance of contracting flu from it

Thimerosal
Influenza (Fluvirin)
Influenza Tri & Quad (Afluria)

Formaldehyde
Influenza (Fluad)
Influenza Tri & Quad (Fluarix)
Influenza High Dose (Fluzone)
Influenza Intradermal

Formaldehyde & Thimerosal
Influenza Tri & Quad (Flulaval) (multi-dose only)
Influenza Quadrivalent (Fluzone) (multi-dose only)


So, as you can see, their are options that contain neither preservative...

I also cannot agree that there is no chance of a flu vaccine decreasing my immunity by adding chemicals to my body that my immune system then has to fight. It's just not for me, but I understand other people wanting to get it. I am hoping that the flu season this year is not as bad as last and many less people get the flu. Last year was a horrible flu season for many. There are some vaccine I would consider getting, just not a flu shot.

[COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]It's important to note that some of these chemicals are naturally present in the human body at much lower levels than are in vaccines. There is much more formaldehyde in our bodies naturally than is in a vaccine. Other preservatives used in vaccines, such as thimerosal (contains ethylmercury), are excreted from the body quickly... so your body isn't "fighting" anything. I know the word "chemical" can be frightening or cause anxiety, but if you understand what is actually happening in the body, you'll find that they aren't scary at all... and they help keep vaccines bacteria-free and safe. They help save lives.

It seems you've made up your mind to decline vaccination, and that is certainly your right. I sincerely hope you don't get sick, much less make others sick... or worse[/COLOR].

 

[ksinger]

List of vaccines (with MFR/trade name) containing no formaldehyde:

Smallpox (Vaccinia, ACAM2000)

Is there really some company that still manufactures smallpox vaccine?

 

[msop04]

Is there really some company that still manufactures smallpox vaccine?

I don't believe there is a company actively manufacturing it at this time. Thankfully, it can be made (not necessarily by this company) in the terrible event we may need it again.

 

[msop04]

@ksinger, I stand corrected... just found this. Evidently Sanofi-Pastuer does/can.

https://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/questionsaboutvaccines/ucm078041.htm

"FDA licensed Smallpox (Vaccinia) Vaccine, Live, with the proprietary name ACAM2000, for active immunization against smallpox disease for persons determined to be at high risk for smallpox infection. The vaccine is manufactured by Sanofi Pastuer Biologics Co. The approval and availability of this second-generation smallpox vaccine in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) enhances the emergency preparedness of the United States against the use of smallpox as a dangerous biological weapon."

 

[Wewechew]

@ksinger, I stand corrected... just found this. Evidently Sanofi-Pastuer does/can.

https://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/questionsaboutvaccines/ucm078041.htm

"FDA licensed Smallpox (Vaccinia) Vaccine, Live, with the proprietary name ACAM2000, for active immunization against smallpox disease for persons determined to be at high risk for smallpox infection. The vaccine is manufactured by Sanofi Pastuer Biologics Co. The approval and availability of this second-generation smallpox vaccine in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) enhances the emergency preparedness of the United States against the use of smallpox as a dangerous biological weapon."

Not that surprising considering the reemergence of once thought eradicated illnesses. Didn't even think of a biological weapon being made with it! Very scary stuff.

 

[msop04]

Not that surprising considering the reemergence of once thought eradicated illnesses. Didn't even think of a biological weapon being made with it! Very scary stuff.

Yeah... we had a baby die from pertussis (whooping cough) in Alabama. Parents refused to vaccinate. Very sad.

 

[Wewechew]

Yeah... we had a baby die from pertussis (whooping cough) in Alabama. Parents refused to vaccinate. Very sad.

 

[ksinger]

@ksinger, I stand corrected... just found this. Evidently Sanofi-Pastuer does/can.

https://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/questionsaboutvaccines/ucm078041.htm

"FDA licensed Smallpox (Vaccinia) Vaccine, Live, with the proprietary name ACAM2000, for active immunization against smallpox disease for persons determined to be at high risk for smallpox infection. The vaccine is manufactured by Sanofi Pastuer Biologics Co. The approval and availability of this second-generation smallpox vaccine in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) enhances the emergency preparedness of the United States against the use of smallpox as a dangerous biological weapon."

Thanks! And wow. Interesting for sure. I really do get what is being said, but I had to snort when I read this, "for persons determined to be at high risk for smallpox infection". That'd be just about everyone these days. I know I had the vaccine all those years ago, but I also know that immunity wanes over time. I don't think anyone is considered proof against smallpox anymore.

 

[ksinger]

Yeah... we had a baby die from pertussis (whooping cough) in Alabama. Parents refused to vaccinate. Very sad.

I have to be careful what vaccines I have, but I recently had a booster for whooping cough. My GP (who I have decided for may reasons, to the curb) kind of eyerolled when I said I wanted it, and asked knowingly if I'd been out on Google too much. Jerk. But I was nice and told him that years ago, I'd read of older adults getting whooping cough and coughing so hard that they would actually break their own ribs. I told him that since I'd had chest radiation, I was concerned that my ribs on that side were weaker and at risk of breakage if I got whooping cough. He looked a bit taken aback, quit rolling his eyes, and said, "Oh, OK then."

It also makes me safer around babies and young children. I've always been concerned to not be a disease carrier that can infect children, but seriously, now I'm actually more concerned for myself. With MS, I simply cannot afford to get something that is going to gin up my immune system, so being around children who haven't been vaccinated, is very dangerous for me.

 

[msop04]

Thanks! And wow. Interesting for sure. I really do get what is being said, but I had to snort when I read this, "for persons determined to be at high risk for smallpox infection". That'd be just about everyone these days. I know I had the vaccine all those years ago, but I also know that immunity wanes over time. I don't think anyone is considered proof against smallpox anymore.

When I was in residency waaaaay back in 2002-2003, I attended a meeting for a special state task force regarding the resurgence of "decimated" diseases... particularly smallpox. They were working along with the CDC (only 2 hours away in ATL). I felt it was kind of ludicrous then and never really thought much about it since, honestly... until the past several of years. It seems if it was a serious enough concern then, it certainly is now. Scary stuff.

 

[lyra]

I've read all of Richard Preston's books, so I have become "aware" of the idea of biological threats. Very interesting reading. I would gladly get any immunization I could, but I did get the smallpox vaccine back in the day.

 

[ksinger]

When I was in residency waaaaay back in 2002-2003, I attended a meeting for a special state task force regarding the resurgence of "decimated" diseases... particularly smallpox. They were working along with the CDC (only 2 hours away in ATL). I felt it was kind of ludicrous then and never really thought much about it since, honestly... until the past several of years. It seems if it was a serious enough concern then, it certainly is now. Scary stuff.

If I recall correctly the last recorded death from smallpox was in the mid-90s '96, '97?, a worker at the CDC in fact. None in the wild though. But yes, I suspect that got their attention plus they had knowledge that made it more urgent in their minds. And now of course....

And I just have to mention here that I read a few days ago that one of the talking heads on Fox was accusing the migrants heading up from S. America, as carrying scary diseases and the list he rattled off included smallpox.

Sigh.

 

[Ellen]

It's important to note that some of these chemicals are naturally present in the human body at much lower levels than are in vaccines. There is much more formaldehyde in our bodies naturally than is in a vaccine. Other preservatives used in vaccines, such as thimerosal (contains ethylmercury), are excreted from the body quickly... so your body isn't "fighting" anything. I know the word "chemical" can be frightening or cause anxiety, but if you understand what is actually happening in the body, you'll find that they aren't scary at all... and they help keep vaccines bacteria-free and safe. They help save lives.
[/user]

I questioned the highlighted part, so I did a very quick search and came up with a pretty interesting link. I'm going to post several pertinent paragraphs from it, though that could really be the whole article. For anyone who wants to know the truth, please, read this article. It's lengthy, but not over our heads. Take your time, let it soak in.

MSOP, I would say I'm surprised you did not know about this, but I'm not. And the CDC site still has potentially criminal info up about this subject. I would ask of you and the other fine ladies on this board who are pro vaccine, to please keep something in mind when reading this. This is not anything I am personally saying. This is not what "I think". The following info is from scientists, researchers, and doctors, who have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by putting forth all of this. (after all, they're all in the same "club") Please, don't let pride get in the way of common sense and reason.

New CDC Research Debunks Agency's Assertion That Mercury in Vaccines Is Safe

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) once again advised pregnant women to curb consumption of fish in order to limit fetal exposures to neurotoxic mercury. This warning raises the baffling query: How can the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) justify its recommendations that pregnant women get flu shots which are laden with far more mercury than what's found in a can of tuna?

The CDC has long answered that nettlesome question with the controversial claim that ethylmercury in vaccines is not toxic to humans. Now, two CDC scientists have published research decisively debunking that assertion. As it turns out, there is no "good mercury" and "bad mercury." Both forms are equally poisonous to the brain.

The CDC study, Alkyl Mercury-Induced Toxicity: Multiple Mechanisms of Action, appeared last month in the journal, Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. The 45-page meta-review of relevant science examines the various ways that mercury harms the human body. Its authors, John F. Risher, PhD, and Pamela Tucker, MD, are researchers in the CDC's Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

"This scientific paper is the one of most important pieces of research to come out of the CDC in a decade," Paul Thomas, M.D., a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years, said. "It confirms what so many already suspected: that public health officials have been making a terrible mistake in recommending that we expose babies and pregnant women to this neurotoxin. I regret to say that I gave these shots to children. The CDC led us all to believe that it was perfectly safe."

Among the findings of the CDC's new study:

• Methylmercury, the highly-regulated neurotoxin found in fish, and ethylmercury (found in medical products, including influenza and tetanus vaccines, ear drops and nasal sprays) are similarly toxic to humans. Methylmercury and ethylmercury share common chemical properties, and both significantly disrupt central nervous system development and function.

• Thimerosal is extremely toxic at very low exposures and is more damaging than methylmercury in some studies. For example, ethylmercury is even more destructive to the mitochondria in cells than methylmercury.

• The ethylmercury in thimerosal does not leave the body quickly as the CDC once claimed, but is metabolized into highly neurotoxic forms.

Despite this stark rejection of a decade of CDC safety assurances, CDC's public relations machine is still bucking the new scientific consensus; the article concludes with a telling disclaimer in tiny font:

"The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry."

CDC's website continues to feature now discredited safety assurances.

"Baldly dismissing the danger to humans from ethylmercury, has long been a reckless gambit," said J.B. Handley, a Portland, Oregon, businessman who believes that his son received debilitating injuries from a mercury vaccine. "With this study, by its own scientists, the CDC has now edged into the realm of criminal endangerment."

Handley, the founder of Generation Rescue, a vaccine safety advocacy group, condemns the CDC for misleading the medical establishment.

"The CDC knows that pediatricians and physicians rely on its public pronouncements when they make treatment decisions for their patients; how can we escape the conclusion that the agency is knowingly causing the poisoning of tens of millions of American children," Handley stated.

For example, CDC's webpage still parrots the now discredited industry canard that:

"Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm."

However, the new study makes the opposite conclusion:

"Thimerosal is quickly metabolized in vivo (in a living organism) due to its reactions with protein and non-protein thiols … so the effects of thimerosal reported in numerous articles are very likely the result of exposure to the metabolite ethylmercury."

Ignoring the agency's own scientific evidence, the CDC's webpage stubbornly insists that the "two types of mercury to which people may be exposed—methylmercury and ethylmercury—are very different." The new CDC study directly contradicts this assertion, "There are many commonalities/similarities in the mechanisms of toxic action of methylmercury and ethylmercury …"

"This study is a nuclear bomb detonating over the CDC," Boyd Haley, chairman emeritus of the University of Kentucky Chemistry Department, said. "It should be getting international, front page headlines."

As one of the world's leading authorities on mercury toxicity, Haley observed, "It's a momentous rejection of a widely held medical orthodoxy dictating policy changes even more significant than the medical establishment's reversals on thalidomide, calomel tooth powder, x-rays during pregnancy, or lead exposure to children. In each of these cases, thousands of children were injured or killed before an entrenched medical establishment was finally willing to abandon treatments that were unquestionably causing great harm."

The CDC has crossed ethical and perhaps even legal boundaries by purposefully blocking efforts by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science's (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) to test ethylmercury for toxicity – a process that would have lead to maximum exposure guidelines. In 2000, the FDA nominated thimerosal to the NTP for toxicity testing. However, CDC officials derailed the review telling the NTP committee that "There is a great concern within CDC about continued attacks from anti-vaccine groups questioning the integrity of CDC activities and recommendations regarding the use of thimerosal-containing vaccine." In response to CDC pressure, the NTP put thimerosal on permanent deferred status. Thimerosal has, therefore, never been tested for safety or toxicity.


Why do the CDC and WHO Report that Ethylmercury Exposure is Safe?

The WHO's conclusion that ethylmercury is safer because of its "short" half-life may be based on observations that ethylmercury disappears from blood samples quicker than methylmercury. However, this tendency may be evidence not of ethylmercury's comparative safety, but of its greater danger if, as science has suggested, ethylmercury is not leaving the body but simply migrating more rapidly to the organs, including the brain. Indeed, studies have shown that an ethylmercury compound's short residence in the blood stems from its ability to more easily pass into the organs, where it can remain for long periods and possibly cause injury.


Overwhelmingly, the literature presents clear evidence that ethylmercury is invasive and persistent in the brain. Emerging evidence suggests that ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury, in direct contrast with the CDC's historic position. It's time for CDC's public relations department to catch up with mainstream science. Since the World Health Organization (WHO relies mainly on CDC's vaccine safety science, the CDC's unscientific pronouncements endanger, not just U.S. children, but hundreds of millions of children around the world. Knowing what we now know, the U.S. Federal agencies and the WHO should follow the precautionary principle and phase out the use of thimerosal in all medical products, including vaccines.

https://www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2226257805.html


MSOP, I get that you truly believe what you've been told. My question to you is, have you been told the truth?