US CDC urges vaccinations amid dangerous flu season

This year's flu seems to be especially dangerous. The CDC is urging everyone over the age of 6 months to get vaccinated.
http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...ations-20140220,0,4678300.story#axzz2tvKQRB1l

The flu is especially dangerous for particular groups, including pregnant women, children under 5, and those over 65. People with certain medical conditions, such as cancer or diabetes are at higher risk. American Indians and Alaska Natives also appear to have higher risk

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/high_risk.htm

 

I call bullshit.

Government agencies say a lot of things to instill fear in people so they comply. It doesn't make those things they say true.

The government also says we need to give up our rights and submit to a police and surveillance state to save us from terrorists, and many brainwashed idiots go along with that, too, without giving it a second thought.

And the funny thing is, the CDC says shit like this EVERY year, and it always seems to fall down the memory hole, because idiots are duped by the same nonsense year after year, and run out to get the flu shot, foolishly believing it's good for them.

It's funny how the flu never used to be a big issue in the past. Now it's all of a sudden a big deal, like it's Ebola or something.

You might find there is nothing good about getting a flu shot once you understand all the crap that is in them, which is well documented and on record. And who knows what's in them that we DON'T know about and is not documented. I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies, and I certainly don't trust the government, especially when it comes to putting stuff into my body which they claim I need in order to be "safe."

I could give fuck all about getting the flu shot, and haven't gotten one in over 15 years. I have not once gotten the flu since.

The proper, healthy way to building a strong immune system is through proper diet, sleep and exercise. If you follow these simple precautions, you don't have to worry about getting sick. Besides, flu shots are mostly ineffective since they only protect against a few strains of the flu. And since the flu shots are manufactured many months before the flu season begins, they essentially have to guess what the predominate flu strains will be in advance. Many years they have had to admit that the flu shots were mostly useless for that particular year.

Supplementing with vitamins C and D (and iodine) is many times safer and more effective than some toxic, heavy metal laced chemical injection in preventing the flu. Yet you rarely hear this. Every year, and seemingly earlier and earlier each year, it's "GET THE FLU SHOT!! GET THE FLU SHOT!! YOU MIGHT DIE IF YOU DON'T GET A FLU SHOT!!! PANIC!! FREAK OUT!!! ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVE AND SUBMIT!!!"

You're not informing anyone when you post articles like this. You're merely spreading government propaganda, and I have to question the motives and intellectual fortitude of people who do this.

 

As I believe you would no matter what was posted, as long as it was the most widely accepted view.

Except for, you know, the pandemic in 1918 that killed off 3-5% of the human population of earth (50-100 million people).

And the 2009 pandemic, in which close to 300,000 people are estimated to have been killed.

 

Which has proven to be bullshit.

http://articles.***********/sites/a...he-real-cause-of-massive-1918-flu-deaths.aspx

http://articles.***********/sites/a.../03/hype-vs-evidence-of-influenza-deaths.aspx

 

Do you have a source that doesn't also sell pet food?

 

Well, instead of resorting to attacking the messenger, why not check for yourself to see if the information in the article is true or not. It's easy to attack the source so you don't have to address the claims within.

The mainstream news networks push pharmaceutical drugs and all other sorts of poison, but you have no problem believing what they tell you apparently. Why the double standard with my source?

 

I'm against getting the flu shot for myself. I don't ever remember getting the flu shot when I was younger and certainly not once it became my own choice. I'm generally not a sick person. I think I've had one cold in the past 4 years. I have friends who get the flu shot that are sick all winter long. Who knows if it has anything to do with it. All I know is I'm scared about what they put in those shots. I consulted with my chiropractor which I use as my general physician and they advised against getting it. To each their own. It just scared me to let someone inject that into my body.

 

fixed it for ya

 

Just because I don't trust your source does not mean that I automatically trust any source that says the opposite.

 

I got a flu shot. not because I wanted to, but have compromised immune system with MS.. I think id rather not have the flu and I seem to always be around people that do get it. Im OCD about shit. never open public door with bare hands, dont let people use my phone. (say can I use your phone to make an important call) you may as well kiss them on the mouth while your @ it..

my girlfriend was sick, I dont think it was flu, I think it was Norovirus however close contact and I didnt get anything..

 

Seriously???

If you want to be taken seriously with this stuff, citing sources that are decidedly already biased is the first mistake.
second one is using articles from a site that WANTS YOU TO BUY THEIR SHIT, of course all the "medical articles" are going to support the sales of those items!!!!

and why should the articles you provided be considered of higher veracity than the ones the OP linked???

One is a newspaper and the other is CDC. Both have motives and goals, but Mercolas is rather blatant, they want you to buy their shit, plain and simple. Sure it's all about living more healthy and all and how does one achieve that, by purchasing shit from good ole' Dr. Mercola!!!


Damn PR, you need to be a little more discerning and suspicious of ALL your resources.
It's not just the big, evil government/pharma/mega-corps that lie and feed you the bullshit you want to hear....you would be wise to keep that in mind.

 

The articles that you reference don't prove anything, imho. It is an interesting idea that the alleged 1918 flu deaths were really caused by aspirin, but this seems to be at best conjecture.

Mercola debates CDC estimates about flu mortality, but the CDC offers an explanation for why it uses estimates rather than relying on lab-confirmed flu mortatlity rates http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

This PBS/Frontline documentary, "The Vaccine War" offers an interesting perspective about vaccination issues.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/

 

get yourself one of these, u be ok..

 

Proof V Hypothesis

In an article in Clinical Infectious Diseases, California internist Dr. Karen M. Starko:

'No one will ever know whether aspirin therapy was actually a culprit in the deaths of the 1918 pandemic.'

Americentric:

Andrew Noymer and Daisy Carreon of the University of California, Irvine, and Niall Johnson of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, questioned this universal applicability given the high mortality rate in countries such as India, where there was little or no access to aspirin at the time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic#cite_note-noymer-67

'Her hypothesis, that the use of salicylates exacerbated the tendency of the infection to produce fluid in the lungs, has face validity and is supported by anecdotal evidence of widespread use of aspirin in the United States during the pandemic.'

'The international characteristics of the pandemic make the salicylate hypothesis difficult to sustain'

Dr. Karen M. Starko:

To the Editor—I understand the concern of Noymer et al regarding the worldwide validity of the hypothesis that aspirin contributed to 1918 pandemic mortality. However, worldwide use, as well as clinical, pathology, and physiology evidence of lung toxicity, indicate that aspirin may have played some role in mortality around the world.

I agree that aspirin is not the only risk factor for 1918 influenza mortality, yet the country “dose-response” test suggested fails to inform when competing risk factors are present.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/8/1203.1

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/8/1203.2

Lets compromise: 3% died due to the flu 2% died due to other factors.

How is this different?:

'You might find there is nothing good about getting a flu shot once you understand all the crap that is in them'

Such as?
The effects being?
Evidence?

We are talking about vaccines circa 2013/14 not 1918.
So don't frighten people with crap that might have been used decades ago.

Don't you think these vaccines have been scrutinised by independent scientists/chemists etc?

More fear on your part.

Me neither. Not being in the 'at risk' category.

What are you talking about?

 

Odon,

Are you denying that the flu shot has chemical additives like formeldehyde, and heavy metal (mercury) derivatives like thimerosol, and that both are toxic to the body?

 

CBS had a story a couple days ago about the number of people who are not in the high risk categories that are getting the flu.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/this-flu-season-unusually-hard-on-adults-under-64/

I have gotten the flu shot for several years because I am a caregiver to my parents and I do not want to give anyone at high risk the flu. I have actually never had the flu and rarely if ever get colds.

 

Trace amounts. What are these trace amounts supposed to do to humans in general? How has it affected you?

Acute, short-term exposure to large amounts can be fatal. Long-term chronic exposure to inhaled or topical formaldehyde can result in respiratory illnesses, skin irritation and has long been a suspected carcinogen. In 2011, the U.S. government changed its designation from "reasonably likely" to cause cancer in humans, based on cancer studies in animals, to "known carcinogen". However, these health issues are primarily a risk for those who regularly work with large, industrial quantities of the substance; they are exposed to much higher levels than the rest of us.


The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed at one time may be as high as 0.2 mg.

This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for two reasons:
First, formaldehyde is essential in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation (about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood). Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines.

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.

Vaccine Advisory Committee-sponsored meeting on thimerosal in 1999, concerns were expressed that infants may lack the ability to eliminate mercury. More recent NIAID-supported studies at the University of Rochester and National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD examined levels of mercury in blood and other samples from infants who had received routine immunizations with thimerosal-containing vaccines. [Pichichero ME, et al. Lancet 360:1737-1741 (2002)] Blood levels of mercury did not exceed safety guidelines for methyl mercury for all infants in these studies. Further, mercury was cleared from the blood in infants exposed to thimerosal faster than would be predicted for methyl mercury; infants excreted significant amounts of mercury in stool after thimerosal exposure, thus removing mercury from their bodies. These results suggest that there are differences in the way that thimerosal and methyl mercury are distributed, metabolized, and excreted.

Are you still standing behind your two articles as PROOF?

 

Your body already has 600 times more lead in it than people did 100 years ago.

 

I only use pens these days.

http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/leadguidance.pdf

Investigations of human skeletal remains indicate that the body lead burden of today’s populations is 500–1000 times greater than that of their Childhood Lead Poisoning 17 pre-industrial counterparts. The pre-industrial blood lead level in people is estimated to have been about 0.016 µg/dl. In remote regions of the southern and northern hemispheres in the late 1980s, blood lead levels were reported to be 0.78 µg/dl and 3.20 µg/dl, respectively (Flegal & Smith, 1992).

By far the largest contributor to global environmental lead contamination has been the use of lead in petrol (OECD, 1999; Landrigan, 2002). World lead consumption rose steadily between 1965 and 1990, when it reached about 5.6 million tonnes. Between 1980 and 1990, the consumption of lead in high- and middle-income countries increased only slightly, whereas for the same years in low-income countries it increased from 315 000 tonnes to 844 000 tonnes per year.
Global lead contamination – resulting from human activities and attributable to the greatly increased circulation of lead in soil, water and air – remains significant.

With continued efforts to remove lead from petrol, paint and pigments, solder and other well-known sources, blood lead levels worldwide are expected to continue their decline. However, hot spots from smelting, mining, and metal recycling operations – some of them ongoing and others the legacy of the past – remain significant problems. And despite a century of accumulated evidence about its danger to the health of children, lead continues too often to be added to paints, pigments, toys, traditional medications, cosmetics and other consumer products, especially as manufacturing shifts to low-income countries that lack environmental and product content controls and policies.

 

Hey, Pressed_Rat, my children are still waiting to know what's going to happen to them if they are vaccinated with these vaccines that are laced with toxins, bro.