When I got up today and contemplated my blog post for the day, I thought to myself
-Do not blog on swine flu! Let it go for a day or so. But, dammit, I can't!
Why? Because of the morning newspaper!
This article Vaccine phobia runs deep just burnt me up.
The very title of the article is intended to portray the concern over vaccine usage as irrational, hence the use of the word phobia. If the article wanted to portray legitimate concerns with anything other then derision, words such as "concern", or "uneasy" could have been used. But since that was not the intent of the article, the writer or someone chose derogatory terminology.
The opening cheap shot:
"Canada is in the midst of its largest-ever mass immunization campaign and, these days, people naturally turn to the Internet for information, or what passes for it"
Or what passes for it, means simply this is not credible information, it is just something that passes for it. Pretends to be credible. Better to get your info from msm or the government, because they do not lie or misinform, ever.
Then she quotes this statement as information available on line, "or what passes for it."
They will learn a variety of things. For example:
1) That vaccines are flat-out dangerous because they're chock-full of toxins; mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, and such like.
Let's go to the closing paragraph, which of course no one is going to read, or very few people, save for me read to the end.
For the record: The H1N1 vaccine – named Arepanrix by manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline – doesn't contain a live virus but "antigens" that trick the immune system into thinking it's been attacked and help produce anti-bodies. It also contains two "adjuvants," agents that stimulate the immune system: vitamin E and the organic compound squalene from fish oil. Minute amounts of thimerisol, a mercury-containing preservative, and aluminium are in it too.Do you notice that first paragraph of "what passes for information" is correct? Mercury and aluminum are indeed in the shots. Does Lynda Hurst wonder at the cumulative effects of these toxins in the body? Apparently not.
See, it's not that bad Lynda Hurst soothes us . GSK admits it has mercury, aluminum, two experimental adjuvants (which she fails to mention) and she forgot the formaldehyde.
Here is a link to an Arepanrix Information Pamphlet by GSK. That is the H1N1 vaccine.
And here is the formaldehyde mentioned in the pamphlet:
"The virus is inactivated with ultraviolet light treatment followed by formaldehyde treatment"
Oh and in between the labelling and ridicule we have the esteemed Dr. David Butler Jones claiming "People make up the facts". Yeah, sure they do!
The reality is you don't have to make this stuff up!
The experimental adjuvant is ASO3. "Adjuvant: DL-α-tocopherol 11.86 milligrams/0.5mL dose Squalene 10.69 milligrams/0.5mL dose, Polysorbate 80 4.86 milligrams/0.5mL doseSqualene, Squalene, Squalene.
The adjuvant ASO3 was not tested along with the H1N1 vaccine for useage with children, it was tested with the H5N1 vaccine. GSK admits that in their own literature, though I have written on that previously. Their dosage recomendations are not even based on the mix of H1N1 vaccine and ASO3 adjuvants. GSK acknowledges that also.
The dose recommendations are largely based on:I say largely because there was one limited study done with ASO3 and H1n1, done only on adults.
• safety and immunogenicity data available on the administration of AS03-adjuvanted vaccine containing 3.75 μg HA derived from A/Indonesia/5/2005 (H5N1) (Arepanrix™ H5N1) at 0 and 21 days to adults, including the elderly
• safety and immunogenicity data available on the administration of the adult dose and half of the adult dose to children aged from 3-9 years with anotherAS03-adjuvanted vaccine containing 3.75 μg HA derived from A/Vietnam/1194/2004 (H5N1) at 0 and 21 days
• limited immunogenicity data from 2 studies obtained three weeks after administration of a single dose of an investigational formulation of another AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine containing either 5.25 μg or 3.75 μg HA derived from A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) (Pandemrix™) to healthy adults aged 18-60 years
Therefore the dosage recommendations for children are based on a different vaccine.
Nothing has to be "made up" by anyone. All the facts are available.
But, how dare you make your own decision in your own best interests! How dare you want to chose and control the amount of known toxins in your own body? How dare you want to think for yourself, and not follow the herd. How dare you not listen to Lynda Hurst as she derides legitimate concerns. Your concerns are not legitimate, your just an irrational phobic prone delusional nutjob!