Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist



J

john

Guest
Thanks to Donna Carrillo and Dr. Tenpenny for providing the links to the
FluMist Package insert and the FDA Q&A on FluMist so you can see for
yourself how truly dangerous this hyped up new "nasal vaccine" is.

Here's the link to the FluMist package insert --
http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/inflmed061703LB.pdf


Are there certain people who should not receive FluMist?

As with any medication, individuals should check with their health care
provider before receiving any flu vaccines. According to the approved
package insert, the following people should not get the intranasal
influenza vaccine:

*Adults 50 years of age or older, or children younger than 5 should not
receive FluMist.

*FluMist should not be given for any reason to people with immune
suppression, including those with immune deficiency diseases, such as AIDS
or cancer, and people who are being treated with drugs that cause
immunosuppression.

*The safety of FluMist in people with asthma or other reactive airway
diseases has not been established, and therefore, is not recommended for
use in patients with a history of reactive airway problems.

*Additionally, FluMist should not be given to people with chronic
underlying medical conditions that may predispose them to severe flu
infections. For these people, the injected vaccine is indicated.

*Individuals with egg allergies should not receive this or any other flu
vaccine.

*People who have health problems associated with heart disease, kidney
disease, lung disease, or metabolic diseases such as diabetes, anemia and
other blood disorders should not receive FluMist.

*Because Reye syndrome in children has been associated with administration
of aspirin during influenza virus infections, FluMist is not recommended in
children and adolescents 5-17 years of age if they are receiving aspirin or
aspirin-containing therapy.

*Pregnant women (in their second or third trimesters during influenza
season) should not receive FluMist.

*Anyone with a history of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) should not receive
FluMist.

*Physicians, nurses, family members, or anyone else coming in close contact
with anyone with a weakened immune system should not receive FluMist.

THIS MEANS ALL THE SHOPPERS AT WALMART, CORRECT????

http://www.fda.gov/cber/flu/flumistqa.htm
 
"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks to Donna Carrillo and Dr. Tenpenny for providing the links to the
> FluMist Package insert and the FDA Q&A on FluMist so you can see for
> yourself how truly dangerous this hyped up new "nasal vaccine" is.
>
> Here's the link to the FluMist package insert --
> http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/inflmed061703LB.pdf
>
>
> Are there certain people who should not receive FluMist?
>
> As with any medication, individuals should check with their health care
> provider before receiving any flu vaccines. According to the approved
> package insert, the following people should not get the intranasal
> influenza vaccine:
>
> *Adults 50 years of age or older, or children younger than 5 should not
> receive FluMist.
>
> *FluMist should not be given for any reason to people with immune
> suppression, including those with immune deficiency diseases, such as AIDS
> or cancer, asthma, allergies, diabetes, heart disease, high blood
pressure,
arthritis, or any disease, disorder or condition and people who are being
treated
with any drugs.
>
> *The safety of FluMist in people with asthma or other reactive airway
> diseases has not been established, and therefore, is not recommended for
> use in patients with a history of reactive airway problems.
>
> *Additionally, FluMist should not be given to people with chronic
> underlying medical conditions that may predispose them to severe flu
> infections. For these people, the injected vaccine is indicated.
>
> *Individuals with egg allergies should not receive this or any other flu
> vaccine.
>
> *People who have health problems associated with heart disease, kidney
> disease, lung disease, or metabolic diseases such as diabetes, anemia and
> other blood disorders should not receive FluMist.
>
> *Because Reye syndrome in children has been associated with administration
> of aspirin during influenza virus infections, FluMist is not recommended
in
> children and adolescents 5-17 years of age if they are receiving aspirin
or
> aspirin-containing therapy.
>
> *Pregnant women (in their second or third trimesters during influenza
> season) should not receive FluMist.
>
> *Anyone with a history of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) should not receive
> FluMist.
>
> *Physicians, nurses, family members, or anyone else coming in close
contact
> with anyone with a weakened immune system should not receive FluMist.
>
> THIS MEANS ALL THE SHOPPERS AT WALMART, CORRECT????
>
> http://www.fda.gov/cber/flu/flumistqa.htm
 
$100,000,000.00 to develop and one FREE posting *****ing about it.
Which opinion do you think is backed up be science?


On 16 Oct 2003 00:25:48 -0700, [email protected] (john) wrote:

>Thanks to Donna Carrillo and Dr. Tenpenny for providing the links to the
>FluMist Package insert and the FDA Q&A on FluMist so you can see for
>yourself how truly dangerous this hyped up new "nasal vaccine" is.
>
>Here's the link to the FluMist package insert --
>http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/inflmed061703LB.pdf
>
>
>Are there certain people who should not receive FluMist?
>
>As with any medication, individuals should check with their health care
>provider before receiving any flu vaccines. According to the approved
>package insert, the following people should not get the intranasal
>influenza vaccine:
>
>*Adults 50 years of age or older, or children younger than 5 should not
>receive FluMist.
>
>*FluMist should not be given for any reason to people with immune
>suppression, including those with immune deficiency diseases, such as AIDS
>or cancer, and people who are being treated with drugs that cause
>immunosuppression.
>
>*The safety of FluMist in people with asthma or other reactive airway
>diseases has not been established, and therefore, is not recommended for
>use in patients with a history of reactive airway problems.
>
>*Additionally, FluMist should not be given to people with chronic
>underlying medical conditions that may predispose them to severe flu
>infections. For these people, the injected vaccine is indicated.
>
>*Individuals with egg allergies should not receive this or any other flu
>vaccine.
>
>*People who have health problems associated with heart disease, kidney
>disease, lung disease, or metabolic diseases such as diabetes, anemia and
>other blood disorders should not receive FluMist.
>
>*Because Reye syndrome in children has been associated with administration
>of aspirin during influenza virus infections, FluMist is not recommended in
>children and adolescents 5-17 years of age if they are receiving aspirin or
>aspirin-containing therapy.
>
>*Pregnant women (in their second or third trimesters during influenza
>season) should not receive FluMist.
>
>*Anyone with a history of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) should not receive
>FluMist.
>
>*Physicians, nurses, family members, or anyone else coming in close contact
>with anyone with a weakened immune system should not receive FluMist.
>
>THIS MEANS ALL THE SHOPPERS AT WALMART, CORRECT????
>
>http://www.fda.gov/cber/flu/flumistqa.htm
 
gus wrote:
>
> $100,000,000.00 to develop and one FREE posting *****ing about it.
> Which opinion do you think is backed up be science?


What we need to know is whether the money follows the science, or the
the science follows the money....

--

best wishes etc,

Zeronic AT uk2 DOT net
 
"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks to Donna Carrillo and Dr. Tenpenny for providing the links to the
> FluMist Package insert and the FDA Q&A on FluMist so you can see for
> yourself how truly dangerous this hyped up new "nasal vaccine" is.
>
> Here's the link to the FluMist package insert --
> http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/inflmed061703LB.pdf
>
>
> Are there certain people who should not receive FluMist?
>
> As with any medication, individuals should check with their health care
> provider before receiving any flu vaccines. According to the approved
> package insert, the following people should not get the intranasal
> influenza vaccine:
>
> *Adults 50 years of age or older, or children younger than 5 should not
> receive FluMist.
>
> *FluMist should not be given for any reason to people with immune
> suppression, including those with immune deficiency diseases, such as AIDS
> or cancer, and people who are being treated with drugs that cause
> immunosuppression.
>
> *The safety of FluMist in people with asthma or other reactive airway
> diseases has not been established, and therefore, is not recommended for
> use in patients with a history of reactive airway problems.
>
> *Additionally, FluMist should not be given to people with chronic
> underlying medical conditions that may predispose them to severe flu
> infections. For these people, the injected vaccine is indicated.
>
> *Individuals with egg allergies should not receive this or any other flu
> vaccine.
>
> *People who have health problems associated with heart disease, kidney
> disease, lung disease, or metabolic diseases such as diabetes, anemia and
> other blood disorders should not receive FluMist.
>
> *Because Reye syndrome in children has been associated with administration
> of aspirin during influenza virus infections, FluMist is not recommended
in
> children and adolescents 5-17 years of age if they are receiving aspirin
or
> aspirin-containing therapy.
>
> *Pregnant women (in their second or third trimesters during influenza
> season) should not receive FluMist.
>
> *Anyone with a history of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) should not receive
> FluMist.
>
> *Physicians, nurses, family members, or anyone else coming in close
contact
> with anyone with a weakened immune system should not receive FluMist.
>
> THIS MEANS ALL THE SHOPPERS AT WALMART, CORRECT????

No. Shoppers at Walmart are not coming in close contact. By close contact,
they mean household members or similar contacts, like when nurses and
doctors take care of patients.

The list is actually very reassuring. It shows that the makers of the
FluMist did their homework and determined those people most likely to have
increased risk from the vaccine. As we all know, no vaccine 100% safe.
FluMist is no exception. It is certainly much, much safer than getting the
real influenza, as shown by the studies and safe for the people who do not
have a contraindication.

Jeff
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>The list is actually very reassuring. It shows that the makers of the
>FluMist did their homework and determined those people most likely to have
>increased risk from the vaccine. As we all know, no vaccine 100% safe.
>FluMist is no exception. It is certainly much, much safer than getting the
>real influenza, as shown by the studies and safe for the people who do not
>have a contraindication.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

The people most in need of the flu vaccine have a contraindication
which indicates that the safer FluMist is not safe for them.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

You geeks are full of ****, as usual. :)

"... you have my sympathies"
Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
 
zeronic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> gus wrote:
> >
> > $100,000,000.00 to develop and one FREE posting *****ing about it.
> > Which opinion do you think is backed up be science?
>
>
> What we need to know is whether the money follows the science, or the
> the science follows the money....

LOL. Nicely put, and its science following the money every time with
vaccines and most drugs.

john
 
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:09:19 +0100, zeronic <[email protected]>
wrote:

>gus wrote:
>>
>> $100,000,000.00 to develop and one FREE posting *****ing about it.
>> Which opinion do you think is backed up be science?
>
>
>What we need to know is whether the money follows the science, or the
>the science follows the money....

You will NEVER see any "proof" of this until there is an "Enron" in
the drug business. The "proof" will be one of the most carefully
guarded secrets inthe business. Until then, it is best to assume it is
being run with the ethics of Enron. It is all about money. Big money
begets the worst of ethics.

For $100,000,000.00 you can buy the science you want. Scientists who
sell out can make more money than those who don't. Just keep looking
through until you find a few who will do your bidding. For
$100,000,000.00 you can do a LOT of weeding out to get favorable
results.

pronto
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
> rambled on about "Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...
>
> >The list is actually very reassuring. It shows that the makers of the
> >FluMist did their homework and determined those people most likely to
have
> >increased risk from the vaccine. As we all know, no vaccine 100% safe.
> >FluMist is no exception. It is certainly much, much safer than getting
the
> >real influenza, as shown by the studies and safe for the people who do
not
> >have a contraindication.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> The people most in need of the flu vaccine have a contraindication
> which indicates that the safer FluMist is not safe for them.

Yeah, but it does not involve a needle. A lot of people who would not get
the shot will get this vaccine. Which means that they are much less likely
to get influenza, which helps slow down the spread of the illness.

So even the people who have countraindications to the vaccine benefit.

Jeff

> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> You geeks are full of ****, as usual. :)
>
> "... you have my sympathies"
> Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
 
"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> zeronic <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > gus wrote:
> > >
> > > $100,000,000.00 to develop and one FREE posting *****ing about it.
> > > Which opinion do you think is backed up be science?
> >
> >
> > What we need to know is whether the money follows the science, or the
> > the science follows the money....
>
> LOL. Nicely put, and its science following the money every time with
> vaccines and most drugs.

You're confusing homeopathy and other alternative medicines with real
medicine. Every treatment in real medicine must be proven to work before it
can be licensed. And all of the treatments coming out today, are backed by
science. For example, the makers of FluMist had to prove that their vaccine
worked before they could sell it.

Unlike, say, homeopathy, which has never been shown to work. I guess you
can say that science does not follow homeopathy, though. Because science is
not involved with homeopathy at all.

Jeff

> john
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

The only person confused here is Jeff.

Just thought that you might want to know, Jeff. :)

>You're confusing homeopathy and other alternative medicines with real
>medicine.

Real medicine has one-and-only one method of treatment called drugs.

Any other method of treatment that real Medicine uses is either
surgery, a form of natural health, or a form of alternative
medicine. :)

Physical Therapy, for example, is obviously based on the natural
therapy of physical exercise. And, since the mode of treatment used
by Physical Therapy is not drugs it should be classified as
Alternative Medicine rather than as real medicine.

Just thought that you might want to know, Jeff. :)

>Every treatment in real medicine must be proven to work before it
>can be licensed.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You don't know too much do you, Jeff?

>And all of the treatments coming out today, are backed by
>science.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You don't know too much do you, Jeff?

>For example, the makers of FluMist had to prove that their vaccine
>worked before they could sell it.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You don't know too much do you, Jeff? I already
pointed out why you are an idiot on this THREAD, Jeff. Do I have to
do it again?

>Unlike, say, homeopathy, which has never been shown to work. I guess you
>can say that science does not follow homeopathy, though. Because science is
>not involved with homeopathy at all.

Excuse me, but I just posted two studies from two prestigious journals
(BMJ and The Lancet) that supports the effectiveness of homeopathy.

So, please stop posting your lies in public. Your bias is showing,
Jeff!

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
> rambled on about "Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...
>
> The only person confused here is Jeff.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know, Jeff. :)
>
> >You're confusing homeopathy and other alternative medicines with real
> >medicine.
>
> Real medicine has one-and-only one method of treatment called drugs.

Wrong. Treatments include occupational and physical therapy, dentistry,
diet, excercise and surgery.

> Any other method of treatment that real Medicine uses is either
> surgery, a form of natural health, or a form of alternative
> medicine. :)
>
> Physical Therapy, for example, is obviously based on the natural
> therapy of physical exercise.

Wrong. Physical therapy is based on principles of anatomy and physiology.
Physical excercise is part of it, though.

> And, since the mode of treatment used
> by Physical Therapy is not drugs it should be classified as
> Alternative Medicine rather than as real medicine.

Wrong. The difference between conventional medicine and alternative medicine
is that the things in conventional medicine have been proven to work.
Physical therapy is a proven part of conventional medicine. It is used
extensively after surgery and injury.

> Just thought that you might want to know, Jeff. :)
>
> >Every treatment in real medicine must be proven to work before it
> >can be licensed.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You don't know too much do you, Jeff?
>
> >And all of the treatments coming out today, are backed by
> >science.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You don't know too much do you, Jeff?
>
> >For example, the makers of FluMist had to prove that their vaccine
> >worked before they could sell it.
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You don't know too much do you, Jeff? I already
> pointed out why you are an idiot on this THREAD, Jeff. Do I have to
> do it again?
>
> >Unlike, say, homeopathy, which has never been shown to work. I guess you
> >can say that science does not follow homeopathy, though. Because science
is
> >not involved with homeopathy at all.
>
> Excuse me, but I just posted two studies from two prestigious journals
> (BMJ and The Lancet) that supports the effectiveness of homeopathy.
>
> So, please stop posting your lies in public. Your bias is showing,
> Jeff!
>
> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>> The only person confused here is Jeff.

>> >You're confusing homeopathy and other alternative medicines with real
>> >medicine.

>> Real medicine has one-and-only one method of treatment called drugs.

>Wrong. Treatments include occupational and physical therapy, dentistry,
>diet, excercise and surgery.

Wrong!

Dentistry is dentistry.

Surgeons practice surgery. Surgery has been separated from medicine
since the Middle Ages. It is about time that you figure it out!

Diet and exercise is a part of natural health.

Physical therapy is alternative medicine.

Occupational therapy is well, Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

All I see here is that some medicine geek named Jeff is trying to
claim credit for treatments that have nothing to do with medicine.

>> Any other method of treatment that real Medicine uses is either
>> surgery, a form of natural health, or a form of alternative
>> medicine. :)

>> Physical Therapy, for example, is obviously based on the natural
>> therapy of physical exercise.

>Wrong. Physical therapy is based on principles of anatomy and physiology.
>Physical excercise is part of it, though.

Anatomy and physiology is *not* therapy. Just thought that you might
want to know. :) Anatomy and physiology is what academics teach in
order to justify their pathetic little lives. Anatomy is a dead
science.

>> And, since the mode of treatment used
>> by Physical Therapy is not drugs it should be classified as
>> Alternative Medicine rather than as real medicine.

>Wrong. The difference between conventional medicine and alternative medicine
>is that the things in conventional medicine have been proven to work.

In other words, medicine tries to steal other methods of treatment
once science finally gets around to proving that they actually work.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I agree completely.

Physical Therapy should be classified as Alternative Medicine rather
than as real medicine.

>Physical therapy is a proven part of conventional medicine. It is used
>extensively after surgery and injury.

Correct: medicine has tried to claim credit for Physical therapy even
though it clearly is a form of alternative medicine. :)

Just thought that you might want to know, Jeff. :)
 
>Subject: Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist
>From: John 'the Man' [email protected]
>Date: 10/18/2003 7:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>Wrong!
>
>Dentistry is dentistry

dentists are doctors of dentistry

>Surgeons practice surgery. Surgery has been separated from medicine
>since the Middle Ages. It is about time that you figure it out!

wait...so surgeons don't see patients pre and post op in their offices?? So
trauma surgeons don't work in ER;s,,,stabilize the patients medically,,then
decide if they NEED surgery??

wait...what about "doctors" who work part time in surgery,,,the rest of the
time assisting "surgeons"

It is about time YOU understood that surgeons are not a groups of docs who sit
in surgery waiting rooms waiting to cut...

>Physical therapy is alternative medicine.
>

it may be also part of am...but surely used on a daily basis in conventional as
well...
hawki
 
>Subject: Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist
>From: John 'the Man' [email protected]
>Date: 10/18/2003 7:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>

>>Wrong. Physical therapy is based on principles of anatomy and physiology.

>Anatomy and physiology is *not* therapy. Just thought that you might
>want to know. :) Anatomy and physiology is what academics teach in
>order to justify their pathetic little lives. Anatomy is a dead
>science.

read Jeff's sentence above ..he said "based upon anatomy and physiology"..

mighty tuf to know how to apply PT accuratelly if one does not have an
excellent knowledge of underlying bones,,muscles,,tendons,,etc and HOW they
work...


hawki
 
In <[email protected]>, john wrote:

> Thanks to Donna Carrillo and Dr. Tenpenny for providing the links to the
> FluMist Package insert and the FDA Q&A on FluMist so you can see for
> yourself how truly dangerous this hyped up new "nasal vaccine" is.

I find Scudamore's obsession with FluMist fascinating.
According to him, viruses don't cause disease, and one
of his greatest complaints about immunization injections
is that they "bypass the body's natural defenses."

So here we have FluMist, which is an aerosol (droplet)
administration of a less-virulent form of the same
viruses which circulate naturally by -- drumroll --
aerosol droplets. If, as he often tells us, viruses
don't cause disease then FluMist is at worst a waste
of money. If FluMist is, as he tells us, dangerous
(esp. because it causes a mild case of the disease
which can be passed to others) then he's been wrong
all these years about viruses.

Choose.

Personally, I think he's flipping out because the
nasal aerosol administration takes away his ability
to scare people about needles.

--
| "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
| completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: Truly dangerous and hyped up FluMist."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>> *Adults 50 years of age or older, or children younger than 5 should not
>> receive FluMist.

Getting back to my original point: The people most in need of
vaccinations to protect them against viral disease agents, are advised
not to receive FluMist.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I find that incredibly funny.

Because the rest of the people don't need to be vaccinated for the flu
at all, unless they are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Any NORMAL healthy person with a strong immune system should not get
the flu at all ever. People get colds and the flu only when they are
totally run down and are other wise chronically unhealthy. Also,
healthy people need to be in a closed environment, like an ocean
liner, before they are likely to be affected by viral disease agents.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
--

"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Because the rest of the people don't need to be vaccinated for the flu
> at all, unless they are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
>
> Any NORMAL healthy person with a strong immune system should not get
> the flu at all ever. People get colds and the flu only when they are
> totally run down and are other wise chronically unhealthy. Also,
> healthy people need to be in a closed environment, like an ocean
> liner, before they are likely to be affected by viral disease agents.
>
> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

Sorry, but on this one you are wrong. A "strong immune system" is one that
has the antibody for the invading virus already in its library. Many people
who are in robust good health get influenza because their [healthy] immune
systems are dealing with a virus they have never encountered before. It's
true that people who are chronically ill or otherwise vulnerable may take
longer to recover from flu or may even succumb to it, but those people are
certainly not the only ones who will get the disease.

Just thought you might want to know.

--Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back