Maybe It's Time To Take Another Look at the Flu Shot

ABC news reported that the flu shot is a dismal failure. The shot is highly toxic. Is it time to find alternatives?

I was going through my email last night and found a message someone had sent that was a collection of old advertisements.  It was titled “My how things have changed!”  Among others, there were ads telling mothers that they could feed their infants Coca-Cola or Seven Up instead of breast milk, one ad for Blatz beer telling lactating mothers that the alcohol was good for them and their babies to keep calm, and, of course, the usual ads for cigarettes endorsed by medical doctors. 


Here we are, anywhere from 50 to 100 years later, and we laugh at those ads thinking, “How could they have been so stupid!”  But then I wonder, what’s being pushed on us that future generations will look back and think the same thing – like, maybe, the flu shot?


Everywhere you go, every magazine you read, every news outlet on the radio and TV tell people to get the flu shot.  We are led to believe that getting the flu shot is as safe as taking a vitamin. But is it?  When I ask people if they know what is in the flu shot, the most common answer is “the virus” and that’s all they know.  What they don’t realize is that it is a toxic soup that is being injected into their systems.


The fluid of the flu shot is mostly formaldehyde, also known as embalming fluid.  Formaldehyde is highly toxic and a known carcinogen.  Then, depending upon the manufacturer, there is a mix of antibiotics, egg proteins, detergents, various salt compounds, viruses, mercury compounds (mercury is brain killer), MSG (another brain killer), sugars, and various other components. You would not willingly drink any of these products, why would you have it injected into your body?


Many people say that if they don’t get the flu shot, then they will get the flu,but a recent article on ABC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/50897691#50897691) says that the CDC has announced that the flu shot is a dismal failure.  It is only 56% effective for the general population and 9% for the elderly. One of the CDC officials said he took the shot and still got the flu.  So basically, only one out of two people are protected from the flu.  These are not very good odds, and considering the poisons that are injected into the body, it seems more like a game of Russian Roulette.


There was a time when doctors told pregnant women not to put anything unnatural in their bodiesto protect the developing babies, but now they are advised to get the flu shot.  Since the flu immunization has been introduced into pregnant women, there has been a 4250% increase in fetal deaths.  Also, in everyone, the shot has been linked to the onset of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralysis that can lead to death; the mercury in the vaccine is linked to Alzheimer’s disease; narcolepsy; seizures; and the flu and pneumonia (yes, you read that right).


The best way to protect yourself from getting the flu is make certain that you eat well.  Too much sugar stresses the body which lowers your resistance to illness.  Make sure to get plenty of Vitamin D (35 IU’s per pound of body weight), eat fruits and vegetables that are high in anti-oxidants, and see your chiropractor.  Chiropractic care helps keep your nerve system healthy and your nerve system isyour immune system.  In our office we also offer homeopathic remedies that can protect you, or shorten the duration of the flu if you get it.


Just as silly as it is to give a baby soda pop, maybe one day people will realize that injecting their bodies with toxic waste to create health is not wise either.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Alex Vandehoff February 27, 2013 at 01:35 PM
Tread lightly. Vaccines are a minor miracle of science. The NIH website says this about Gullain-Barre: "Recovery can take weeks, months, or years. Most people survive and recover completely. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, about 30% of patients still have some weakness after 3 years. Mild weakness may persist for some people." Not pleasant, to be sure. However, the 1918 Flu pandemic killed at least 50 million people worldwide, maybe up to 100 million. I'm in no way making any statistical statements and understand this is somewhat anecdotal, but personally I'd go with the lower percentage of risk in a given situation.
Dennis Ehren, DC February 27, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Thank you for your comments Alex. The 1918 pandemic was caused called the Spanish Flu because it was thought to have originated there. It began manifesting in this country in an army base and spread. It's not known how many people died, but you are correct that it was in the millions. However, most people did not die of the flu but rather a bacterial pnuemonia that infected their stressed out lungs. Unfortunately, medical care in 1918 was not what it is today. If they had antibiotics, most of those people would have lived. They didn't even have IV's to restore fluids. People were just at the mercy of waiting it out. Also, the flu pandemic spread after a major war, which is quite common. There was widespread malnutrition and stress as a result of the war, and these factors contribute to the spread of disease. You say that vaccines are a minor miracle of science. I beg to differ. Not one vaccine has ever been subjected to any kind of study - blind, double blind, or whatever. Not a single one. Statistics show that all the childhood diseases that we now vaccinate for, were all on the decline when the vaccines were introduced. The major factor in this was not the vaccines, but the development of better sanitation. However, with the advent of vaccines, we have seen an increase in autism, behavioral disorders, and autoimmune diseases. Keeping healthy is still far better than toxins.
Alex Vandehoff February 27, 2013 at 07:22 PM
Dennis, I certainly agree with your sentiments about keeping healthy as well as correctly pointing out that 1918 era medicine was not what it is today. That said, antibiotics are, by definition, toxic to a biological entity - bacteria specifically. The toxicity argument could be leveraged by the false analogy of 'if it's bad for the bacteria, then it's bad for a human.' And even to that end, people have become sick because of antibiotic over-dosing. The statement that 'not one vaccine has ever been subjected to any kind of study' is patently false, and goes so far beyond being absurd that Monty Python wouldn't even do a send up of it. The original 'vaccines cause autism' study has been widely debunked be reputable doctors and scientists (not to mention - you state that no vaccine has been studied, and then reference a vaccine study, which is one of the more bizarre leaps in logic I've witnessed, and I've been an internet user for a long time). I'm willing to be all those parents in areas where whooping cough has broken out recently wish they hadn't listened to celebrities telling them not to vaccinate their children. Don't get me wrong - clean living, taking care of yourself, and 'preventative maintenance' are important. We both agree on that point. I take issue, however, with the spread of disinformation.
Jake Williams February 27, 2013 at 07:48 PM
I'm not specifically for or against vaccines but I have serious problems with your article. You say "The fluid of the flu shot is mostly formaldehyde," this is completely false. You can look up the exact composition of flu vaccines and some contain absolutely no formaldehyde. Others have less than 100 mcg per dose while most contain far less (25 mcg or lower). Here are the details: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/components-Influenza.htm You also have to specifically understand what formaldehyde is and how much is considered toxic to humans. We naturally produce it in our bodies because it plays an essential role in metabolism and the EPA says humans can consume 0.2mg of formaldehyde per kilogram of weight every day without seeing any adverse effects. The most formaldehyde a child might get from vaccines would be at their 6 month office visit, but this is still 160 times less than the formaldehyde their body naturally produces every day! You can also consume way more natural formaldehyde from eating an apple then getting all your 6 month vaccinations! You said a flu shot is mostly like embalming fluid, which contains between 5 and 29 percent formaldehyde. If most flu shots contain no formaldehyde and others contain at most 1/50th of 1 percent, which is perfectly safe, how are they like embalming fluid?
William Bridgeman February 28, 2013 at 02:17 PM
The 9% rate is correct for Influenza A this season but Influenza B was around 50% effect in the 65 and older group. The 4250% statistic when dig deep enough is basically made up by anti-vaccination groups skewing and changing the results of a study done by the NCWO. Guillain-Barre syndrome is caused by an adverse reaction to infections and can be caused by the vaccine. Currently that is still thought to be under 1 out of every million vaccines or less. You have a larger chance of catching the syndrome from the flu itself. I think you could make valid points about properly taking care of yourself, self sanitation methods and that of others, and that with the vaccine you've only cut your chances of getting sick down 50%. But you fill your article with so many lies and half truths that it's hard to take it seriously. Also, as previously commented, there is no scientific link between autism and vaccinations. But there is a link between nobody having polio and vaccinations.
Dennis Ehren, DC February 28, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Discussing vaccinations is like discussing religion; it can cause very heated arguments and nothing is resolved. There are sources for everything that I wrote in my column, which only touched the surface of the vaccination problem. If you really think there is no link between autism and vaccinations, then please watch the following video from C-Span last November 30, which shows a direct correlation between mercury and neurodegeneration: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4177030. Also, as far as polio is concerned, I have a well-documented article that links paralytic polio to pesticide poisoning from crop dusting rather than a virus. Regardless, the point of the article is that the best defense against the flu is to keep your body healthy, and not rely on toxic chemicals.
Jake Williams March 01, 2013 at 04:58 PM
Dennis, in your most recent comment you said "There are sources for everything that I wrote," can you please give me the sources that prove "The fluid of the flu shot is mostly formaldehyde, also known as embalming fluid." As I stated in my previous comment, I feel this is patently false and incredibly misleading. You said recently that we should "not rely on toxic chemicals," while I agree with you on this point we also need to understand the definition of toxic. Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism, and it is solely dose and exposure dependent. Water could be considered the safest chemical known to man but you can die if you drink too much water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication A central tenant of toxicology is dosage and you are ignoring this with many of your comments. I agree there are a lot of chemicals present in a flu shot but you have to understand each one, the toxicity of each, and what role they play in the flu shot. You can't jump to the conclusion that chemicals = bad = toxic. Just focusing on formaldehyde you can learn that it’s perfectly safe at the dosages found in flu shots and other vaccines for that matter. Here is more detailed reading about formaldehyde: http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2012/04/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients.html Once again, I'm not a vaccine advocate, I just have an issue with many of your claims because they are at best misleading and at worse completely false.
Alex Vandehoff March 01, 2013 at 07:32 PM
If you are equating 'believing' in a vaccine with 'believing' in a set of spiritual guidelines, then you're correct, this conversation won't go anywhere. Vaccines, biology, chemistry...it's all science and therefore must stand up to the rigors of scientific methods and testing. And even then, we're talking about probabilities and not absolutes. I re-read the original post, and I'm disgusted by it. It's not a call for people to care for themselves, it's an advertisement for a place of business. Homeopathy is utter nonsense, buyer beware.
Patch reader March 12, 2013 at 04:08 PM
"Vaccines, biology, chemistry...it's all science and therefore must stand up to the rigors of scientific methods and testing. And even then, we're talking about probabilities and not absolutes." Here is the opinion of a person with a strong background (Ph.D) in chemistry, biology. She doesn't have much to say about the flu vaccine either. Read why! "Bottom line: The flu vaccine varies in effectiveness from year-to-year. Even in a best-case scenario, it won't always protect against the flu. The CDC study didn't say that the vaccine didn't work; it says the vaccine didn't protect people from getting sick. Even with imperfect effectiveness, the vaccine is indicated for certain people. In my opinion, however, the vaccine isn't for everyone and certainly shouldn't be required for otherwise healthy people." chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa011604a.htm
Patch reader March 12, 2013 at 04:25 PM
"Jake Williams-I'm not specifically for or against vaccines but I have serious problems with your article. You say "The fluid of the flu shot is mostly formaldehyde," this is completely false. You can look up the exact composition of flu vaccines and some contain absolutely no formaldehyde." 'Some contain absolutely no formaldehyde? Here is a list of ingredients (courtesy of the CDC) contained in just one of the many flu vaccines that are available. Influenza (Fluzone: Standard, High-Dose, & Intradermal) formaldehyde, octylphenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100), sodium phosphate, gelatin (standard formulation only), thimerosal (multi-dose vial only) , egg protein. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf Jake, you may not have an issue with this, but I have serious problems accepting ANY injections that contain toxic substances. Namely formaldehyde and/or thimerosol/mercury.
Jake Williams March 14, 2013 at 07:02 PM
Patch reader, thanks for the response to my comment (I'm still waiting for Dennis to respond by the way). I looked at the link you posted to the CDC web site and you are correct, formaldehyde is an ingredient in some of the vaccines listed. But, I stand by my previous comment, other vaccines still contain no formaldehyde (Fluvirin for example). Also, please read my more recent comment posted on 11:58 am on Friday, March 1st. When you say that anything is "toxic" you have to also look at the dosage. Water is technically toxic at very high doses, would you have problems injecting yourself with water? Formaldehyde is present in such low quantities, often less than 100 millionths of a gram, that it's considered safe and non toxic. And as I stated above, formaldehyde is a natural chemical already present in our bodies that we need and produce ourselves. You also brought up thimerosal, here's information on why, at the dosage found in any vaccine, it is not considered toxic: http://antiantivax.flurf.net/#Thimerosal You ingest more mercury eating a can of tuna then by getting a flu shot.
A Lifetime Resident of Avon Lake May 03, 2013 at 02:18 PM
Dennis Ehren never misses an opportunity to promote his business. A review of his recent posts promotes the practice of Chiropractic "medicine" and more specifically his own business. In the future, I would suggest the Patch not allow persons who post here to promote their private businesses. It goes to the issue of credibility and the profit motives of some who choose to state their position on a particular topic. Your posts are not only misleading, but factually incorrect. For example a previous post stated, "Not one vaccine has ever been subjected to any kind of study - blind, double blind, or whatever. Not a single one." Where did this come from? This is a ridiculous statement, you can simply go to the CDC website and read the study designs yourself. You are one who is "blinded" by both your activist stances and shameless self-promotion. Why don't you pay for an ad, instead of using the Patch to spread fear among readers! Your positions are misleading and factually incorrect. The sources you cite are all from fringe groups who promote their agenda through false science. Their science is marginal, at best. While we are all entitled to our opinion, I do hope the Patch reconsiders their policy of allowing people to post here for the purpose of promoting their services, which is what you are doing.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »